Russian boots on the ground in Syria. Another Afghanistan?

Shurimgreat

IrishTrajan wrote: »

They'll probably pay huge amounts of cash towards their upkeep, like Britain already does. This war is of Turkey's making, they're going to have to deal with the fall out.

Really? I suppose you think Assad has no part in it at all?

Bringing Turkey into the EU potentially opens more problems than it solves. They will be looking for free movement of people and the Germans etc will be only to happy to oblige as they for some reason cannot resist this idea. Within a decade or two, you will be seeing millions of unhappy Kurds or Turks or Syrians making their way to Europe, all legally entitled to do so. Merkel is making a mess of things, she's handled the whole Syrian thing badly.

IrishTrajan

Shurimgreat wrote: »

Really? I suppose you think Assad has no part in it at all?

Of course he has his part. But Turkey were the ones who trained and organized the FSA initially. They're the ones who had Turkish intelligence in Jaysh al-Islam. They're the ones who allowed weapons and fighters to freely flow across the border.

Shurimgreat wrote: »

Bringing Turkey into the EU potentially opens more problems than it solves. They will be looking for free movement of people and the Germans etc will be only to happy to oblige as they for some reason cannot resist this idea. Within a decade or two, you will be seeing millions of unhappy Kurds or Turks or Syrians making their way to Europe, all legally entitled to do so. Merkel is making a mess of things, she's handled the whole Syrian thing badly.

Turkey won't join the European Union any time soon. France and Germany both oppose it, even if Britain thinks it's a good idea.

alcaline

I see that ISIS fighters are cutting of their beards and getting the hell out of Syria, Russia has not given them a moments peace since they started to bomb them night and day.
This abandonment of the battlefield by ISIS fighters begs the question why was the US going after ISIS in a half arsed manner?
The Russians have show that ISIS is not the mighty force all the western media claim it was, or even more troubling the US is not the mighty force they claim to be, are the US forces really that bad and the Russian forces that good?

Shurimgreat

alcaline wrote: »

I see that ISIS fighters are cutting of their beards and getting the hell out of Syria, Russia has not given them a moments peace since they started to bomb them night and day.
This abandonment of the battlefield by ISIS fighters begs the question why was the US going after ISIS in a half arsed manner?
The Russians have show that ISIS is not the mighty force all the western media claim it was, or even more troubling the US is not the mighty force they claim to be, are the US forces really that bad and the Russian forces that good?

Have you proof or links to back up even a single assertion you have made in this post?

Ironically enough Isis are in retreat where the americans are bombing them in eastern syria and northern iraq. Meanwhile they are on the attack in the russian flying zone around aleppo. They even managed to kill a number of iranian generals in the last few weeks.

Which proves once more the russians are not seriously targetting isis.

The big winners of the russian intervention are isis.

IrishTrajan

alcaline wrote: »

I see that ISIS fighters are cutting of their beards and getting the hell out of Syria, Russia has not given them a moments peace since they started to bomb them night and day.
This abandonment of the battlefield by ISIS fighters begs the question why was the US going after ISIS in a half arsed manner?
The Russians have show that ISIS is not the mighty force all the western media claim it was, or even more troubling the US is not the mighty force they claim to be, are the US forces really that bad and the Russian forces that good?

Are you being wilfully ignorant? ISIS gained territory in Syria because of Russia's intervention against rebel groups near Assad.

alcaline

IrishTrajan wrote: »

Are you being wilfully ignorant? ISIS gained territory in Syria because of Russia's intervention against rebel groups near Assad.

Do yourself and those who thanked your post have a problem believing anything said about Syria unless it is part of a Pentagon press release?
Russia has been and currently is opening up with both barrels on ISIS and they are on the run.
Recruits to ISIS where flooding into Syria when it was only the US bombing them, the US can't have been as effective as the Russians as ISIS fighters are now fleeing Syria.
Why would Iraq be requesting Russian help when the US is already bombing ISIS in Iraq? Unless the US where not as effective as the Russians.
breitbart.com/national-security/2015/10/17/isis-jihadists-shave-beards-dress-women-flee-west/

Gatling

So two week into the Russian Onslaught against isis and yet isis are still going in syria and taking more land and yet according to Russian sources isis have been nearly wiped out ,

But yet we see zero evidence of any damage they've caused to isis other than a few press releases stating isis are on the run .
Anybody else find that odd

Shurimgreat

alcaline wrote: »

Do yourself and those who thanked your post have a problem believing anything said about Syria unless it is part of a Pentagon press release?
Russia has been and currently is opening up with both barrels on ISIS and they are on the run.
Recruits to ISIS where flooding into Syria when it was only the US bombing them, the US can't have been as effective as the Russians as ISIS fighters are now fleeing Syria.
Why would Iraq be requesting Russian help when the US is already bombing ISIS in Iraq? Unless the US where not as effective as the Russians.
breitbart.com/national-security/2015/10/17/isis-jihadists-shave-beards-dress-women-flee-west/

Very little chance the Russians will be bombing in Iraq except a token effort to gain good PR just as they have made a token effort against ISIS in Syria.
As for ISIS running from the Russians, on the contrary they are rushing to take over areas bombed by the Russians.

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/f058e1c4-6e97-11e5-8171-ba1968cf791a.html#axzz3owdaLfeh

glued

I don't think there is any chance Russia will actually attempt to weaken ISIS in any meaningful way until some agreement is reached with the US, which will eventually have to come. Bar the odd attack on ISIS to provide relief to Assad, Russia clearly either don't care about ISIS or are using their lack of focus on ISIS as a bargaining chip to somehow keep Assad in power, e.g. We'll attack ISIS if you agree to keep Assad in power, which isn't going to happen.

It'll be interesting to see what agreements if any are reached in the next few weeks. I'm not really sure why Putin would be fixed on keeping Assad in power as long as he can keep his outposts in Syria. It's unrealistic to keep Assad in power unless Syria's borders are redrawn.

The problem is that who are going to come in to power from the opposition side? Even in the likely event that Syria's borders are redrawn you still have the problem of the Extremists being the most powerful groups in the region. The US and Russia should not be allowed to carve up Syria. Especially as a Russian backed state in the region would be under severe pressure.

Syria needs a moderate and intelligent opposition leader in order to have any chance of peace. We're not nearly at that point yet too. The Alawis also need to a moderate leader too. They can't expect Assad to remain in power and to go back to the status quo.

Shurimgreat

When you weaken the mainsteam opposition, you strengthen ISIS. Unfortunately that's the way it works in Syria. You also will see fighters leaving the mainstream groups and joining ISIS because they see them as more effective. The Russians are playing a dangerous game which could badly backfire in the longrun and leave ISIS knocking on the door of Latakia and Damascus. At least you can negotiate with the mainstream opposition. You can't negotiate with ISIS. It's victory or nothing for them.

Lantus

There's so many players in Styria.

1, Assad. Main leader of the country.
2, rebels. Began an uprising during the Arab spring.
3, Kurds in the north east
4, Isis in the east.

Surrounding countries like Iran, russia, and the USA are supporting these groups indirectly. Its a proxy war. Of course we are given polar choices of good versus bad where most the detail is bleached away.

K-9

alcaline wrote: »

Do yourself and those who thanked your post have a problem believing anything said about Syria unless it is part of a Pentagon press release?
Russia has been and currently is opening up with both barrels on ISIS and they are on the run.
Recruits to ISIS where flooding into Syria when it was only the US bombing them, the US can't have been as effective as the Russians as ISIS fighters are now fleeing Syria.
Why would Iraq be requesting Russian help when the US is already bombing ISIS in Iraq? Unless the US where not as effective as the Russians.
breitbart.com/national-security/2015/10/17/isis-jihadists-shave-beards-dress-women-flee-west/

Mod:

From a look at your posts on the this thread, that seems to be the first link you've posted a link to back up your opinions.

From the forum charter:

When offering an opinion, please state so. Please do not present an opinion as "fact" - it only leads to flaming and a moderator may demand further evidence.

When offering fact, please offer relevant linkage, or at least source. Simply saying "a quick search on google...." is often, but not always, enough. If you do not do this upon posting, then please be willing to do so on request

Opinions are what the site thrives on, its a discussion board after all, but when other posters go to the bother and spend time providing links to refute your opinion, the onus and courtesy is on you to put up your own links as counter points.

Simply restating your opinion over and over is not sufficient in a case like this, please provide links that back up your view on Russia and ISIS from now on. People are spending a fair bit of time digging out these pieces, simply dismissing them as wrong in your opinion with no back up isn't good enough.

Extreme cases of the above will be viewed as soapboxing and attract bans from the forum. Please take this advice on board, thank you.

alcaline

Demoralized ISIS militants deserting en masse amid Russian airstrikes - Defense Ministry
rt.com/news/318861-demoralized-isis-militants-deserting/
So let me get this correct, when the Russian Defence ministry releases information it is false, but when the US government releases information its true?
Also the BBC is a independent news source not influenced by the British government, but RT is influenced by the Russian government and everything they report as news is lies?
Would i be correct in those two assumptions?

Willfarman

Iraq Syria Afghanistan are never going to be civilised democratic regions. They never were. The best we can hope for is stability. A dictatorship in Syria is favourable to war. The best way to to bring this about is to back up the most likely winner. I think the Russians made the right call.

Lockstep

glued wrote: »

Lockstep I'm not going to keep getting into long winded debates with you. It's obvious that we both have a massive difference of opinion on Syria but I have to ask you who are these moderate rebels?

I know there was some groups initially but these were small groups supported by the US and they have been extinct for some time now as they were not given proper support by the US and many have either defected to Islamic Extremist groups or gave them weapons in order to secure safe passage through conflict zones.

Who are these moderate groups? I just want names.

The Free Syrian Army mainly, likewise, the Kurds are fairly progressive. Of course, not all factions of the FSA are exactly moderate.

Likewise, the Army of the Mujahadeen is a moderate group with an ostensibly Islamist motive but in reality, is composed of non-ideological FSA groups trying to access funding. according to the Carnegie Endowment
They've also received US funding in the past

Gatling

alcaline wrote: »

RT is influenced by the Russian government and everything they report as news is lies?
Would i be correct in those two assumptions?

This is Fact

NoCrackHaving

Willfarman wrote: »

Iraq Syria Afghanistan are never going to be civilised democratic regions. They never were. The best we can hope for is stability. A dictatorship in Syria is favourable to war. The best way to to bring this about is to back up the most likely winner. I think the Russians made the right call.

Not necessarily true, all three were very stable countries which were pretty progressive with regards to women's rights, education, etc. from after WWI up until the 1970's. Unfortunately all became victims of Cold War politics.

alcaline

Gatling wrote: »

This is Fact

We do know for fact that the BBC is influenced by the British government in its world view, why would RT not be.
But facts are facts and both BBC and RT do report the news based on facts on the ground, no amount of spin can hide the truth indefinitely.
So who do we believe , you a arm chair general or a genuine Russian general when he states ISIS is on the run.

Gatling

alcaline wrote: »

Russian general when he states ISIS is on the run.

Obviously not the Russian general been isis has gained more territory in syria since the Russians started bombing the opposition to Assad .
The same Russian general's who claim turkey didn't shoot down one of its drones last week and lost another one yesterday that fell out of the sky .
It's all denial

Lockstep

BBC map of where US and Russian airstrikes are taking place.
Russia is heavily bombing rebels and Al-Nusra. The US is focussing on ISIS

Gatling

Lockstep wrote: »

BBC map of where US and Russian airstrikes are taking place.
Russia is heavily bombing rebels and Al-Nusra. The US is focussing on ISIS

As we've known from the start Russia doesn't want a fight with isis it just wants to keep its base's

Shurimgreat

alcaline wrote: »

We do know for fact that the BBC is influenced by the British government in its world view, why would RT not be.
But facts are facts and both BBC and RT do report the news based on facts on the ground, no amount of spin can hide the truth indefinitely.
So who do we believe , you a arm chair general or a genuine Russian general when he states ISIS is on the run.

The BBC is fairly independent to be fair so I think you can knock that one on the head. Indeed many people claim it is too impartial. The conservatives routinely criticise it and want its charter reviewed.
RT on the otherhand..

Reports of 70,000 more refugees created in aleppo today by a government offensive. Thst city had been relatively safe for refugees up until recently.

This conflict will be extended by another 5 years due to Russian involvement. And because of the destruction of their bombing it will make it impossible to return to for refugees which is probably what assad wants. The russians certainly are enjoying europes displeasure with the refugee crisis.

jank

Good article here written by Henry Kissinger.

http://www.wsj.com/articles/a-path-out-of-the-middle-east-collapse-1445037513

The debate about whether the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action with Iran regarding its nuclear program stabilized the Middle East’s strategic framework had barely begun when the region’s geopolitical framework collapsed. Russia’s unilateral military action in Syria is the latest symptom of the disintegration of the American role in stabilizing the Middle East order that emerged from the Arab-Israeli war of 1973.

In the aftermath of that conflict, Egypt abandoned its military ties with the Soviet Union and joined an American-backed negotiating process that produced peace treaties between Israel and Egypt, and Israel and Jordan, a United Nations-supervised disengagement agreement between Israel and Syria, which has been observed for over four decades (even by the parties of the Syrian civil war), and international support of Lebanon’s sovereign territorial integrity. Later, Saddam Hussein’s war to incorporate Kuwait into Iraq was defeated by an international coalition under U.S. leadership. American forces led the war against terror in Iraq and Afghanistan. Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia and the other Gulf States were our allies in all these efforts. The Russian military presence disappeared from the region.

That geopolitical pattern is now in shambles. Four states in the region have ceased to function as sovereign. Libya, Yemen, Syria and Iraq have become targets for nonstate movements seeking to impose their rule. Over large swaths in Iraq and Syria, an ideologically radical religious army has declared itself the Islamic State (also called ISIS or ISIL) as an unrelenting foe of established world order. It seeks to replace the international system’s multiplicity of states with a caliphate, a single Islamic empire governed by Shariah law.

ISIS’ claim has given the millennium-old split between the Shiite and Sunni sects of Islam an apocalyptic dimension. The remaining Sunni states feel threatened by both the religious fervor of ISIS as well as by Shiite Iran, potentially the most powerful state in the region. Iran compounds its menace by presenting itself in a dual capacity. On one level, Iran acts as a legitimate Westphalian state conducting traditional diplomacy, even invoking the safeguards of the international system. At the same time, it organizes and guides nonstate actors seeking regional hegemony based on jihadist principles: Hezbollah in Lebanon and Syria; Hamas in Gaza; the Houthis in Yemen.

Thus the Sunni Middle East risks engulfment by four concurrent sources: Shiite-governed Iran and its legacy of Persian imperialism; ideologically and religiously radical movements striving to overthrow prevalent political structures; conflicts within each state between ethnic and religious groups arbitrarily assembled after World War I into (now collapsing) states; and domestic pressures stemming from detrimental political, social and economic domestic policies.

The fate of Syria provides a vivid illustration: What started as a Sunni revolt against the Alawite (a Shiite offshoot) autocrat Bashar Assad fractured the state into its component religious and ethnic groups, with nonstate militias supporting each warring party, and outside powers pursuing their own strategic interests. Iran supports the Assad regime as the linchpin of an Iranian historic dominance stretching from Tehran to the Mediterranean. The Gulf States insist on the overthrow of Mr. Assad to thwart Shiite Iranian designs, which they fear more than Islamic State. They seek the defeat of ISIS while avoiding an Iranian victory. This ambivalence has been deepened by the nuclear deal, which in the Sunni Middle East is widely interpreted as tacit American acquiescence in Iranian hegemony.

These conflicting trends, compounded by America’s retreat from the region, have enabled Russia to engage in military operations deep in the Middle East, a deployment unprecedented in Russian history. Russia’s principal concern is that the Assad regime’s collapse could reproduce the chaos of Libya, bring ISIS into power in Damascus, and turn all of Syria into a haven for terrorist operations, reaching into Muslim regions inside Russia’s southern border in the Caucasus and elsewhere.

On the surface, Russia’s intervention serves Iran’s policy of sustaining the Shiite element in Syria. In a deeper sense, Russia’s purposes do not require the indefinite continuation of Mr. Assad’s rule. It is a classic balance-of-power maneuver to divert the Sunni Muslim terrorist threat from Russia’s southern border region. It is a geopolitical, not an ideological, challenge and should be dealt with on that level. Whatever the motivation, Russian forces in the region—and their participation in combat operations—produce a challenge that American Middle East policy has not encountered in at least four decades.

American policy has sought to straddle the motivations of all parties and is therefore on the verge of losing the ability to shape events. The U.S. is now opposed to, or at odds in some way or another with, all parties in the region: with Egypt on human rights; with Saudi Arabia over Yemen; with each of the Syrian parties over different objectives. The U.S. proclaims the determination to remove Mr. Assad but has been unwilling to generate effective leverage—political or military—to achieve that aim. Nor has the U.S. put forward an alternative political structure to replace Mr. Assad should his departure somehow be realized.

Russia, Iran, ISIS and various terrorist organizations have moved into this vacuum: Russia and Iran to sustain Mr. Assad; Tehran to foster imperial and jihadist designs. The Sunni states of the Persian Gulf, Jordan and Egypt, faced with the absence of an alternative political structure, favor the American objective but fear the consequence of turning Syria into another Libya.

American policy on Iran has moved to the center of its Middle East policy. The administration has insisted that it will take a stand against jihadist and imperialist designs by Iran and that it will deal sternly with violations of the nuclear agreement. But it seems also passionately committed to the quest for bringing about a reversal of the hostile, aggressive dimension of Iranian policy through historic evolution bolstered by negotiation.

The prevailing U.S. policy toward Iran is often compared by its advocates to the Nixon administration’s opening to China, which contributed, despite some domestic opposition, to the ultimate transformation of the Soviet Union and the end of the Cold War. The comparison is not apt. The opening to China in 1971 was based on the mutual recognition by both parties that the prevention of Russian hegemony in Eurasia was in their common interest. And 42 Soviet divisions lining the Sino-Soviet border reinforced that conviction. No comparable strategic agreement exists between Washington and Tehran. On the contrary, in the immediate aftermath of the nuclear accord, Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei described the U.S. as the “Great Satan” and rejected negotiations with America about nonnuclear matters. Completing his geopolitical diagnosis, Mr. Khamenei also predicted that Israel would no longer exist in 25 years.

Forty-five years ago, the expectations of China and the U.S. were symmetrical. The expectations underlying the nuclear agreement with Iran are not. Tehran will gain its principal objectives at the beginning of the implementation of the accord. America’s benefits reside in a promise of Iranian conduct over a period of time. The opening to China was based on an immediate and observable adjustment in Chinese policy, not on an expectation of a fundamental change in China’s domestic system. The optimistic hypothesis on Iran postulates that Tehran’s revolutionary fervor will dissipate as its economic and cultural interactions with the outside world increase.

American policy runs the risk of feeding suspicion rather than abating it. Its challenge is that two rigid and apocalyptic blocs are confronting each other: a Sunni bloc consisting of Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia and the Gulf States; and the Shiite bloc comprising Iran, the Shiite sector of Iraq with Baghdad as its capital, the Shiite south of Lebanon under Hezbollah control facing Israel, and the Houthi portion of Yemen, completing the encirclement of the Sunni world. In these circumstances, the traditional adage that the enemy of your enemy can be treated as your friend no longer applies. For in the contemporary Middle East, it is likely that the enemy of your enemy remains your enemy.

A great deal depends on how the parties interpret recent events. Can the disillusionment of some of our Sunni allies be mitigated? How will Iran’s leaders interpret the nuclear accord once implemented—as a near-escape from potential disaster counseling a more moderate course, returning Iran to an international order? Or as a victory in which they have achieved their essential aims against the opposition of the U.N. Security Council, having ignored American threats and, hence, as an incentive to continue Tehran’s dual approach as both a legitimate state and a nonstate movement challenging the international order?

Two-power systems are prone to confrontation, as was demonstrated in Europe in the run-up to World War I. Even with traditional weapons technology, to sustain a balance of power between two rigid blocs requires an extraordinary ability to assess the real and potential balance of forces, to understand the accumulation of nuances that might affect this balance, and to act decisively to restore it whenever it deviates from equilibrium—qualities not heretofore demanded of an America sheltered behind two great oceans.

But the current crisis is taking place in a world of nontraditional nuclear and cyber technology. As competing regional powers strive for comparable threshold capacity, the nonproliferation regime in the Middle East may crumble. If nuclear weapons become established, a catastrophic outcome is nearly inevitable. A strategy of pre-emption is inherent in the nuclear technology. The U.S. must be determined to prevent such an outcome and apply the principle of nonproliferation to all nuclear aspirants in the region.

Too much of our public debate deals with tactical expedients. What we need is a strategic concept and to establish priorities on the following principles:

• So long as ISIS survives and remains in control of a geographically defined territory, it will compound all Middle East tensions. Threatening all sides and projecting its goals beyond the region, it freezes existing positions or tempts outside efforts to achieve imperial jihadist designs. The destruction of ISIS is more urgent than the overthrow of Bashar Assad, who has already lost over half of the area he once controlled. Making sure that this territory does not become a permanent terrorist haven must have precedence. The current inconclusive U.S. military effort risks serving as a recruitment vehicle for ISIS as having stood up to American might.

• The U.S. has already acquiesced in a Russian military role. Painful as this is to the architects of the 1973 system, attention in the Middle East must remain focused on essentials. And there exist compatible objectives. In a choice among strategies, it is preferable for ISIS-held territory to be reconquered either by moderate Sunni forces or outside powers than by Iranian jihadist or imperial forces. For Russia, limiting its military role to the anti-ISIS campaign may avoid a return to Cold War conditions with the U.S.

• The reconquered territories should be restored to the local Sunni rule that existed there before the disintegration of both Iraqi and Syrian sovereignty. The sovereign states of the Arabian Peninsula, as well as Egypt and Jordan, should play a principal role in that evolution. After the resolution of its constitutional crisis, Turkey could contribute creatively to such a process.

• As the terrorist region is being dismantled and brought under nonradical political control, the future of the Syrian state should be dealt with concurrently. A federal structure could then be built between the Alawite and Sunni portions. If the Alawite regions become part of a Syrian federal system, a context will exist for the role of Mr. Assad, which reduces the risks of genocide or chaos leading to terrorist triumph.

• The U.S. role in such a Middle East would be to implement the military assurances in the traditional Sunni states that the administration promised during the debate on the Iranian nuclear agreement, and which its critics have demanded.

• In this context, Iran’s role can be critical. The U.S. should be prepared for a dialogue with an Iran returning to its role as a Westphalian state within its established borders.

The U.S. must decide for itself the role it will play in the 21st century; the Middle East will be our most immediate—and perhaps most severe—test. At question is not the strength of American arms but rather American resolve in understanding and mastering a new world.

Mr. Kissinger served as national-security adviser and secretary of state under Presidents Nixon and Ford.

Lockstep

jank wrote: »

Good article here written by Henry Kissinger.

http://www.wsj.com/articles/a-path-out-of-the-middle-east-collapse-1445037513

Quick reminder of the following from the Politics Charter

This forum is not a newsdump, blog or somewhere to post copy & pastes from other sites. All OP's and posts require some input of your own.

karma_

Lockstep wrote: »

BBC map of where US and Russian airstrikes are taking place.
Russia is heavily bombing rebels and Al-Nusra. The US is focussing on ISIS

Focusing? There's a handful of strikes there, and the truth is that the US is focussing the majority of their strikes in Iraq in support of government forces.

Essentially what the US strategy in Syria re: ISIS was to strike defensively in support of groups it is friendly with, they at no point went after facilities used by them as they were quite happy for ISIS to fight against the SAA. It's insulting to anyone's intelligence to state that the US has tried to diminish ISIS effectively for they haven't, and it's absolutely silly to make a claim that Russia is somehow afraid of ISIS.

What we have now is both the US and Russia playing at proxy war supporting opposing sides and the reality might be that Russia has now thrown all the US plans in the region into chaos.

Gatling

karma_ wrote: »

Focusing? There's a handful of strikes there, and the truth is that the US is focussing the majority of their strikes in Iraq in support of government forces.

Essentially what the US strategy in Syria re: ISIS was to strike defensively in support of groups it is friendly with, they at no point went after facilities used by them as they were quite happy for ISIS to fight against the SAA. It's insulting to anyone's intelligence to state that the US has tried to diminish ISIS effectively for they haven't, and it's absolutely silly to make a claim that Russia is somehow afraid of ISIS.

What we have now is both the US and Russia playing at proxy war supporting opposing sides and the reality might be that Russia has now thrown all the US plans in the region into chaos.

Has isis gained any more territory in Iraq since the coalition started bombing,
I don't they have the coalition had contained them for most part destroying vehicles and armour reducing isis capabilities

karma_

Gatling wrote: »

Has isis gained any more territory in Iraq since the coalition started bombing,
I don't they have the coalition had contained them for most part destroying vehicles and armour reducing isis capabilities

Did they not capture Ramadi sometime a little time back? And by capture, by all accounts the Iraqi military simply upped and left them to it.

Gatling

karma_ wrote: »

Did they not capture Ramadi sometime a little time back? And by capture, by all accounts the Iraqi military simply upped and left them to it.

The bailed on the city alright but according to several sources the Americans are pushing the Iraqis to try retake the city

BoJack Horseman

Gatling wrote: »

The bailed on the city alright but according to several sources the Americans are pushing the Iraqis to try retake the city

Ramadi is more or less surrounded, but retaking it will be very costly.

Gatling

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

Ramadi is more or less surrounded, but retaking it will be very costly.

Definitely apparently the last few months the 1000+ fighters have dug in and booby trapped a lot of buildings and turned most of the roads into mine fields ,

It's another fallujha in the making only I say this will be worse

Lockstep

karma_ wrote: »

Focusing? There's a handful of strikes there, and the truth is that the US is focussing the majority of their strikes in Iraq in support of government forces.

Yup, a handful. Compare that to the overwhelming number of Russian airstrikes in western and southern Syria.

karma_ wrote: »

Essentially what the US strategy in Syria re: ISIS was to strike defensively in support of groups it is friendly with, they at no point went after facilities used by them as they were quite happy for ISIS to fight against the SAA. It's insulting to anyone's intelligence to state that the US has tried to diminish ISIS effectively for they haven't, and it's absolutely silly to make a claim that Russia is somehow afraid of ISIS.

What we have now is both the US and Russia playing at proxy war supporting opposing sides and the reality might be that Russia has now thrown all the US plans in the region into chaos.

The difference being that US airstrikes in Iraq are actually against ISIS. Russia is making noises about doing the same, with the consent of the Iraqi government and this is to be welcomed.
The US isn't tackling the SAA but neither is it doing much to help those fighting them: this is a key reason why the US Train and Equip program was such a failure: it only trained soldiers who agreed to only fight ISIS and not the Assad regime. see here

Considering the US has been bombing ISIS for a year and was instrumental in operations like the Kurds retaking Kobane, I'd like to see a source for your claim that the US has not effectively tried to diminish ISIS.
Likewise, noone has said Russia is afraid of ISIS: they're simply operating to protect their buddy Assad, whose forces have avoided tackling ISIS. Not out of fear, but in an attempt to let them grow, ensuring Assad can portray himself as the only alternative.

Shurimgreat

Government forces are trying to retake Aleppo in Syria which will be equally as bloody although mostly for the civilians.

Will Assad ever give up on this nonsense? What is the point of ruling a ruined country? Aleppo is the size of a large European city such as Berlin. 3 million population although not sure how many are left. To win it back you literally have to flatten every square inch, otherwise its costly house to house fighting. My guess he will go for the flatten every square inch approach if Homs is anything to go by, only the Russians will do the flattening.

All in order to get a better "position" at the negotiating table, which seems to have been his reasoning behind this war from day one.

As for people talking about the moderate opposition, there was a group called the Syrian National Council. Assad went into "talks" with them for a few days, then declared them all terrorists and banned them from Syria. That has been the fate of all the moderates in Syria. They have been murdered or exiled. Only those willing to take up a gun remain in Syria.

karma_

Lockstep wrote: »

Yup, a handful. Compare that to the overwhelming number of Russian airstrikes in western and southern Syria.


The difference being that US airstrikes in Iraq are actually against ISIS. Russia is making noises about doing the same, with the consent of the Iraqi government and this is to be welcomed.
The US isn't tackling the SAA but neither is it doing much to help those fighting them: this is a key reason why the US Train and Equip program was such a failure: it only trained soldiers who agreed to only fight ISIS and not the Assad regime. see here

Considering the US has been bombing ISIS for a year and was instrumental in operations like the Kurds retaking Kobane, I'd like to see a source for your claim that the US has not effectively tried to diminish ISIS.
Likewise, noone has said Russia is afraid of ISIS: they're simply operating to protect their buddy Assad, whose forces have avoided tackling ISIS. Not out of fear, but in an attempt to let them grow, ensuring Assad can portray himself as the only alternative.

Well US policy has been a miserable failure in it's efforts to train any fighters, I believe they are having serious problems recruiting sunni volunteers in Iraq in their efforts to retake territory which is currently ISIS controlled but also has a Sunni population. It's worse in Syria for they are actively supplying arms to what amounts to sectarian terrorists.

As for a link, it was something I read sometime back, which happen to explain that current strategy in Syria was to allow ISIS and the SAA to fight it out. And I mean I don't think it's right but I can see the strategy involved in that approach.

As for Russia, of course they are making huge noises about bombing ISIS but is anyone really surprised? I mean Syria is a strategic partner, they obviously want Assad to remain and as it looks now, that will succeed.

It's insane the own goal the US have scored here, I mean they went to war in Iraq only to have the power balance swing to Iran and now it looks like years of effort in Syria has been undone in a matter of weeks by what just might be a really clever move by Russia.

BoJack Horseman

karma_ wrote: »

it looks like years of effort in Syria has been undone in a matter of weeks by what just might be a really clever move by Russia.

It was only after the Yazidi crisis of July/August 2014 that the US campaign began.

Where are these "years" of Syrian effort?

Lockstep

karma_ wrote: »

Well US policy has been a miserable failure in it's efforts to train any fighters, I believe they are having serious problems recruiting sunni volunteers in Iraq in their efforts to retake territory which is currently ISIS controlled but also has a Sunni population. It's worse in Syria for they are actively supplying arms to what amounts to sectarian terrorists.

As highlighted above, a major failing in the STAEP was an insistence on soldiers who would only fight ISIS and not the Assad regime. The rebels were outraged when they were expected to then fight Al-Nusra (Al Nusra wisely abstains from ISIS levels of sectarianism to enable others to work alongside it)

karma_ wrote: »

As for a link, it was something I read sometime back, which happen to explain that current strategy in Syria was to allow ISIS and the SAA to fight it out. And I mean I don't think it's right but I can see the strategy involved in that approach.

Source to said link?

karma_ wrote: »

As for Russia, of course they are making huge noises about bombing ISIS but is anyone really surprised? I mean Syria is a strategic partner, they obviously want Assad to remain and as it looks now, that will succeed.

Indeed, which is why any attempt to justify or mitigate Russia's actions are irritating as hell (I'm not accusing you of this but it is a sad development)
They're backing their pet dictator. If the US did this, there'd be outrage.

karma_ wrote: »

It's insane the own goal the US have scored here, I mean they went to war in Iraq only to have the power balance swing to Iran and now it looks like years of effort in Syria has been undone in a matter of weeks by what just might be a really clever move by Russia.

The US was not responsible for the rise of ISIS in Iraq: this was a key result of the Al-Maliki's administration's sectarianism and the US was instrumental in getting him replaced by the more moderate Al-Abadi. The US was very succesful in co-opting disaffected Iraqi Sunnis in the 2007 Anbar Awakening. At any rate, the US has only been bombing ISIS for just over a year.
Sadly, Russia is stoking things even further and enabling ISIS gains. Given ISIS are the main beneficiaries of a collapse in other rebel groups.

karma_

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

It was only after the Yazidi crisis of July/August 2014 that the US campaign began.

Where are these "years" of Syrian effort?

Do you have any link to confirm that no US support was received before that date?

alcaline

Lockstep wrote: »

BBC map of where US and Russian airstrikes are taking place.
Russia is heavily bombing rebels and Al-Nusra. The US is focussing on ISIS

Says the BBC a mouth piece for the British government, why should we believe this over a Russian General who has access to much more info than the BBC?

BoJack Horseman

karma_ wrote: »

Do you have any link to confirm that no US support was received before that date?

Do you?

The vote authorising funding for military aid was passed in September 2014.

Prior to that, aid was non-lethal..... Kit, telecoms, cash, surveillance Intel etc.

(And asking for a link proving a negative is obviously tricky if not silly....
After all, can you post a link that there is no God?)

alcaline

rt.com/news/319054-syria-airstrikes-targets-hit/
Russian airstrikes in Syria 'redrawing battlefield lines', sending ISIS fleeing
"Russian bombers and assault planes have attacked 49 terrorist targets, making a total of 33 sorties over the last 24 hours."
The Russian Defense Ministry spokesman Major General Igor Konashenkov has said this, if it was false it would be easy for the west to debunk, the west is all talk with the minimum of action, meanwhile the Russians are getting on with the job.

Gatling

alcaline wrote: »

rt.com/news/319054-syria-airstrikes-targets-hit/
Russian airstrikes in Syria 'redrawing battlefield lines', sending ISIS fleeing
"Russian bombers and assault planes have attacked 49 terrorist targets, making a total of 33 sorties over the last 24 hours."
The Russian Defense Ministry spokesman Major General Igor Konashenkov has said this, if it was false it would be easy for the west to debunk, the west is all talk with the minimum of action, meanwhile the Russians are getting on with the job.

Wrong again nothing has changed

karma_

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

Do you?

The vote authorising funding for military aid was passed in September 2014.

Prior to that, aid was non-lethal..... Kit, telecoms, cash, surveillance Intel etc

Well in fairness aid is aid, and I'm sure I read about how arms were procured through back channels to the FSA via libyan stockpiles.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-22906965

This link claims backchannels were operating from 2012.

Lockstep, I'm sorry, it was one of those defence analyst kind of articles and I have no idea where I read it, it just made sense, and by that I mean in a geopolitical strategical kind of way.

Either way, no matter what way I look at things now it just seems the US strategy in the ME has been completely undone now.

Shurimgreat

alcaline wrote: »

Says the BBC a mouth piece for the British government, why should we believe this over a Russian General who has access to much more info than the BBC?

The BBC are reporting what the Russians themselves admitted. Talk about shooting the messenger.

The Russians have no interest in undermining ISIS since that also risks undermining the false dichotomy Assad peddles ie. me or them. They do have an interest in taking out the most moderate of the opposition though.

Gatling

karma_ wrote: »

Well in fairness aid is aid, and I'm sure I read about how arms were procured through back channels to the FSA via libyan stockpiles.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-22906965

This link claims backchannels were operating from 2012.

Lockstep, I'm sorry, it was one of those defence analyst kind of articles and I have no idea where I read it, it just made sense, and by that I mean in a geopolitical strategical kind of way.

Either way, no matter what way I look at things now it just seems the US strategy in the ME has been completely undone now.

Going by that link the US have only played a minor part arming Syrians

karma_

Gatling wrote: »

Going by that link the US have only played a minor part arming Syrians

We just don't know.

BoJack Horseman

karma_ wrote: »

Well in fairness aid is aid, and I'm sure I read about how arms were procured through back channels to the FSA via libyan stockpiles.
2012.

But, importantly, as your link says, not American stockpiles.... These came later.

Again, the "years" thing isn't really a factor.

Military involvement is a 15 month old endeavour, at best.

Irelandcool

Unfortunately I can't afford a fallout shelter if world war 3 does commence. Been looking for all over donedeal but no go.

Hopefully tensions won't ignite and countries just realize if they just focus on ISIS, al nusra and the khorisan group together rather then bicker at each other then co-operate I think ISIS should be wiped out no time.

Shurimgreat

Irelandcool wrote: »

Unfortunately I can't afford a fallout shelter if world war 3 does commence. Been looking for all over donedeal but no go.

Hopefully tensions won't ignite and countries just realize if they just focus on ISIS, al nusra and the khorisan group together rather then bicker at each other then co-operate I think ISIS should be wiped out no time.

If only it was that simple. Solving the whole thing is complex but certainly doesn't involve most of the belligerents.

The solution did rest with getting all the moderates from all sides around the table in the early days and creating a multi cultural inclusive Syria. Assad did his utmost to make sure that didn't happen, including exiling the Syrian National Council and labelling them terrorists.

glued

Shurimgreat wrote: »

The BBC are reporting what the Russians themselves admitted. Talk about shooting the messenger.

The Russians have no interest in undermining ISIS since that also risks undermining the false dichotomy Assad peddles ie. me or them. They do have an interest in taking out the most moderate of the opposition though.

What moderate opposition have Russia taken out so far? And can you back up that claim?

Irelandcool

Shurimgreat wrote: »

If only it was that simple. Solving the whole thing is complex but certainly doesn't involve most of the belligerents.

The solution did rest with getting all the moderates from all sides around the table in the early days and creating a multi cultural inclusive Syria. Assad did his utmost to make sure that didn't happen, including exiling the Syrian National Council and labelling them terrorists.

Thing is ISIS reaches beyond just Iraq and syria. The main fear if people with a similar mindset here western countries creating a similar terrorist group. In fact I know few months back some young teen was planning to carry out a terrorist attack in britain and planning on creating an islamic state of Britain and Ireland. Thankfully he was just an idiot and got caught. However it just takes one cunning terrorist to carry out the attack.

alcaline

The US has been stiring up problems in the middle east for years and now Russia and its allies have had enough and have decided to put a end to it.
We have all seen the photos of John McCaine with ISIS Leader Al-Baghdadi, if the US did not create ISIS it at the very least allowed them to grow and destabilise the region even more.
The Russians went in to Syria and started to bomb ISIS and alter the course of the war, the US had a rush of blood to the head and parachuted tons of weapons and ammo into Syria in the hope it finds it way to the "good guys" in the free Syria Army.
Russia was not happy so launched 26 cruise missiles at targets in Syria, the next day the US pulls its aircraft carrier USS Theodore Roosevelt, named after the 26th president, out of the Persian Gulf, coincidence i think not. Its the first time since 2007 no US aircraft carrier is in the Gulf.
Russia aint playing games in the middle east, its there to bring stability to the region after years of US chaos and it has put the US on notice.
Yet some people here believe that Russia is the bad guy and the US is the good guy.
A serious question in your minds what would the US have to do for you to see them as the bad guys and what would Russia have to do to be seen as the good guys?