Russian boots on the ground in Syria. Another Afghanistan?

Chemical Byrne

How does Russian guided ordnance compare with western ordnance in terms of accuracy?

Perhaps the larger bomb size is to compensate for less accuracy, eg, to ensure a vehicle kill even though it misses the the target by 20-30m. In an urban setting that sort of (in)accuracy could mean a bomb will destroy a building some distance from the target even in the event of a direct hit.

BoJack Horseman

Chemical Byrne wrote: »

How does Russian guided ordnance compare with western ordnance in terms of accuracy?

Perhaps the larger bomb size is to compensate for less accuracy, eg, to ensure a vehicle kill even though it misses the the target by 20-30m. In an urban setting that sort of (in)accuracy could mean a bomb will destroy a building some distance from the target even in the event of a direct hit.

Still pretty good.... Their Laser guided bombs (for hitting structures) have a claimed accuracy of 7m

I think size may be a throwback to the cold war...

The US & The UK have been doing the insurgent thing for so long.... they couldnt throw million dollar weapons at Toyota pick-ups.... (now its just the €100k missile instead!)

Chemical Byrne

I see, I guess the Russian weapons were primarily designed to destroy armour.

Gatling

glued wrote: »

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.

They have a good loyal Muslim commander and leader in the former breakaway republic who also happens to control an army of 25,000 who in turn are backed up by the standard Russian military

Gatling

Depending on the figures you believe 28 countries involved in bombing isis from the air ,
Deaths from allies strikes 10,000+ men and thousands of hummers and other vehicles destroyed.

So far they have more or less contained them in several areas and prevented further expansion of isis territory .

Territory wise isis controlled land amounts to a few strongholds and a lot of empty desert

BoJack Horseman

Chemical Byrne wrote: »

I see, I guess the Russian weapons were primarily designed to destroy armour.

Or more specifically... entire formations of Allied tanks parked up in west germany

But the much smaller western weapons do just as nicely against individual targets...

check out this RAF video of them hitting an IS tank parked up in some trees with one of these little guys...

note how far back the turret flies...
pretty good for 10kgs of explosives

Peist2007

Gatling wrote: »

Depending on the figures you believe 28 countries involved in bombing isis from the air ,
Deaths from allies strikes 10,000+ men and thousands of hummers and other vehicles destroyed.

So far they have more or less contained them in several areas and prevented further expansion of isis territory .

Territory wise isis controlled land amounts to a few strongholds and a lot of empty desert

Well done to the Russians

BoJack Horseman

Peist2007 wrote: »

Well done to the Russians

How so.... what have they done?

A Dub in Glasgo

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

pretty good for 10kgs of explosives

I would expect nothing less for £105,000

BoJack Horseman

A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »

I would expect nothing less for £105,000

accept no substitutes!

A Dub in Glasgo

That turret looked serviceable though :pac:

Gatling

Various news outlets are currently reporting that the first Russian airstrikes carried out in homs earlier today targeted anti assad forces and not Isis targets ,

BoJack Horseman

Gatling wrote: »

Various news outlets are currently reporting that the first Russian airstrikes carried out in homs earlier today targeted anti assad forces and not Isis targets ,

There seems to be some confusion at least in the media as to the targets.

We've been saying on this forum for a couple of weeks that ISIS are not likely to be the target of Russian bombing.

The Russians are just saying "terrorists".
We know that "Terrorists" in Kremlin-speak just means "anyone not acting in our interests".

strelok

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

We know that "Terrorists" in Kremlin-speak just means "anyone not acting in our interests".

surely that's all it ever means when anybody says it

BoJack Horseman

strelok wrote: »

surely that's all it ever means when anybody says it

Often yes, but not always.

The Kremlin are very fond of their 'anti-terror' operations in Chechnya, Georgia, Ukraine.... and now Syria all of a sudden.

Gatling

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

There seems to be some confusion at least in the media as to the targets.

We've been saying on this forum for a couple of weeks that ISIS are not likely to be the target of Russian bombing.

The Russians are just saying "terrorists".
We know that "Terrorists" in Kremlin-speak just means "anyone not acting in our interests".

That's very true actually ,

Most people were always going to suspicious of Putin's so called Isis stance

Eugene Norman

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

There seems to be some confusion at least in the media as to the targets.

We've been saying on this forum for a couple of weeks that ISIS are not likely to be the target of Russian bombing.

The Russians are just saying "terrorists".
We know that "Terrorists" in Kremlin-speak just means "anyone not acting in our interests".

That's what it means to the yanks too.

I see everybody is now an expert on where the bad terrorists are.

BoJack Horseman

Eugene Norman wrote: »

That's what it means to the yanks too.

Indeed.... I don't recall saying otherwise Eugene!

Elmer Blooker

It seems to me that since the Russian airstrikes were in the Homs and Hama area then the al-Nusra Front (with links to al-Qaeda) were the targets.
I see since the Russians have got involved the "moderate" rebels have reappeared!

A Primal Nut

So what happens to the world if a Russian place "accidentally" shoots down a US plane or vice versa?

Interesting times ahead.

A Dub in Glasgo

They will press their weapons of mass destruction buttons on each other

Gringo180

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

Often yes, but not always.

The Kremlin are very fond of their 'anti-terror' operations in Chechnya, Georgia, Ukraine.... and now Syria all of a sudden.

To be fair to the Russians, all the countries named above bar Syria are on there border and would be classed as a threat to there national security by Putin.

Autonomous Cowherd

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.

You haven't heard about the 1 million Iraqis that the US considered to be acceptable collateral damage then?

Gatling

Autonomous Cowherd wrote: »

You haven't heard about the 1 million Iraqis that the US considered to be acceptable collateral damage then?

No but do tell us

Gringo180

Gatling wrote: »

No but do tell us

The Lancet journal has the death toll at 654000 as of July 2006. Although not as many as the few million massacred in Vietnam by the Americans, but still a number that is a scar on western society.

Autonomous Cowherd

Gatling wrote: »

No but do tell us

http://fair.org/extra-online-articles/a-million-iraqi-dead/
http://www.reuters.com/article/2008/01/30/us-iraq-deaths-survey-idUSL3048857920080130

''A new report has found that the Iraq War has killed about one million people. The Nobel Prize-winning International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War and other groups examined the toll from the so-called war on terror in three countries — Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan. The investigators found "the war has, directly or indirectly, killed around one million people in Iraq, 220,000 in Afghanistan and 80,000 in Pakistan (i.e. a total of around 1.3 million). Not included in this figure are further war zones such as Yemen. The figure is approximately 10 times greater than that of which the public, experts and decision makers are aware. ... And this is only a conservative estimate," they wrote. They say the true tally could be more than two million.''

http://www.democracynow.org/2015/3/25/headlines/study_us_wars_have_left_over_1_million_dead_in_iraq_afghanistan_pakistan

and on and on and on.......
Unless of course you depend on media sources that support war as a logical tool to end war

BoJack Horseman

Autonomous Cowherd wrote: »

1 million Iraqis that the US considered to be acceptable collateral damage

I highly doubt the US military killed 1 million people.

That would be about 8-10 killed per combat troop.... all but impossible
Most soldiers in war leave without killing anybody.

Autonomous Cowherd

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

I highly doubt the US military killed 1 million people.

That would be about 8-10 killed per combat troop.... all but impossible
Most soldiers in war leave without killing anybody.

That's just silly. It is not about a per soldier body count. If a empire building power invades a foreign nation and reduces its infrastructure to rubble, bombing it back to survival conditions with its shock and awe tactics, then of course there will be a knock-on effect in terms of population mortality. Sanitation, health systems, ordinary structures of life, health and safety were pulverised by US ordinance and invasion. People do not have to die only after being sighted down the barrel of a nifty modern machine gun.

But don't take my word for it...here is a former US Attorney General verifying it...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?t=1&v=PROI_yWCHXA

(Im sorry, I try and try but can never embed these darn videos...)

Manach

While I'd query any exact figure, especially one like 1 million, I can see the relevance of incorporating the secondary casualties caused by infrastructural issues. I'm reading an account of the Baghdad zoo in the immediate aftermath of the US 2003 invasion. The accounts of the hardships of the civilian population and the reversion to medieval living standards would have indirectly contributed to loss of life especially in marginalised groups.

glued

The US are just making a total mess of Syria. The CIA have done an amazing job arming Islamic Extremists again.

While Uncle Sam is making a pigs ear of everything hopefully the Russians can make more progress especially with the aid of Iran. Removing Assad is the last thing Syria needs right now. At least in the short term he has to stay in power.

BoJack Horseman

glued wrote: »

At least in the short term he has to stay in power.

Would be awfully nice of the Syrian people could decide their government.

real politik aside, its hard to make an argument that a murderous dictator must retain power.

Chemical Byrne

Well assad is no angel I'm quite sure, but he is the least bad option. Despite the lack of democracy at least his arab socialist b'athist government is (well, was) capable of providing the basic things a country needs, infrasturcture, education, healthcare and employement. All of the current alternatives the Assad are nothing more than warring factions of one extremist persuasion or another.

glued

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

Would be awfully nice of the Syrian people could decide their government.

real politik aside, its hard to make an argument that a murderous dictator must retain power.

Yes, because removing a murdering dictator worked in Iraq and Libya.

Who do you put in power? The rebels, many of whom, are joining other murdering factions such as the Shamiyya Front and using weapons that the CIA have supplied them with.

As per usual the US are completely stepping their foot in it. You'd nearly swear that the CIA have already forgotten how they and ISI backed the Taliban and look what happened there.

Some sort of power sharing agreement will have to come to fruition. No group can leave this war without a massive amount of blood on their hands.

Gringo180

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

Would be awfully nice of the Syrian people could decide their government.

real politik aside, its hard to make an argument that a murderous dictator must retain power.

I totally agree. But its just a shame that murderous dictatorships are allowed to stay in power in other parts of the region. The same people that want Assad gone are selling arms to the savages in Saudi Arabia. Madness.

BoJack Horseman

glued wrote: »

Who do you put in power?

I wouldn't put anyone anywhere.....

I'd do this radical thing of allowing the people to decide themselves..

The Irish government recognise the SNC as the legitimate government of Syria....

There are better alternatives, but the people must be sovereign.

Gringo180

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

I wouldn't put anyone anywhere.....

I'd do this radical thing of allowing the people to decide themselves..

The Irish government recognise the SNC as the legitimate government of Syria....

There are better alternatives, but the people must be sovereign.

They let the people decide in Egypt and look how that turned out.

BoJack Horseman

Chemical Byrne wrote: »

he is the least bad option..

I just can't buy that the killer of 100,000 of his own citizens and displaced milllions remains the best choice..... it sure wouldn't be my choice.

There are democratic movements in Syria.... its too ridiculously black/white to consider it a choice between secular & islamist tyrany,
Lets be honest, that is no choice at all.

BoJack Horseman

Gringo180 wrote: »

They let the people decide in Egypt and look how that turned out.

A military coup.... your retort adds nothing.

The Egyptian military overthrew their government.... doesn't mean that rule by democratic consent is not the best way of governance.
We all know that it is.

Gringo180

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

A military coup.... your retort adds nothing.

The Egyptian military overthrew their government.... doesn't mean that rule by democratic consent is not the best way of governance.
We all know that it is.

He (Morsi) was ousted barely a year after he was elected. What makes you think the same wont happen in Syria, the most religously diverse country in the region. Its just a total cluster**** of a state and democracy isnt going to make it any better.

BoJack Horseman

Gringo180 wrote: »

He (Morsi) was ousted barely a year after he was elected. What makes you think the same wont happen in Syria

No one can guarantee that for most nations.

But again, if a fledgling democracy falls, it falls..... Worrying about a hypothetical coup should not deter from allowing people a say in their future!

Using it as a flimsy dismissal of democracy at all holds no water.

Not you, not anyone has the right to tell Syrian men women & children, young & old that they must accept tyrany.

There is no argument for the continuation of dictatorship, whether Assad or islamist that bests serves the Syrian people.

glued

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

I wouldn't put anyone anywhere.....

I'd do this radical thing of allowing the people to decide themselves..

The Irish government recognise the SNC as the legitimate government of Syria....

There are better alternatives, but the people must be sovereign.

Well that would be a massive mistake allowing the people of vote in a Government as the dust settles from a war. You seem to share a lot of the views that the Americans do. It's all so short-sighted and bizarre. Do people even look to history to ensure that the same mistakes made yesterday aren't the ones we're making tomorrow?

I don't give a damn who the Irish Government recognise as the legitimate government of Syria. That is of no value to this debate whatsoever. The Syrian National Council is also supporting the war. Sub-Groups of the council such as the SPG are actively supporting Islamic Extremists such as the Islamic Front through the Free Syrian Army.

The two options you would leave the people with is A) Assad or The SNC who are filled to the ranks with communists who have no problem supporting terrorism and organisations like the FSA, who have raped, murdered and tortured many Syrian people using child soldiers.

You and the US might be satisfied letting the likes of these people into Government but, thankfully, Putin isn't going to allow that to happen.

Jelle1880

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

I just can't buy that the killer of 100,000 of his own citizens and displaced milllions remains the best choice..... it sure wouldn't be my choice.

There are democratic movements in Syria.... its too ridiculously black/white to consider it a choice between secular & islamist tyrany,
Lets be honest, that is no choice at all.

I can understand it though.

The same goes for Saddam.

He was a tyrannical despot and had no problem killing his own people, but under him the sectarian tensions remained limited at least.

I genuinely think that huge parts of this region are (not yet) ready for genuine democracy.

BoJack Horseman

glued wrote: »

Putin isn't going to allow that to happen.

Old communist Putin cares little for old communist movements in Syria.... He isn't worried either way.

I won't apologise if I favour democracy over dictatorship.... I can respect we differ, but if I share an attitude with the evil old US, don't hate me for it.

Dictatorship has never, ever served the populations it controlled....

Surely the Syrian people should be afforded even a chance to chose?

Who are you to say a nation of people can never self-determine their ruler?

BoJack Horseman

Jelle1880 wrote: »

I genuinely think that huge parts of this region are (not yet) ready for genuine democracy.

Indeed, democracy was never the default state of man.... It usually has to be fought for.

But I considered the Syrian people sophisticated & educated enough to be able to make the call themselves if they were given a chance.

Perhaps that horse has bolted with so many dead or fled.

Gringo180

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

No one can guarantee that for most nations.

But again, if a fledgling democracy falls, it falls..... Worrying about a hypothetical coup should not deter from allowing people a say in their future!

Using it as a flimsy dismissal of democracy at all holds no water.

Not you, not anyone has the right to tell Syrian men women & children, young & old that they must accept tyrany.

There is no argument for the continuation of dictatorship, whether Assad or islamist that bests serves the Syrian people.

Syria isn't most nations. It is rife with civil war and sectarian violence. The best option and most logical one is to help out the Assad government in quashing ISIS and other extremist groups in the country. Removing Assad now would just make things worse imo.

Dohnjoe

glued wrote: »

The two options you would leave the people with is A) Assad or The SNC who are filled to the ranks with communists who have no problem supporting terrorism and organisations like the FSA, who have raped, murdered and tortured many Syrian people using child soldiers.

Assad, who inherited power, failed to implement the reforms the country needed

Without the ballot box and all opposition effectively stifled or in prison, Syrians had no recourse but to protest

Assad did have options - he chose the tanks and artillery route

What was the international community supposed to do? arm him?

Is that what they are supposed to do now that he has largely caused this chaos and the situation has deteriorated under him

That's the solution?

Putin isn't going to allow that to happen.

You're damn right, which is why he armed and supported Assad

Commentators want to blame countries for geopolitics - that's a black and white textbook example right there

UN resolutions? scupper them

Peace plans? stalling tactics

Gatling

There should now be a strict No fly zone imposed over all of syria ,
Put and end to Putins game before he does more damage

glued

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

Old communist Putin cares little for old communist movements in Syria.... He isn't worried either way.

I won't apologise if I favour democracy over dictatorship.... I can respect we differ, but if I share an attitude with the evil old US, don't hate me for it.

Dictatorship has never, ever served the populations it controlled....

Surely the Syrian people should be afforded even a chance to chose?

Who are you to say a nation of people can never self-determine their ruler?

I favour democracy over authoritarian regimes but only under the right circumstances and of course the Syrian people should be afforded the opportunity to elect their own government. I'm making an entirely separate point that Syria is, clearly, not ready to take that step. If the US were so bothered about democracy in the middle east then why aren't they doing anything to stop the genocidal nuts in Saudi Arabia and Yemen?

You can't just hand over the country to a bunch of terrorists when the war subsides. Do you think for one second that the SNC wouldn't use the terrorists, it's currently using to kill Assad's forces, to ensure they are elected in post-war Syria? Syria cannot be left to decide its own fate and an interim solution needs to found in order to bring all the parties to the table, bar ISIS, and work out a coalition partnership for a small post war period in order to ensure peace remains in the region.

If Syria goes to the polls tomorrow I have no doubt the SNC would be elected. How do you suppose they will treat the Alawis and Christians? How do you suppose the government defends itself from rebel groups, such as Jaish al-Fatah, Jaysh al-Mujahedeen or the Islamic Front, who are demanding Sharia Law is implemented. What about dealing with Iran, Hezbollah and the Russians? What are they going to do about ISIS? How will the Kurds react?

Do you think there would be a huge unrest no matter who is elected? It's pretty obvious what the answer to that question is. You can't just provide democracy for the sake of democracy. It will be years before democracy reaches Syria and decades before it is successful.

Also, there are many Syrians who don't want democracy. It's just a means to dispose of Assad and begin their own warped version of democracy.

I'm sure the Kurds, Alawites and Christians will be thanking you and your ilk in ten years when they're slaughtered and oppressed at the hands of a 'democratic government' filled with Islamic Extremists and warring factions power bent on taking control of a broken country, all thanks to Uncle Sam.

BoJack Horseman

glued wrote: »

I favour democracy over authoritarian regimes but only under the right circumstances and of course the Syrian people should be afforded the opportunity to elect their own government

Well that's good to know I guess!
wouldnt have thought it from the tone & hostility

If Syria goes to the polls tomorrow I have no doubt the SNC would be elected.

We don't know... its not like assad was really into opinion polling...
I think Assad actually would stand a chance in an election.. much of the people less likely to vote for him anyway have been displaced by the war.

How do you suppose they will treat the Alawis and Christians?

Probably ok I'd imagine.
Their current president Khaled Khoja is an ethnic minority (turkmen).
The guy before him was a Damascus born Sunni businessman.
The guy before him was a Kurd
The guy before him was a Greek orthodox christian!

.... quite the smorgasbord of Syrian makeup.

Surely more representative than your boy Assad

How will the Kurds react?

They are represented & elect members to the coalition & its council.
Though they don't have Syrian Nationalists as members, they remain apart.... but you can ask them for clarification

Do you think there would be a huge unrest no matter who is elected?

There is huge unrest now.
And doing what's right is rarely the easiest course.... but it doesnt negate it being right.

you and your ilk.

Who is this exactly... please elaborate.

Magico Gonzalez

Russians making the same mistakes as their american cousins, these countries are redundant entities. Syria, Iraq etc. These entities have never recovered from the fall of the Ottoman empire and the ensuing loss of stability. Somehow these countries need to be allowed to fracture into their natural states. That might, as always, involves wars, winners and losers. Long term stability cannot come from hundred year old mistakes imposted by the British, French and Americans.