Russian boots on the ground in Syria. Another Afghanistan?

Sand

Elmer Blooker wrote: »

Hasn't the media (the best media that money can buy!) already decided who was responsible?
I found it very odd that no questions from the press were permitted on the day the Dutch investigation board released their .... findings.
Of course they're ....... independent.

The polite armed men in uniforms who mysteriously appeared in Crimea whilst Russia denied any involvement...

Who were they again?

Gatling

Elmer Blooker wrote: »

Hasn't the media (the best media that money can buy!) already decided who was responsible?
I found it very odd that no questions from the press were permitted on the day the Dutch investigation board released their .... findings.
Of course they're ....... independent.

Wait, wait ,wait didn't russia publicly state they could prove a Ukrainian Su24 shot down MH17 the same aircraft that got shot down by turkey 3 days ago that Russia publicly started rebels with a MANPAD shot down their Su24

Dannyboy83

cerastes wrote: »

On top of this, how does anyone know the aircraft were carrying nuclear weapons? I thought this was not commonplace in peacetime or at least since the end of the coldwar for aircraft to be carrying live capable nuclear weaponry? wouldnt that suggest a ratcheting up of the Russian equivalent of defcon status? to actually take off with live nukes capable onboard?

Yes. That's precisely the point.

1 of 2 Russian Tu-95 bear bombers were carrying nukes capable of 'seek and destroy' against Vanguard submarines - the goal was a simulated bombing run aimed to destroy Trident, the British nuclear deterrent.
Cockpit conservations confirming the bomber’s nuclear payload were intercepted by a Norwegian military listening post, and shared with the UK Ministry of Defence.
No, they were not Live. Putin has to give the order.


Multiple Russian commentators have speculated that Putin may have had a nervous break down of some sort during the mass protests in Russia between 2011 & 2013, his condition may have been related to his long and mysterious disappearance from the Kremlin last year. ( I honestly would not be surprised to hear Erdogan is mentally unstable either - Both have failed to act as true statesmen for their countrymen in being autocrats & ruling their respective countries as their personal fiefdoms.)

The power Putin wields in Russia is fairly unmatched in any other country in the world. No other one person so incredibly dominates the power vertical, but especially of any regional power.

But Russian isolation is becoming more and more acute. Economic and Political. Russia previously leaned on Turkey quite a bit. That's gone now too.


And No - the Russian cabinet are not as reckless as the PR would suggest.
Don't forget, Kudrin resigned after a massive row with Medvedev in 2008. Medvedev had been ordered to ramp up military spending and Kudrin was not having it.
Then Medvedev was nearly lynched by Putin & Co. for fcuking up over the UN/Lybia. The Russian state press turned on him, and you know who controls the press.

Russian commentators have speculated that the factions are struggling to control Putin and prevent him from going off the deep end. It's suggested that the idea to get rid of Alexander Dugin with driven by either the siloviki or the civiliki, not Putin.

And if a Turkish jet fires on another Russian bomber/attack aircraft again and it happens to be escorted by a fighter aircraft? do you think the Russians will fly idly by?

I don't think the Russians will be reckless enough to allow that happen again.
Not because of the massive Turkish air superiority or the US base in Turkey, but because :
A) It would be extremely difficult to explain another shot down jet to a Russian audience.
Russia cannot absorb any more economic losses, too many bridges have already been burned and they're hoping this will blow over quite soon with Turkey.

What they need to do, is do something that appears meaningful to a domestic Russian audience, but negligible to anybody else (such as suspending Visas)

maybe the Russians should be more careful around the border of a conflict zone,

The question is - will they continue to attack Turkish associates?

but the aircraft was not directing its attack at Turkey, it could easily have been a navigational error, the warning to the pilot could have been not communicated (ie who says they are listening on the correct frequency or even understood the warning?)
It could very easily have inflamed the situation worse by what has been done.

Seriously, this was no accident, Russian pilots are regarded as some of the best.
If any pilots made rookie mistakes like that by accident, they would be grounded instantly for retraining, especially after the Russian ambassador had been summoned on 3 previous occasions!

It wasn't one pilot or one accident or one isolated incident, it seems to have been the entire group - the issue was going on for weeks, meaning they either had a green light to ignore the border or have been ordered to do so.

There have been so many violations of Turkish airspace that it completely undermines the Russian narrative i.e. the plane was shot down in Syrian airspace.
If the Turks wanted to shoot down a Russian plane over Turkish territory, they have had a plethora of opportunities to do so....we've already discussed the Realpolitik

The problem is, humiliating a country, even a bully may not improve the situation, this is not exactly like Putin and Russia is a windbag, they might be a bully that have the capacity to do actual damage if they chose to or were pushed too far and to prove the point they are not incapable, they might be forced to prove that point.

The point to bear in mind is that, while Putin is considered a bully of other countries, by other countries, he is also considered a bully of Russians, by Russians.

Recommended reading concerning the socio-economic and political subdivisions within Russia:
http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/product/B00XM0WP6W?psc=1&redirect=true&ref_=oh_aui_d_detailpage_o02_

The idea that rampant inflation or increasing food prices will weaken Russia to the point of giving up might seem like the outcome to some,

This is an oversimplification.
Look at what the Russians are saying (If you cannot read Russian, then use google translate)

• Putin's key econ adviser (and a member of Russ Acad Sci) claims that the Bank of Russia has failed in its monetary policies and should start print money without a limit (Советник Путина заявил о провале политики Банка России).
• The spokesman of the Russian Orthodox Church is calling to cleanse "corrupted and cynical elites" ruling Russia (РПЦ призывает очистить «коррумпированные и циничные элиты», правящие в России).
• As of August 2015, 78% Russians are worried about increasing prices (Россияне рассказали о своих главных тревогах), 42% are alerted by growing poverty, 36% - by increasing unemployment. Crime is reported to have grown by 5.2% over the last year (after 10% police layoffs and sizable industry layoffs) and by double digits in several regions. The average rouble-denominated bribe has doubled (В полиции зафиксировали рост средней взятки чиновникам в два раза) because bribes track hard currency and the ruble lost half of its value.

The thing is, if any Turkish aircraft or any other uninvited nations aircraft enter Syrian airspace, it seems to be a green light of acceptance for the Russians to shoot them down, I would not be surprised if any Turkish aircraft strayed over were blown out of the sky, this has only ratcheted up tension and the problems in the region, as there is the potential for other nations aircraft to be accidentally shot down if misidentified as a turkish aircraft.

Indeed, this is probably why the S-400 was not deployed previously. (It had to be deployed post-Turkey incident to save face among the Russian audience)

The US/Russia have a memorandum in place.
The Russians want the French onboard because they are leading the campaign to have sanctions dropped. (French carrier off the coast now afaik)

Russia is surrounded by hostiles on all sides (US, Turkey, Israel, etc. etc.) and they cannot afford to accidently hit "friendly forces" such as France (or China, potentially).

It's difficult to see how Russia can use the S-400. At all. ( Unless their base is under direct attack.)

Sand

karma_ wrote: »

NATO is for collective defence, the mechanism wouldn't kick in if a Turkish Jet was shot down in syrian airspace, in fact Syria have already shot one down and it didn't invoke NATO wrath.

I mean Russian jets relying on civillian GPS selotaped to their dashboard will have the same difficulties plotting an intercept to a NATO jet as they obviously had staying out of Turkish airspace.

As it is, given the magic technology the Russians apparently have (as claimed by every long distance Putin lover) it is frankly amazing a Russian jet was shot down by a Turkish jet built by Americans 41 years ago. Christ only imagines what would happen if if the USAF with their 2015 BVR weaponry which relies on killing the enemy before the enemy even realises you are there got involved. The Russians simply ought to learn their limits, or they will be taught - they are a big smudge on the global map, but spend only slightly more on their military than the UK does. The UK has been chastened by experiences in Iraq and Afghanistan where they were completely or largely defeated as independent forces. They increasingly recognise they can only act as auxiliaries to US or wider NATO actions. The Russians need to either spend more or learn the same lesson.

clear thinking

Russia is banning tomatoes is what makes the news. The bigger picture is being ignored

The real story is Russians strategic play. It looks good on a map if you are Russian, but I can't see any lasting effect apart from p*ssing off every single one of your neighbours.

The Russian Military has engagements in every non EU black sea state including a NATO member and is involved in 'issues' in 3 more states adjacent to Black sea states. Russia occupies parts of Moldova, Georgia and Ukraine outright, Armenia is backed by the Russians in occupying parts of Azerbaijan, they have now provoked an attack from Turkey. In adjacent states Azerbaijan and Syria are now involved.

In economic and specifically oil and gas terms it is funny there is no mention of the US/EU Caspian Sea gas route through Azerbaijan, Georgia, Turkey and Bulgaria and Hungary in all this. Russia's only controlled transit route for oil and gas is now through Belarus; Ukraine in principle could close the taps. Turkey now is hardly likely to assist Gazproms Ukraine by-pass, the much trumped deal with Hungary will be meaningless if the Turks pull the plug on the black sea element of this. So the short term propoganda wins are coming at a cost - i.e. Belarus in the only reliable transit point to Europe for Russian gas.

On the Political-Military front they are succeeding in stepping on every toe possible. This doesn't end well.

Daesh, and bombing them is the least of Europes worries.

cerastes

Sand wrote: »

I mean Russian jets relying on civillian GPS selotaped to their dashboard will have the same difficulties plotting an intercept to a NATO jet as they obviously had staying out of Turkish airspace.

As it is, given the magic technology the Russians apparently have (as claimed by every long distance Putin lover) it is frankly amazing a Russian jet was shot down by a Turkish jet built by Americans 41 years ago. Christ only imagines what would happen if if the USAF with their 2015 BVR weaponry which relies on killing the enemy before the enemy even realises you are there got involved. The Russians simply ought to learn their limits, or they will be taught - they are a big smudge on the global map, but spend only slightly more on their military than the UK does. The UK has been chastened by experiences in Iraq and Afghanistan where they were completely or largely defeated as independent forces. They increasingly recognise they can only act as auxiliaries to US or wider NATO actions. The Russians need to either spend more or learn the same lesson.

Is it amazing? the F16 is still a very capable aircraft now and it s a testament to the original design, but like all aircraft they undergo continual maintenance, its not like this aircraft was the original military version or is equipped in anyway like the original. Military aircraft can undergo different upgrades, engines, avionics, weapons, its not like the Turks sent up a biplane or something. They have likely sent up one of the most capable aircraft in existence (one that has even been compared as more capable than the F-35) and shot down a bomber/attack aircraft which isnt an air to air design, nor is there any hint or suggestion that any defensive measures were engaged, possibly the Russians thought (and I think its highly likely based even on anti Russian comments in this thread) anyone would even consider shooting down one of their aircraft.

clear thinking wrote: »

Russia is banning tomatoes is what makes the news. The bigger picture is being ignored

The real story is Russians strategic play. It looks good on a map if you are Russian, but I can't see any lasting effect apart from p*ssing off every single one of your neighbours.

The Russian Military has engagements in every non EU black sea state including a NATO member and is involved in 'issues' in 3 more states adjacent to Black sea states. Russia occupies parts of Moldova, Georgia and Ukraine outright, Armenia is backed by the Russians in occupying parts of Azerbaijan, they have now provoked an attack from Turkey. In adjacent states Azerbaijan and Syria are now involved.

In economic and specifically oil and gas terms it is funny there is no mention of the US/EU Caspian Sea gas route through Azerbaijan, Georgia, Turkey and Bulgaria and Hungary in all this. Russia's only controlled transit route for oil and gas is now through Belarus; Ukraine in principle could close the taps. Turkey now is hardly likely to assist Gazproms Ukraine by-pass, the much trumped deal with Hungary will be meaningless if the Turks pull the plug on the black sea element of this. So the short term propoganda wins are coming at a cost - i.e. Belarus in the only reliable transit point to Europe for Russian gas.

Given that there are only a few nations that have black sea coastlines, why not just name which ones you mean?
Russia is involved in every non eu black sea state, meaning? who? Georgia, Ukraine, ok, they are not involved in Turkey though, are they in Romania or Bulgaria? Georgia is over, so you mean they have some involvement in Ukraine, so one state and even thats denied, but yes I accept it, but some may count that as one or none.
Now can you elaborate on which NATO state on the Black sea you mean? because they aren't involved in a war with Turkey, so is there some secret war with Romania? or Bulgaria?
And given Russia's size, it seems no surprise they are involved in someway in states in their region? this isn't something out of the ordinary for any regional power.

Neither am I suprised that the Ukraine by pass might be very unlikely to go through Turkey, Im sure there are those that have been against it all along, I thought the whole idea was to isolate and contain Russia, it seemed very likely that there is some other preferred option bringing Iran into the fold and their gas through Iraq/Turkey or Iraq/Syria/Turkey.

Im not even sure why Russia or Europe could benefit from routing gas through a country like Turkey, it certainly doesnt seem to benefit the Hungarians where Turkey and Russia have been at odds going back through history, it doesnt look like things are changing unless pressure can be put on Russia to force some kind of democratic coup in Russia to oust Putin, where that leaves Russia though under the thumb of western market influences and democracy, I think some people in Russia would go down a different route before considering putting up with that before it went too far, which is why I think its a dangerous game to antagonise Russia.

clear thinking

Russia is occupying Moldova, Georgia and Crimea overtly. It is supporting Armenia in occupying parts of Azerbaijan, it is in Syria and I call getting shot down as being involved in turkey. Russia is also backing Proxies in Ukraine.

Or is it easier to say they are not in Romania and Bulgaria.

The EU US pipeline goes through Azerbaijan, Georgia and Turkey. Its aim is to de-concentrate EU reliance on Russian gas.

Russia also now has bases in Iran and Syria on two land borders with turkey and the Georgian occupation puts them within a few miles of a third flank.

Putin is clearly targeting turkey rather than the Baltics to test article 5.

JJJJNR

A welcome expression of regret from Turkey.

http://www.breakingnews.ie/world/turkeys-president-expresses-regret-for-downing-of-russian-fighter-jet-708876.html

glued

JJJJNR wrote: »

A welcome expression of regret from Turkey.

http://www.breakingnews.ie/world/turkeys-president-expresses-regret-for-downing-of-russian-fighter-jet-708876.html

Turkey has very little upper hand here as Russia supply over 55% of Turkish Gas and just over 30% of their oil. Turkey have poorly handled their energy problem and are relying on Russia to solve their energy problems. Erdogan has to answer to the Turkish people and with no Russian gas or oil in the country he would be voted out very quickly. Putin doesn't have to answer to the Russian people and he can do what he wants. He knows that Turkey cannot deal without Russian energy in the medium and short term but I don't think he'll risk escalating. It would be a stupid move from Putin to stop supplying energy to Turkey as it would greatly anger many of his key supporters.

Gatling

glued wrote: »

Turkey has very little upper hand here as Russia supply over 55% of Turkish Gas and 30 % of their oil.

But can russia afford to be down billions of revenue we've already seen Ukraine refusing to play ball with the Kremlin that's costing russia a few billion too when at a time the Russian economy is in the gutter with a deep recession on the horizon for them.

glued

Gatling wrote: »

But can russia afford to be down billions of revenue we've already seen Ukraine refusing to play ball with the Kremlin that's costing russia a few billion too when at a time the Russian economy is in the gutter with a deep recession on the horizon for them.

Ukraine have missed payments and tried to demand discounts on gas. They've tried to play hardball and failed. But that makes the importance of Turkey even greater for Russia. Gazprom aren't going to accept Putin destroying their business.

Russia can't really afford to isolate themselves further. Putin is digging himself a little hole with Crimea, Ukraine and Turkey. The only threat to Putin are the Oligarchs who have a monetary stake in Putin's foreign policy. The thing is Turkey can't pull the plug on Russian energy. If they did Erdogan would be ousted very quickly as Turkey would really be impacted by the loss of Russian energy, Turkey has resorted to buying oil off ISIS and Iran to try and build up their energy reserves. Turkey are already under enough pressure to meet their growing energy demands to stop purchasing Russian oil and gas.

I think that's why Putin has resorted to food sanctions as opposed to military action. I really don't think he wants to spend any more money in Syria than he has to but Russia will do anything to ensure their outposts in the Middle East are secure. I think another problem is Putin likes playing the victim to the Russian people. So any western sanctions will only toughen his resolve on his idea that Russia doesn't need anybody else.

I think you will see more paranoia from Putin as the cease fire and elections in Syria loom closer. I can't see him agreeing to fair elections unless his military outposts are secure, which won't happen under any democratic government formed in the medium term as the winners will likely be another form of the SNC.

Shurimgreat

It strikes me that Russia but also its neighbours including Turkey have engaged in a lot of lose-lose situations, instead of going for win-win type scenarios. No-one is a winner in all these situation, not Russia or their neighbours.

Putin is a short-termist. He was hailed as brilliant I'm sure within Russia for regaining Crimea. The problem is in the long term Russia in general suffers. The same goes with the interventions in eastern Ukraine.

Russia could have 3 or 4 years ago quietly nudged Assad out of power and still kept control of its key assets in Syria through some sort of peace agreement. Instead it chose to back the most unpopular leader in the region and lost even more friends.

leavingirl

Shurimgreat wrote: »

It strikes me that Russia but also its neighbours including Turkey have engaged in a lot of lose-lose situations, instead of going for win-win type scenarios. No-one is a winner in all these situation, not Russia or their neighbours.

Putin is a short-termist. He was hailed as brilliant I'm sure within Russia for regaining Crimea. The problem is in the long term Russia in general suffers. The same goes with the interventions in eastern Ukraine.

Russia could have 3 or 4 years ago quietly nudged Assad out of power and still kept control of its key assets in Syria through some sort of peace agreement. Instead it chose to back the most unpopular leader in the region and lost even more friends.

is he the most unpopular leader in the region? Assad was democratically elected and just because America target him doesn't mean he is the most unpopular leader in the region.

BoJack Horseman

leavingirl wrote: »

Assad was democratically elected.

When?

leavingirl

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

When?

The last election

BoJack Horseman

leavingirl wrote: »

The last election

Aah... ok... the last election where his opponent was an Assad supporter & ministerial colleague who's tokenistic party had just been set up prior to & closed down immediately after the election!

Oh... and I shouldn't forget the 3rd candidate, (just to add the extra slice of faux-legitmiacy!)
That guy was on the ballot after receiving sufficient nominating votes, entirely from Assad's political party!

So, of the 3 Assad choices, Assad won.

And of course Assad's previous "elections" where when political opponents were constitutionally barred from running!


If people want to pretend this is democracy, fine.

But to any impartial reader, it's as credible as calling North Korea a democracy.

leavingirl

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

Aah... ok... the last election where his opponent was an Assad supporter & ministerial colleague who's tokenistic party had just been set up prior to & closed down immediately after the election!

Oh... and I shouldn't forget the 3rd candidate, (just to add the extra slice of faux-legitmiacy!)
That guy was on the ballot after receiving sufficient nominating votes, entirely from Assad's political party!

So, of the 3 Assad choices, Assad won.

And of course Assad's previous "elections" where when political opponents were constitutionally barred from running!


If people want to pretend this is democracy, fine.

But to any impartial reader, it's as credible as calling North Korea a democracy.

Or America

BoJack Horseman

leavingirl wrote: »

Or America

Yup... good retort, well researched with credible citations.

As I said, pretend the Assad regime is a democracy all you want.....
But it isn't, as I've demonstrated above.

(And I haven't gone into detail regarding all the abductions, torture & murder of Assad's political opponents.... not quite the hallmark of democrats)

InTheTrees

leavingirl wrote: »

The last election

The last election? Funny. Just like the "elections" in Russia or north Korea.

Assad and his father before him have been among the bloodiest most oppressive dictators on the region for over fifty years.

leavingirl

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

Yup... good retort, well researched with credible citations.

As I said, pretend the Assad regime is a democracy all you want.....
But it isn't, as I've demonstrated above.

(And I haven't gone into detail regarding all the abductions, torture & murder of Assad's political opponents.... not quite the hallmark of democrats)

Why do you care so much about Syria?

BoJack Horseman

leavingirl wrote: »

Why do you care so much about Syria?

Again... this is just a retort, and a poor deflection attempt.
It is not a counterpoint.

I encourage you to argue your case & demonstrate for us, the readers, the democratic credibility of Assad..... as you seem to believe he has in abundance? (and the world knows is non-existent).

So... over to you...

InTheTrees

leavingirl wrote: »

Why do you care so much about Syria?

Because war is bad.

Gatling

Wonder if he had a popular mandate to slaughter 250,000 people .

leavingirl

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

Again... this is just a retort, and a poor deflection attempt.
It is not a counterpoint.

I encourage you to argue your case & demonstrate for us, the readers, the democratic credibility of Assad..... as you seem to believe he has in abundance? (and the world knows is non-existent).

So... over to you...

I asked another poster why he was saying Assad is the most unpopular leader in the region. Who says this? America. They are great moral guardians arent they.

Do people here really think america want peace and stability in Syria? Like they achieved in Iraq and Lybia Do you really believe that?

Arming moderare rebels to overthrow Assad. Do you really believe it? These moderate rebels are as real as the WMDs in Iraq.

InTheTrees

leavingirl wrote: »

I asked another poster why he was saying Assad is the most unpopular leader in the region. Who says this?

You really can do some research. Trying to blame america for the assad dicatatorship is nonsense.

How do you think one family retains power in a middle eastern country for forty years?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Assad_family

InTheTrees

leavingirl wrote: »

I asked another poster why he was saying Assad is the most unpopular leader in the region.

Why dont you try looking at the other leaders in the region, compare them and make your own mind up.

leavingirl

InTheTrees wrote: »

You really can do some research. Trying to blame america for the assad dicatatorship is nonsense.

How do you think one family retains power in a middle eastern country for forty years?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Assad_family

And in saudi arabia?

Why arent they planning to bomb that country then?

BoJack Horseman

leavingirl wrote: »

Who says this? America.

An interesting experiment would be to try to compose a post without blaming the woes of the earth on evil ol' America.

now....

You said that

leavingirl wrote: »

Assad was democratically elected

And I have demonstrated the "Jong-dynasty-esque" brand of democracy is anything but.

I'm simply asking you to back yourself & expand on your affirmation that Assad is a democrat!

(And if you can do so without spitting out some quip about America, or some other weak whataboutery, it would be helpful to the debate.)

Gatling

It seems a town called Tal Bajer has been lost to a group of rebels after been taken back by government forces backed by heavy russian airstrikes two weeks ago .
rebels groups have been inflicting heavy losses on assad troops

InTheTrees

leavingirl wrote: »

And in saudi arabia?

Why arent they planning to bomb that country then?

Now there's one dictatorship you can blame america for. Well and everyone who consumes petrol too...

But whats that got to do with the brutal assad dictatorship in Syria??

leavingirl

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

An interesting experiment would be to try to compose a post without blaming the woes of the earth on evil ol' America.

now....

You said that

And I have demonstrated the "Jong-dynasty-esque" brand of democracy is anything but.

I'm simply asking you to back yourself & expand on your affirmation that Assad is a democrat!

(And if you can do so without spitting out some quip about America, or some other weak whataboutery, it would be helpful to the debate.)

I dont have to demonstrate anything.

It seems some people in here are more interested in what military equipment is used instead of the real consequences of more and more invasions from Western traitors like Obama and Hollande.

leavingirl

InTheTrees wrote: »

Now there's one dictatorship you can blame america for. Well and everyone who consumes petrol too...

But whats that got to do with the brutal assad dictatorship in Syria??

They chop people's heads off in Saudi. The dictators there. Hollande sold 12.5 billion dollars of arms to Saudi in August. Hypocrasy much?

InTheTrees

leavingirl wrote: »

It seems some people in here are more interested in what military equipment is used .

You still havent explained why you support Assad.

BoJack Horseman

leavingirl wrote: »

I dont have to demonstrate anything.

And therein encapsulates the downward descent of the quality of this forum.

InTheTrees

leavingirl wrote: »

They chop people's heads off in Saudi. The dictators there. Hollande sold 12.5 billion dollars of arms to Saudi in August. Hypocrasy much?

So you want Hollande and Obama to bomb Saudi Arabia?

K-9

leavingirl wrote: »

They chop people's heads off in Saudi. The dictators there. Hollande sold 12.5 billion dollars of arms to Saudi in August. Hypocrasy much?

Mod:

Stick to the topic at hand please, if you want to discuss Saudi Arabia feel free to start another thread.

I'd suggest reading the charter on the main page. A higher standard of posting is expected here and civility is expected. If somebody asks you for back up or proof for something it is polite and helpful to provide it. One liner replies can be a problem if they don't contribute to debate and are persisted with. Thanks.

K-9

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

And therein encapsulates the downward descent of the quality of this forum.

Report any posts you've a problem with to help mods out, thank you.

cerastes

Gatling wrote: »

Wonder if he had a popular mandate to slaughter 250,000 people .

So if you have a popular mandate it's ok? is that why 100's of thousands more people died in the region and no questions about mandates, legality or legitimacy?

glued

Gatling wrote: »

It seems a town called Tal Bajer has been lost to a group of rebels after been taken back by government forces backed by heavy russian airstrikes two weeks ago .
rebels groups have been inflicting heavy losses on assad troops

Have you a source that the rebels have been inflicting heavy loses on Assad troops?

Tal Bajer is a tiny village btw.

Gatling

glued wrote: »

Have you a source that the rebels have been inflicting heavy loses on Assad troops?

Tal Bajer is a tiny village btw.

Apologies thought I had posted a link

It seems it's not just Tal Bajer

http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory/syria-insurgents-recapture-town-aleppo-province-army-35460058

http://news.yahoo.com/syria-insurgents-recapture-town-aleppo-province-army-113827450.html

Elmer Blooker

Gatling wrote: »

http://news.yahoo.com/syria-insurgents-recapture-town-aleppo-province-army-113827450.html

Mindless propaganda, when I read this bit I saw AGENDA written all over it.

Opposition forces have inflicted painful losses on Syrian troops and their allies in the area, successfully repelling their advances despite Russian airstrikes.

I wonder where al Nusra got drones, probably the same place they got all those Toyotas?

Shurimgreat

Elmer Blooker wrote: »

Mindless propaganda, when I read this bit I saw AGENDA written all over it.

I wonder where al Nusra got drones, probably the same place they got all those Toyotas?

Drones and Toyotas are easy to buy anywhere in the world including the middle east FFS. Stop seeing conspiracies where there are none. ANF are a well organised military group at this stage, for good or bad and drones would be no major issue for them. You can buy a drone in argos these days and stick a camera on it.

Shurimgreat

Its been obvious for years now that neither side have the firepower to win this conflict.

With Russian airpower, the Syrian government side (its mostly Iranian soldiers, Iraqi militia and Hezbollah at this stage) made progress around Aleppo. But they've reached a stalemate there, their Iranian commander was badly injured a few weeks ago and is now back in Iran receiving treatment, and the rebels have regained some of the territory. This isn't even Aleppo proper. The Syrian government can't even maintain control of villages they have won.

As for elsewhere, yes the rebels are still achieving victories.

http://aranews.net/2015/11/syrian-rebels-blow-up-regime-headquarters-in-aleppo-killing-dozens-of-troops/

This looks like a fairly neutral website by the way, reporting successes by both sides to the conflict.

Gatling

I've seen several arab sites say they believe russian ground forces will apparently be fighting in large numbers for Christmas in syria ,

glued

Gatling wrote: »

I've seen several arab sites say they believe russian ground forces will apparently be fighting in large numbers for Christmas in syria ,

Well there is speculation that Russia intends on scoring more land for Assad to further Russian interests in the region and it wouldn't surprise me. I don't think it will happen because Putin will not want an Afghanistan on his hands. It's blantantly obvious that the majority rebel movement has been infiltrated by extremists and in other cases some rebel forces have no problem fighting side by side with Al Nusra. To remove that extent of extremism will be next to impossible at this stage. There is no solution for Syria in its current borders with The US, Saudi Arabia and Russia all only in Syria for their own benefit. Unquestionably, there is no moderate opposition to Assad, politically.

The problem for the moderate rebels is that they will see the lack of support previous groups have received the US and join extremist rebel groups or the likes of Al Nusra and ISIS as the only viable alternative to Assad. The sooner Assad is removed from the equation the sooner the flow of moderate rebels into extremist groups will stop. That's not going to happen while the US are only focusing on ISIS and Russia are propping up the despot that caused the crisis.

IrishTrajan

Gatling wrote: »

I've seen several arab sites say they believe russian ground forces will apparently be fighting in large numbers for Christmas in syria ,

If I recall, Kadyrov asked Putin to allow Chechen volunteers to fight in Syria on the side of Assad (and has also asked if he can take Kiev for Putin).

I don't think the Turks would allow such a movie, they would bring that 40km "safe-zone" to fruition sooner than see the Russians involved in ground combat.

https://www.stratfor.com/geopolitical-diary/turkey-picks-side

The battlefield, however, will remain just as intense. Turkey is serious about moving ahead with a plan to create a safe zone in northern Syria along the Turkish border to root out the Islamic State, keep a check on the Kurds and reinforce its rebel proxies against the al Assad government. The United States also remains committed to the fight against the Islamic State and is willing to facilitate Turkish operations in northern Syria toward that end. Russia is unlikely to back down from its operations in Syria targeting both Islamic State and rebel forces. In fact, Russia will be reinforcing its bombers with accompanying fighter jets to deter another shoot-down. The potential for further skirmishes on the Syrian battlefield cannot be ruled out.

Shurimgreat

The problem for Assad and the Russians is the part of the country they hold isn't very viable economically. All the oil wells are in the east and most of them under ISIS control. Much of Aleppo, the industrial heartland is also outside of their control. And they control few border crossings apart from into Lebanon.

As for Russian ground troops being sent in, its difficult to know. I don't think the Russians could sustain more than 10,000 troops, 20,000 at a push. It's not like Afghanistan where they had a land border and could resupply them easily enough. Soldiers need feeding, resupply, fuel, water, medical care, as well as parts for machines and weapons. It's a huge effort. Having said that, I don't think bodybags returning to Russia would bother the Russian leadership too much, since they don't really have to worry about fighting a fair democratic election or risk unpopularity.

Lockstep

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

Aah... ok... the last election where his opponent was an Assad supporter & ministerial colleague who's tokenistic party had just been set up prior to & closed down immediately after the election!

Oh... and I shouldn't forget the 3rd candidate, (just to add the extra slice of faux-legitmiacy!)
That guy was on the ballot after receiving sufficient nominating votes, entirely from Assad's political party!

So, of the 3 Assad choices, Assad won.

And of course Assad's previous "elections" where when political opponents were constitutionally barred from running!


If people want to pretend this is democracy, fine.

But to any impartial reader, it's as credible as calling North Korea a democracy.

Also, the "international observers" were from such democratic luminaries as North Korea and Zimbabwe.
It's been cited as one of the worst elections of 2014

Dannyboy83

Ukrainian media, (У российских судов задержки с прохождением Босфора) reporting that several Russian-flagged cargo ships were delayed before passing through the Dardanelles, while non-Russian cargo ships sailed through.

The Russia cargo ship - 'Yauza', owned by the Ministry of Defence - was met by a Turkish sub in the Dardanelles on its return from Syria.

Putin has been expressing regret over the destruction of friendly relations with Turkey 'Путин выразил сожаление по поводу разрушения дружественных отношений с Турцией

Presently, it looks like Turkey has 'em by the short n' curlys...let's hope the Russian Navy have more respect for borders than Russian airforces.

donaghs

glued wrote: »

The problem for the moderate rebels is that they will see the lack of support previous groups have received the US and join extremist rebel groups or the likes of Al Nusra and ISIS as the only viable alternative to Assad. The sooner Assad is removed from the equation the sooner the flow of moderate rebels into extremist groups will stop. That's not going to happen while the US are only focusing on ISIS and Russia are propping up the despot that caused the crisis.

You can't be a "moderate" if you'd consider joining ISIS or Al Qaeda