Russian boots on the ground in Syria. Another Afghanistan?

Dohnjoe

cerastes wrote: »

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/

I was actually referring to armaments in general, but yes there is some debate over those particular TOW's, their exact origin, it's seems more likely they were captured or taken from the FSA

As explained ISIS is more than capable of procuring all sorts of weaponry, they are very autonomous. A video of them with a particular weapon from a particular country does not indicate that country's direct involvement

Gatling

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.
.

From your own link

Based on this information it seems likely this is a TOW ATGM "captured" from a vetted opposition group.

And a handful of tow launcher captured by all reports is hardly arming Isis

cerastes

Long before isis were kicking ass in Iraq, they had a disproportionate representation of US arms in particular m16 type weapons, not usually seen or represented heavily in areas dominated by Warsaw pact type equipment, widely seen in Libyan reports too, and the stated justification mentioned here to remove Assad is the same as Gaddafi, how he treated and dealt with insurgents, even though they had a legitimate right to fight fire with fire.

Gatling

cerastes wrote: »

Long before isis were kicking ass in Iraq, they had a disproportionate representation of US arms in particular m16 type weapons,

I don't think that's correct at all .

What are you basing that statement off exactly

gobsh!te

donaghs wrote: »

I don't agree with most Putin .......gay rights.
[/url]

What exactly on his gay rights? Imagine I don't watch the BBC and explain it to me.

cerastes

Gatling wrote: »

I don't think that's correct at all .

What are you basing that statement off exactly

Only back to replying now, I'll reply in more detail when at a laptop, touchscreen is too tedious to reply properly.

IrishTrajan

cerastes wrote: »

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.

It actually seemed likely that, even if the US didn't go after Assad, Syria would've been caught in a civil war. He had forced a great many Generals to go into retirement after he tried liberalizing their markets, and his uncle (whom tried to seize power after Hafez's death but was forced to flee) had ties to both the second largest Alawite family and the Saudis.

Assad's support, even among the Alawites, is dwindling and I don't think he will remain in power. Maybe his brother Maher (the commander of the 4th Armoured, and favoured by many of the old Generals whom Bashar was forced to bring back) will be able to take up the reigns and ruling an Alawite Statelet (no doubt with Russian backing - to maintain Tartus).

Unless Iran or Russia can deploy devote significant resources to ending the civil war, I don't think Assad will control much of Syria afterwards.

---

To the OP, I don't believe Russia will deploy significant numbers of troops. Perhaps as trainers and equipment specialists, and they might even pump the SAA with firearms, but they simply can't afford to prop up the SAA and the Ukrainian Rebels. Unless Putin intends to dip into his own €70bn fund in Luxembourg which is about as likely as me winning the lottery.

Dohnjoe

IrishTrajan wrote: »

Maybe his brother Maher (the commander of the 4th Armoured, and favoured by many of the old Generals whom Bashar was forced to bring back) will be able to take up the reigns and ruling an Alawite Statelet (no doubt with Russian backing - to maintain Tartus).

Heard he was injured, possibly lost a leg and the use of one of his arms, has been like one photo of him in the last 4 years

Unless Iran or Russia can deploy devote significant resources to ending the civil war, I don't think Assad will control much of Syria afterwards.

Agreed, but there isn't much of a country left to rule

gobsh!te

Why are people so bothered with Assad?

I know the US planned an invasion of Syria based on what General Wesley Clark stated years ago but I don't understand why everyday people have an issue with him.

Aside from the propaganda, sure he is not a great great leader but there are probably more bad leaders in the world than good ones.

Syria like Libya and Iraq was way way better off before western intervention.

Hopefully Russia can restore order.

By the way, the US saw ISIS developing and did nothing to stop it. This has been documented. If anyone needs I can go and search for the official document showing this but as I am a new member I can only send via PM.

sparksfly

Russia may have another ally in Syria.

Chinese Military Personnel Expected to Arrive in Syria
http://fortruss.blogspot.com/2015/09/china-in-syria-ready-to-join-russia-in.html

FreudianSlippers

gobsh!te wrote: »

Why are people so bothered with Assad?

I know the US planned an invasion of Syria based on what General Wesley Clark stated years ago but I don't understand why everyday people have an issue with him.

Aside from the propaganda, sure he is not a great great leader but there are probably more bad leaders in the world than good ones.

Syria like Libya and Iraq was way way better off before western intervention.

Hopefully Russia can restore order.

By the way, the US saw ISIS developing and did nothing to stop it. This has been documented. If anyone needs I can go and search for the official document showing this but as I am a new member I can only send via PM.

I actually agree. Yes, Assad and Hussein are/were bad guys and killed a lot of their own people - but it's becoming increasingly clear we're looking at the middle-east through western goggles; ISIS and their ilk only respect violence and authoritarianism.
It's entirely unfortunate, but these people need to be ruled by an iron fist - we have seen the alternative and it is chaos.

NoCrackHaving

sparksfly wrote: »

Russia may have another ally in Syria.

Chinese Military Personnel Expected to Arrive in Syria
http://fortruss.blogspot.com/2015/09/china-in-syria-ready-to-join-russia-in.html

I doubt it, China doesn't really have any strategic interest in Syria in the way that Russia has. If it was taking place in Africa or South-East Asia I would say Chinese intervention would be far more likely but at the minute China doesn't really have any concerns over the Syrian conflict in the way Russia has.

There are arguments over Uyghur Islamists fighting in Syria and then returning to China but to be honest China has nearly completely crushed the insurgency in Xianjing via demographic change with Han Chinese settlement.

IrishTrajan

gobsh!te wrote: »

Why are people so bothered with Assad?

I know the US planned an invasion of Syria based on what General Wesley Clark stated years ago but I don't understand why everyday people have an issue with him.

Aside from the propaganda, sure he is not a great great leader but there are probably more bad leaders in the world than good ones.

He tried to liberalize their markets to be more Westernized, which would've been a great thing... But then he reversed these decisions because of Conservative elements, and his nepotism resulted in his family and close friends making huge profits and creating an even larger wealth gap between the rich and poor.

gobsh!te wrote: »

Syria like Libya and Iraq was way way better off before western intervention.

Hopefully Russia can restore order.

He tried relaxing the laws his father had put in place, but almost immediately he reinstated them, and his brother carried out massive repression campaigns, including the use of lethal force against civilians.

Was Syria stable? Yes. Was it going to remain stable indefinitely? Nope. The civil war likely would've happened regardless.

gobsh!te wrote: »

By the way, the US saw ISIS developing and did nothing to stop it. This has been documented. If anyone needs I can go and search for the official document showing this but as I am a new member I can only send via PM.

They foresaw the likely rise of Islamist extremist groups, with their prominence growing more and more as the conflict went on. Anybody could've predicted that, it was an accurate appraisal.

They're carrying out airstrikes against ISIS and other affiliated groups now, their forecasts on the matter aren't entirely relevant.

IrishTrajan

sparksfly wrote: »

Russia may have another ally in Syria.

Chinese Military Personnel Expected to Arrive in Syria
http://fortruss.blogspot.com/2015/09/china-in-syria-ready-to-join-russia-in.html

I am quite sure China is more occupied with trying to stabilize its currency and stock markets, trying to smooth over their transition from an industrial to a demand-driven economy, and projecting its power into the south/east China and Yellow Sea (Japan has recently redefined its constitution allowing their military to engage in wars in "collective self-defence").

They'll probably drop a couple trainers in, but if you're expecting them to deploy hundreds of thousands of soldiers (which is probably what it would take to defeat all the rebel groups and regain control of Syria), it's highly unlikely.

BlaasForRafa

NoCrackHaving wrote: »

I doubt it, China doesn't really have any strategic interest in Syria in the way that Russia has. If it was taking place in Africa or South-East Asia I would say Chinese intervention would be far more likely but at the minute China doesn't really have any concerns over the Syrian conflict in the way Russia has.

What China does have is lots of new aircraft types which they can test in a real war environment.

gobsh!te

IrishTrajan wrote: »

He tried to liberalize their markets to be more Westernized, which would've been a great thing... But then he reversed these decisions because of Conservative elements, and his nepotism resulted in his family and close friends making huge profits and creating an even larger wealth gap between the rich and poor.




He tried relaxing the laws his father had put in place, but almost immediately he reinstated them, and his brother carried out massive repression campaigns, including the use of lethal force against civilians.

Was Syria stable? Yes. Was it going to remain stable indefinitely? Nope. The civil war likely would've happened regardless.



They foresaw the likely rise of Islamist extremist groups, with their prominence growing more and more as the conflict went on. Anybody could've predicted that, it was an accurate appraisal.

They're carrying out airstrikes against ISIS and other affiliated groups now, their forecasts on the matter aren't entirely relevant.

You're missing my point...Why should anyone give a crap about this any more or less than what is going on in numerous places around the world? I mean the Saudi's regime is terrible. North Korea. Why Syria? I've heard about a pipeline that was going through the country and something seems to add up as per what Wesley Clark said years ago when he listed off numerous countries which now have been invaded.

It wasn't affecting us and after the US intervened it has became a mess that is affecting us.

NoCrackHaving

BlaasForRafa wrote: »

What China does have is lots of new aircraft types which they can test in a real war environment.

True, true. I guess there's a small possibility of something similar to the German Condor Legion active in the Spanish Civil War being set up by the Chinese in Syria.

Dohnjoe

gobsh!te wrote: »

You're missing my point...Why should anyone give a crap about this any more or less than what is going on in numerous places around the world? I mean the Saudi's regime is terrible. North Korea. Why Syria? I've heard about a pipeline that was going through the country and something seems to add up as per what Wesley Clark said years ago when he listed off numerous countries which now have been invaded.

It wasn't affecting us and after the US intervened it has became a mess that is affecting us.

It was a significant event, more severe than the Tiananmen Square massacre in '89

Has drawn a strong international reaction, but due to politics, there was never a consensus, and it's escalated since

gobsh!te

Dohnjoe wrote: »

It was a significant event, more severe than the Tiananmen Square massacre in '89

Has drawn a strong international reaction, but due to politics, there was never a consensus, and it's escalated since

Do you think that Wesley Clark mentioned Syria as one of the seven countries the US intended on bombing years ago means that this was always in the plan?

glued

One of the more alarming aspects of this war is that nobody seems to want to interfere. The United States won't actually engage in removing ISIS until Assad's regime falls, which isn't going to happen any time soon. Israel are becoming more paranoid about ISIS and their activity. Actually, Israel has probably done the world a small favour here by blowing up a small nuclear reactor in Deir ez-Zor in 2007, which is currently under siege by ISIS.

Russia is only involved to strengthen it's only military outpost in the middle east. Apparently Putin isn't really that interested in keeping Assad in power but will want to keep a military outpost in Syria, however, I don't see Iran being too happy about Assad being removed.

Arming rebels isn't the answer and the US don't seem to be learning from their mistakes. They're minimal differences between ISIS and the Islamic Front or the Free Syrian Army in terms of what the outcome would be for the Syrian people. Assad will probably have to stay in power for the short term until a democratic political system is put in place which would take years. I can't see the US committing ground troops to Syria because they know that no matter what happens they're still going to deal with Islamic extremism unless Assad remains in power, which neither want.

My guess is that Russia will commit ground troops to Syria, with the continued aid of US Air Support, with the agreement that Russia can expand their military outposts in the Middle East within Syria. Russia are probably going to be only winner from this war in the long term IMO.

FreudianSlippers

I dunno. ISIS getting their hands on a nuclear reactor and trying to weaponise the fuel could be a blessing for us all.

ISIS 2016 Darwin Award Winners!

glued

Also, Russian involvement coincides directly with ISIS stepping up recruitment in the North Caucasus. Russia has said that 1,000 Russian citizens are probably fighting with ISIS in Syria and Iraq. In recent weeks there has been concerns raised over what these terrorists will intend on doing when they return. ISIS have declared a new wilayat in North Caucasus and the Russian Army have been stepping up operations to remove any suspected ISIS affiliates. It's interesting because Russia has essentially nullified the Caucasus Emirate's ability to destabilise the region by constantly removing their leaders. Many supporters have become increasingly frustrated with the group's inability to make any tangible progress in the region.

ISIS getting involved here raises a couple of points. Naturally this is a perfect time for ISIS to step up recruitment and establishing themselves in the region however, Russia is probably the last country ISIS would want to start a war against. Provoking Russia has backfired so far and perhaps has indirectly allowed Putin an excuse to get involved in Syria on a larger scale.

It'll be interesting to see if Saudi Arabia becomes involved further. They were happy to sponsor this war but now seem to be backtracking as ISIS have a massive support in Saudi Arabia and now the Government fear they could lose ground to the Sunni Extremists as there are suggestions that the people in Saudi Arabia have a slight preference for Sunni Extremism over Wahhabi absolutism. The ultimate aim for both the Saudi's and ISIS is to remove the rafidah and the heretics that are the Shia Muslims. Russian involvement will only serve to protect the Shia stronghold between Beirut and Baghdad which isn't going to go down well with the Saudis.

Dohnjoe

gobsh!te wrote: »

Do you think that Wesley Clark mentioned Syria as one of the seven countries the US intended on bombing years ago means that this was always in the plan?

It was vague neo-con doctrine so to speak, Iraq was to be the first "domino" in the spread of democracy through the Middle East using force

Failed miserably at the first hurdle and it's hawkish architects and backers, Cheney, Rove, Rumsfeld, etc slipped out of power (thankfully)

Gatling

Here's the kicker in this for me assad needs isis and isis needs assad ,
As it stands the assad regime buys oil from isis controlled oil fields and in return isis get electric power to fuel and light there various strongholds ,
Add Putin to the mix suddenly you have a whole new game new aircraft and anti air systems which are a direct threat to the isrealie airforce and the coalition airpower currently fighting Isis

donaghs

Gatling wrote: »

Here's the kicker in this for me assad needs isis and isis needs assad ,
As it stands the assad regime buys oil from isis controlled oil fields and in return isis get electric power to fuel and light there various strongholds ,
Add Putin to the mix suddenly you have a whole new game new aircraft and anti air systems which are a direct threat to the isrealie airforce and the coalition airpower currently fighting Isis

Why does Assad "need" ISIS? If he defeated ISIS he'd be in control of 95% of Syria, and have the oil etc to himself. Small scale civil war might drag on with other groups, but it would effectively be over.

Dohnjoe

donaghs wrote: »

Why does Assad "need" ISIS? If he defeated ISIS he'd be in control of 95% of Syria, and have the oil etc to himself. Small scale civil war might drag on with other groups, but it would effectively be over.

Syria wasn't doing well before the conflict, it's in freefall now, especially with the push for more conscription - thousands of men are leaving, decimating the workforce/economy

Some thinktanks are arguing that ISIS are actually getting stronger, swelling their ranks, they aren't really going anywhere soon

Assad is tenacious, his downfall been anticipated many times before, but it looks closer now with Russians moving in - more a sign of post-Assad preparation

Even if by some miracle ISIS are completely defeated, the last of the moderate rebels, myriad of militia's, etc swept away - Assad would be ruling a fractured state, a pile of ashes - and with zero recourse to rebuild anything

If I were to bet, I'd say he's gonna have to take exile in Russia or Iran (certainly not Lebanon, too "accessible") but who knows, could drag on for further years

But yeah, right now he needs ISIS oil, bizarre situation

IrishTrajan

donaghs wrote: »

Why does Assad "need" ISIS? If he defeated ISIS he'd be in control of 95% of Syria, and have the oil etc to himself. Small scale civil war might drag on with other groups, but it would effectively be over.

No, it wouldn't. ISIS is not the dominant power in the civil war. ISIS' strength is around 30,000 men. The Islamic Front has 40,000 and the FSA has 40,000. Yes, ISIS is one of the more powerful groups, but it's not "the" group. If ISIS is gone, another rebel group will just absorb the remnants.

Dohnjoe

IrishTrajan wrote: »

No, it wouldn't. ISIS is not the dominant power in the civil war. ISIS' strength is around 30,000 men. The Islamic Front has 40,000 and the FSA has 40,000. Yes, ISIS is one of the more powerful groups, but it's not "the" group. If ISIS is gone, another rebel group will just absorb the remnants.

Some senior Kurdish generals reckon that ISIS is much larger than the 30k

IrishTrajan

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Some senior Kurdish generals reckon that ISIS is much larger than the 30k

I'm not sure we can really buy that. Didn't ISIS attack on Hasakah recently get beaten back by the YPG? I say "recently" it was a few months ago at this point, and the border with Turkey, where they get their arms and foreign fighters, has been slowly strangled by the YPG/FSA and Turkey is threatening to take over the remaining stretch with its own ground forces and allied rebel groups.

Even if you go with the Kurdish estimate of 100,000 that still doesn't detract from the other 80,000+ FSA/Islamic Front (which doesn't take into account other independent or semi-independent forces), who are the ones Assad is actively battling and losing ground to. Removing ISIS from the picture might free up the SAA in Deir-ez-Zor but I don't think it's going to help them much in Daraa or Idlib.

glued

I don't think the Russians will get rid off Assad until the US agrees to send troops to Syria which isn't going to happen.

Lovely Bloke

Vlad has sent the planes anyway.

Gatling

Russian jets already carrying out airstrikes since the Russian government gave permission to the military to get involved a few hours ago

Peist2007

Gatling wrote: »

Russian jets already carrying out airstrikes since the Russian government gave permission to the military to get involved a few hours ago

Your failure to back up your points on the After Hours thread to AsherBassad's simple queries leaves you with no credibility Gatling. You seem heavily involved on everything Russia. Easily noticeable

old_aussie

Syria could become even more of a hot-bed of conflict if saudi arabia enters the fray to oust President Bashar al-Assad.

saudi arabia want President Bashar al-Assad removed, this could also draw in Iran on the side of Russia

Russia and Iran vs saudi arabia.

http://www.presstv.ir/Detail/2015/09/30/431310/Saudi-Arabia-Syria-Assad-Jubeir

"There is no future for Assad in Syria,” Saudi Foreign Minister Jubeir said. “There are two options for a settlement in Syria. One option is a political process where there would be a transitional council. The other option is a military option, which also would end with the removal of Bashar al-Assad from power.”

BoJack Horseman

old_aussie wrote: »

Syria could become even more of a hot-bed of conflict if saudi arabia enter the fray to oust President Bashar al-Assad.

Possible, but not certain.

KSA has a pretty good airforce, but they seem to have their hands full in Yemen... it could be beyond their practical capability to bomb Syria to any serious extent.

golfball37

Vlad has shown up Barry to weak here. Anyone other than the US leading the fight against ISIS is long term suicide for US interests in the region imo.

johnnyskeleton

Mod note:

This is not after hourrs so please dont talk about another forum here. Please also refrain from personal attacks, play the ball not the man.

KlausFlouride

Would suspect US has zero credibility or influence in Middle east at this point. US establishment doesn't have the patience or interest to undertake the kind of nation building that's required, so all you have to do is wait for US military to leave, cf. Afghanistan.

BoJack Horseman

golfball37 wrote: »

Vlad has shown up Barry to weak here.

"Weak" is unfair..... The US has far far more military assets in theatre engaging IS than Russia has....

A half dozen flankers & a squadron of frogfoots won't squash IS.

As for Obama, he's staking his legacy on the Iran deal.... It's taken up almost all the US's diplomatic efforts in the region for the past few years.

Jelle1880

golfball37 wrote: »

Vlad has shown up Barry to weak here. Anyone other than the US leading the fight against ISIS is long term suicide for US interests in the region imo.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-34399164

Too bad it seems they're more interested in bombing rebels than ISIS.

golfball37

Jelle1880 wrote: »

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-34399164

Too bad it seems they're more interested in bombing rebels than ISIS.

There's nobody naive enough to think Vlad is doing this for the good of humanity/to wipe out IS.

Jelle1880

Well you seemed to imply the Russians would be leading the fight against ISIS...

It's short time as of now, it may change but I doubt he will attack them much and instead focus on helping Assad as much as possible.

130Kph

This is uncharted territory.

Across two erstwhile nations, daesh/IS/ISIL are now being bombed by the air forces of the US, Russia, France & Britain (4 of the top 6 countries by defence spending €€€).

I’d guess Daesh/IS hasn’t read the self-help book ‘How to win friends and influence people’ but they certainly know how to make enemies.

Whether Putin is helping Assad (defeat the other rebels) or wants to exterminate IS is not yet clear (I’d normally not use the E word but will gladly make an exception for IS).

I wonder if the Qatari & Saudi multi-millionaires who fund this degenerate, bottom of the barrel gang of savages will continue to flush their money down the sewer or on a whim decide to cut their losses and buy more Ferraris & diamonds instead (being the ‘philanthropists’ that they are)?

Chemical Byrne

Initially I would have said that IS's days are numbered given that they are now being pounded by the air forces of four nations. But then I think of the likes of Vietnam and Cambodia where many many multiples of the amount of munitions used in WWII was dropped and still failed to defeat the enemy.

What makes me even less optimistic about it is that the scale of the strikes in Syria are relatively miniscule when compared to the devastating and protracted aerial bombardment that occurred in Vietnam and Cambodia which ultimately failed.

Another aspect is IS's manpower is possibly growing. Look at it like this - the syrian/north iraq economy is practically destroyed and there is little to no employment for people. Many people, with their saving's likely exhausted and unable to sustain and income for themselves or their families and being unable to flee may resort to joining ISIS's armed forces, not for ideological reasons but simply to obtain a paycheque that will put food on their families' tables.

Jelle1880

I'd be interested to see the response in Chechnya. The amount of Chechens in ISIS isn't exactly small, and I wouldn't be surprised if the Russians have another Beslan on their hands soon.

glued

Jelle1880 wrote: »

I'd be interested to see the response in Chechnya. The amount of Chechens in ISIS isn't exactly small, and I wouldn't be surprised if the Russians have another Beslan on their hands soon.

Russia has dealt quite well with these terrorists recently. Islamic Extremism is still quite strong but Putin keeps killing their leaders. The Russians have estimated that there are about 1,000 Russians involved with ISIS which not exactly massive.

Chemical Byrne

I'd be very worried about the level of collateral damage that Russia would deem to be acceptable. I'd imagine they'd be much more blaze about it than any western country.

IrishTrajan

130Kph wrote: »

I wonder if the Qatari & Saudi multi-millionaires who fund this degenerate, bottom of the barrel gang of savages will continue to flush their money down the sewer or on a whim decide to cut their losses and buy more Ferraris & diamonds instead (being the ‘philanthropists’ that they are)?

Unlikely. The US' airstrikes have not really had any degrading effect on ISIS' day-to-day running of their State. The airstrikes are definitely a decisive factor in supporting Kurdish offensives, or stalling ISIS' offensives, but they're significantly less effective in trying to destroy ISIS as a quasi-State.

The Saudis and Qataris will keep throwing money at them so long as it doesn't seriously threaten them with a backlash.

golfball37

Jelle1880 wrote: »

Well you seemed to imply the Russians would be leading the fight against ISIS...

It's short time as of now, it may change but I doubt he will attack them much and instead focus on helping Assad as much as possible.

I reckon factions of the Republicans and a certain US news channel will spin it that way to admonish Obama is what I really meant initially.

BoJack Horseman

Chemical Byrne wrote: »

I'd be very worried about the level of collateral damage that Russia would deem to be acceptable. I'd imagine they'd be much more blaze about it than any western country.

thats possible alright... it will depend on many factors.

If you target a building, the ordnance will be bigger & if the building is in a built up area, collateral damage is inevitable.

I had a look on Wiki at what their airforce has & its sophisticated enough.. but very big...

When the brits want to destroy a vehicle or a small structure they will launch a 'brimstone' which has about 10kgs of explosives.
The US, 'SDBs' (small diameter bomb) about 40kgs, or 'Mavericks' at about 50kgs

The ordnance dropped by the Russians is in the hundreds of kilos, per missile/bomb....

you dont want to be anywhere near that.