Printable View
Well, can a government really abandon someone because they travelled to a particular part of the world? Not really, not unless you want to accept the principle that yyou citizens are, in effect, only citizens within your borders.Quote:
Originally Posted by Husar
Your apology is accepted.Quote:
Yes, I actually must have missed it, twice...my apologies. It did not happen on purpose. :bow:
I need to finish my assignment, maybe it's distracting me too much.
http://www.conflictarm.com/publications/
Plenty of US weapons. Some assault rifles have "Property of the US government" on them. What is this?
Given the Iraqi army (financed and supposedly trained by the USA) ran away abandoning pretty much everything I'm hardly surprised.
~:smoking:
According to this article, coalition airstrikes are killing 1 000 IS fighters a month:
That sounds rather extreme. But if it is true, and IS fighters also happen to have lower empathy levels and higher psychopathy scores than average, it would in effect be a eugenics program. :wink3:Quote:
Overall, Operation Inherent Resolve (the U.S.-led combined joint task force in Iraq and Syria) is killing about 1,000 ISIS fighters a month. The death toll roughly matches the number of new recruits ISIS is able to field each month, effectively capping its manpower strength at about 30,000 to 40,000 fighters.
Stupid numbers. On the one hand, they claim that ISIS has 30,000 fighters and on the other, they pretend that the Kurds and their aristrikes kill several thousands of them.Quote:
Originally Posted by Viking
It's a typical contradiction of an overblown propaganda, if it was true, the half of Iraq would be controlled by a couple of patrols.
Never trust the participants to give you an accurate casualty figure. The world has improved since Arrian and his Persian genocide, but not much.
Doesn't look like you read what it said. They say IS recruits ~ 1000 new fighters a month, and that their airstrikes kill ~ 1000 IS fighters a month; so those numbers add up. Verifying them is another matter. The core of the statements seems to be that they think the number of IS fighters is currently about constant.
The problem is that ISIS is also fighting against Syria, Iraq, the Kurds, AQ, various islamists, Hezbollah and Soleimani. And according to them, they lose some hundreds of men in every battle.
They all lie, from the Americans to the Iranians and a claim that 30 ISIS soldiers die on a daily basis is simply absurd and misleading.
Oh I don't know, I could see it averaging out to that considering how many fronts they are fighting.
Crandar, I'm afraid I don't see the crux of your argument. As far as I can tell, you are saying that we shouldn't take those particular figures seriously because "they all lie".
But that would be a very crude and jejune approach, so I must be mistaken. What are you saying then?
He's saying that if the Coalition was likking 1,000 IS fighters a month then their numbers would be falling - he seems immune to the idea that we're underestimating the numbers they are recruiting.
It's likely all IS's enemies "round up" kill and "round down" IS recruits.
900 is "about a thousand" for a given value of 1,000.
Do recall also that, out of the tens of thousands of sorties flown by the coalition, a large proportion act as close air support for Syrian rebels, Kurd militias, and the like. Honestly, the reported numbers are embarrassingly-low if accurate. What it translates to is, if taking an arbitrary flight mission composed of 10 warplanes, that mission only kills a single IS fighter on average. I mean jeez, even if we weren't coordinating with ground forces in many cases, that would be a doleful figure. I'm pretty sure 1915 fighter-craft got better results strafing trenches...
So, Russia's heavy intervention in Syria starts. The US and activists claim that the struck areas were not controlled by IS, but by other rebel groups.
So it's not okay to strike the other nasty Islamist groups then? Not to forget that the US are already striking hard against the IS, no? If they want to hit the same people, they probably have to coordinate their attacks anyway.Quote:
Originally Posted by Viking
Seems like Russia is taking a far more active role in the fight against Islamic terrorism, wouldn't that be a good thing?
Well there are some moderate rebels within the opposition, and I hate to see the Assad regime get propped up by Russia which is I think their biggest motivation for getting involved.Quote:
Originally Posted by Husar
I think they are more interested in the FSAQuote:
Originally Posted by Husar
FSA (islamists with a media-friendly name) is pretty much inexistent in Homs, as the region is mainly infested by Al-Nusra, the Syrian department of AQ, which is not as evil as the rest of AQ, because they're allied with our islamist allies.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tuuvi
Off course, it has also been reported that ISIS has a presence in Rastan, the region that was bombed by the Russian Airforce, so ISIS members could have potentially been bombed..
America, on the other hand, focused her bombing and spying campaign, strictly against ISIS... The hypocrisy of the media is outstanding.
:laugh4: Russia uses this involvement as a smokescreen to divert the world's attention from Donbas/Crimea and as a bargaining chip to exchange its "crackdown on terrorism" for the Crimea and solution of the Donbas crisis. Plus turmoils in the Arab world are likely to keep oil prices higher which is also good for Russia.Quote:
Originally Posted by Husar
Never thought I'd be cheering on the current Russian regime, but yeah, go Russkies! I have no love for Bashar, but this sonuvabitch just won the lottery by becoming a useful pawn for Putin.
Now for the situation at hand, most likely first victims:
1. Al Nusra. A bunch of islamist scumbags, much smaller than ISIS, thus much easier to bomb into smithereens, have Assad's tanks roll all over them, producing tons of PR for Putin. If Putin is serious about making Syria a publicity showcase, these guys are screwed.
2. FSA. The "moderate" opposition. Moderate, my ass. I don't trust them one bit. Likely to get their clocks cleaned right after Al Nusra. Good riddance. Potentially problematic if some Einstein from the DoD decides that giving these guys AA capability would be a good idea. While we're on the topic of FSA, it's time to stop the CIA gravy train. These guys are finished.
3. ISIS. I think Russians will do a showcase coordinated bombing run against these guys every once in a while, just to show that Russia is helping the overall fight against them. Mostly they'll stay away for two reasons:
1. An anti-ISIS campaign would be long and expensive.
2. We're already there, and it's best to stay out of each other's way.
4. The Kurds. The only ones in this entire conflict who at least partially resemble the good guys. I doubt Russia will touch them at all.
I'm gonna put money on the Kurds getting crushed HARD because ethnically based dissident movements, especially secular and democratic ones, are more dangerous to Putin than IS.
I disagree. Kurds, while very willing to secede from Syria, have absolutely no interest in dethroning Assad. They mind their own business and stay in Kurdish areas. Since they are no threat to Assad's regime, Russia is unlikely to touch them.Quote:
Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla
Isn't Erdogan already bombing the kurds?
Erdogan has been bombing the PKK, which is classified as a terrorist group and has been fighting a guerrilla war against Turkey. The Syrian Kurds have been mostly left alone.
Somehow I agree with Gilrandir, but I don't think it is just a smokescreen.
In taking part actively in Syria, Putin obliged other countries to determine their policies in conjunction with his. He regained (or gained) the centre point in negotiation and obliged USA to reconsider their stance.
He gave the signal to USA that they are not any more free to bomb, he can do it as well.
Considering there is a meeting today about Ukraine, he will have some political advantage in showing how he has the capacity to intervene.
He showed to CIA that he can hit their "protégés", even better he showed CIA's "protégés" they are not any more out of target.
Now, former USSR was supporting Kurdish fighters in the 50-60's. I don't know if this will or have an impact on Putin's political/geo-strategical decisions.
The problem (if it is a problem) is that Russia will not gain anything serious (except its umpteen planes shot down) unless they start a land operation. Bombing was what the West has been doing on and off for a couple of years and it didn't really change the balance between the beligerents. If Putin means business he ought to send his little beige (I think they will use this camouflage color) men. But if he does he will be bogged there for eternity (as he is in Donbas). So he has to choose - to send men and propel Asad into the offensive (but risk reputational damage at home and have no chance for reversal of his actions) or continue bombing and remain just one more nuisance for the bombed and one more target for their stingers.Quote:
Originally Posted by rvg
Overall, yes. However, we really haven't been bombing Al Nusra much, and Assad hasn't been conducting ground ops vs ISIS much. Thus, Al Nusra has been fighting on the ground without getting bombed while ISIS has been getting bombed without meeting any meaningful opposition on the ground. Well, except the Kurds. They tried to go against the Kurds and got their asses handed back to them.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gilrandir
Anyway, now Al Nusra will be getting it both from the air and the ground forces. I'm anxious to see what happens to them.
If Putin get bogged down, that's Putin's problem. The more problems Putin has, the better.Quote:
If Putin means business he ought to send his little beige (I think they will use this camouflage color) men. But if he does he will be bogged there for eternity (as he is in Donbas).
The guy is doubling down on his delusions of grandeur. If this serves to further isolate him, that's fine by me. If he is digging his own political grave, there's no reason to try to take away his shovel. Let him dig.Quote:
So he has to choose - to send men and propel Asad into the offensive (but risk reputational damage at home and have no chance for reversal of his actions) or continue bombing and remain just one more nuisance for the bombed and one more target for their stingers.
The Kurds set a bad precedent for similar Muslim groups in Russia.Quote:
Originally Posted by rvg
Well, the PKK are not all that easy to separate from the Syrian Kurds they are operating with - Turkey is carrying out bombings in Syria against the PKK, which means they're bombing the Syrian Kurd too. Turkey has the same problem as Russia, the Kurds set a bad precedent.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tuuvi
IMHO they are too far away from Russia for their example to matter.Quote:
Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla
It depends. If the West thinks the same, then he will go down. But Obama and Merkel can take Putin's Syrian wild goose chase at its face value (as a crackdown on ISIS) and see in him an ally they need to do the dirty job for them. In this case Putin will start his bargaining and who knows what he may get.Quote:
Originally Posted by rvg
Once again, don't underestimated Putin. He is not bog down in Ukraine, he's got what he wanted, a neutralised Ukraine. Not any more one country, with NATO try to be out but in as well, troops but without intention to use them in it, Western Countries unable to have a real clear policy.
With Iran and the nuclear deal and now Syria, he is back as major player. No one can ignore him, and he will play n this. Even US are now obliged to change plan.
If you believe he has the same goals than US and EU, you are badly mistaken.
I read so many times in our debates he was finished, and each times it was so wrong.
Russian base in Syria is bigger and stronger.
USA and EU can't do what ever they want (as in Iraq and Libya).
He is able to impose himself on the map.
Not bad for a start.
Will he be bogged down? At this stage, I can't see how, as he plays for the moment as US, UK and France.
If he decides to go on the ground, that might change, but few recent Russian wars showed that their militaries don't hesitate too much on lateral damages, as the school siege by rebels Chechen or in the theatre in Moscow.
I thought we have had this out.Quote:
Originally Posted by Brenus
He had wanted much more than what he got. His initial design to split Ukraine "along culture lines" has failed. His Ukrainian adventure got him under sanctions. He was kicked out of G8 and won many new enemies. NATO increased its presence just over his fence. His burden of financing Donbas and Crimea under such conditions is growing harder to endure but he can't just withdraw from either since it would be impossible to explain to his admirers why he left "suffering under the fascitst heel of Kyiv junta populace of Russian speaking brethren" in lurch. Russia's economy is declining steadily if not dramatically because of all this and of oil price drop. His only option is to push the game further and raise stakes by starting another war.
Militaries don't. But the civilians will start asking questions if zink boxes start pouring from Syria. There are no splinters of "the Russian world" there for Russian public opinion to feel the pride at defending them at whatever cost.Quote:
Originally Posted by Brenus
"I thought we have had this out." You can believe what your heart wishes it happened. The reality check is what I describe. Crimea is Russian, Ukraine is not united, Russia is suffering economically as all countries due the fall of commodities (oil, iron, copper etc), and now, even the political attempt of isolation of Russia is fast vanishing in front of the Iran deal and Syria.
"if zink boxes start pouring from Syria" IF, and IF, Russia can do what USA did for Afghanistan, hind them.
You choose to focus only on Ukraine's losses (which are no doubt significant) disregarding the setbacks Russia suffered.Quote:
Originally Posted by Brenus
What was severed off Ukraine made the rest of it more united than it was before Russia's aggression. And in 2012-2013 the number of Ukrainians who supported joining NATO fluctuated around 20-25%. The latest polls never show a figure below 60%. Before the war Russia could hope to exercise a hold on such aspirations since they were popular among a small number of citizens and politicians. By doing what it has done Russia gave a decisive push to Ukraine in NATO's direction. Strategically, it is the main setback, because even after Putin's age is over it would be almost impossible for Russia to change anything and lure Ukraine back into its orbit.
They will, no doubt. But it has appeared hard to do in case of caskets from Ukraine. So news of them will find its way to the ears of the people. The problem is that most Russians seem to be ready to lump it. Until the casualties are too great to disregard them any longer.Quote:
Originally Posted by Brenus
And on why Putin is making a bad mistake with Syria:
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/30/op...ollection&_r=1
Not to mention it's a highly convenient tool to distract the Russian populace about the deteriorating Russian economy. Now that Russia illegally annexed Crimea, Syria is only area outside of Russia that Russia still maintains a naval base. I'm fairly sure they do not want to lose it which is understandable.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gilrandir
If you want to weaken IS, starting by attacking their enemies is not a good idea.Quote:
Originally Posted by Husar
"The latest polls never show a figure below 60%." Including the "Ukrainian Russian" territories?. And it is in fact irrelevant. Until Ukraine is reunited in a "peaceful" manner, even 100 % would not be enough.
"So news of them will find its way to the ears of the people. The problem is that most Russians seem to be ready to lump it. Until the casualties are too great to disregard them any longer." Agree, but it was a discussion I remember having with USA invasion of Iraq. And it change nothing.
"Not to mention it's a highly convenient tool to distract the Russian populace about the deteriorating Russian economy." Really? As much I watch BBC Economic News and the jokes about Roubles/rubles, and the weekly predictions of the fall of Putin in the Russian opinion (which will probably happen one day), it doesn't yet happen.
The worst is when you start to believe your own propaganda.
In fact, it is quite easy to blame everybody else for economic deterioration, look at EU unable to have a economical recovery (created by laws imposed by EU) and blaming all but its policy.
You mean like how you support the Taliban in order to weaken the Soviets?Quote:
Originally Posted by Viking
Don't see how making the only solution to IS stronger is a bad idea.Quote:
Originally Posted by Viking
In fact you are right. It is irrelevant. If a referendum on joining NATO is held, it will be the ALL-NATIONAL referendum, so the regional dimensions of the voting will be interesting only as the sociological food for thinking. Only the overall result will matter.Quote:
Originally Posted by Brenus
Not enough for NATO to accept Ukraine? Perhaps. But inside Ukraine, if there is a majority of votes in favor of it, it will be enough for the government to start taking practical steps in the procedure of application for admittance.Quote:
Originally Posted by Brenus
So BBC Economic News claims that the economic situation in Russia hasn't deteriorated since the sanctions were introduced? BBC claims that oil prices haven't dropped? BBC claims that the exchange course of rouble hasn't changed since 2013?Quote:
Originally Posted by Brenus
I doubt it.
Perhaps BBC claims that these setbacks are unlikely to throw Putin off the throne (and in this case it is not Economic News any more). But I agree on it. Russians are told (by their mass media) that all the hardships they are experiencing are not because Putin has led them to where they are, but because the evil gay-loving West's mind is set on destroying Highly Moral Russia. Consequently they are inclined to grin and bear it. Hitherto.
Here we go again. Russian "volunteers" are likely to appear in Syria - evidenlty to help their Orthodox Arab brethren.
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/06/wo...=top-news&_r=0
Quote:
In fact, Adm. Vladimir Komoyedov, the head of the armed forces committee in Russia’s Parliament, told news services that pro-Russian veterans of the conflict in eastern Ukraine side will most “likely” start showing up as a volunteer battalion in Syria.
No, like bombing Vietnam in order to weaken China.Quote:
Originally Posted by Husar
It might just make IS stronger instead. Let's see who's better at filling any vacuum - IS or the dictator.Quote:
Originally Posted by HitWithThe5
Of course, IS expanding at the cost of other rebel groups would fit Russia's narrative: that Assad is a misunderstood youth who should be showered with love.
If that would allow Japan to conquer Vietnam, how would it weaken the position of US allies?Quote:
Originally Posted by Viking
Because I assume the Russians are bombing positions to help the Syrian army take them, how does it benefit the IS if the Syrian army retakes land?
As if the other groups haven't already made this narrative.Quote:
Originally Posted by Viking
The calculus is pretty simple.
Russia will be a complete and utter dickweasel in the area on behalf of its ally.
Likewise they will defend/ignore any shortcomings, even at the UN; even in the face of clear evidence.
It sounds exactly like another relationship in the area, though the names escape me at the moment...:cool4:
What do you mean "even at the UN"? The UN's been run by toothless fools for decades.Quote:
Likewise they will defend/ignore any shortcomings, even at the UN; even in the face of clear evidence.
A GoPro cam attached to a Su-24M.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?t=57&v=bJqz_ItIjZI
Like I pointed out in the post right above yours, it benefits IS if they take the territory instead of Assad.Quote:
Originally Posted by Husar
And once IS has taken the territory, Putin, Eternal President of Russia, dies of a heart attack. Russia is afflicted with great apathy at the loss of their great leader and pulls out of Syria. IS, the only remaining rebel group in Syria, conquers the rest of Syria and now has a proper caliphate. Everyone lived happily ever after.
In an alternative universe, US-backed rebels are victorious, and the new regime totally does not end up like Egypt or Libya, and for once things end up working out like someone's hallucinatory delusion.Quote:
Originally Posted by Viking
This is fun. We should do this more often.
You can't have a caliphate without Makkah under your control nowadays, since it's defiled by the unholy presence of the kaaba and prophet's grave ISIS hates so much.Quote:
Originally Posted by Viking
Whip up your magic lamp and tell us what happens next.
And why would Russia bomb territory that is most likely to be taken by the IS instead of Assad? Can you show that they do?Quote:
Originally Posted by Viking
I was watching image from RT about the Russian attack in Syria against various rebels groups.
Hmmm... Air strikes, cruise missiles, co-ordinated ground attacks with Syrian Army, assault/gun helicopters in support, more ships and grounds troops (to be?) deployed.
The message is clear to the West, and to take one of the best lines from Mass effect 2, "Don't F***k with Russia/Aria).
In response the UK Prime Minister will deploy 48 more British Troopers in the Baltic States if necessary.
Your text has a disturbing lack of sarcasm and absurdity. You shouldn't do it again.Quote:
Originally Posted by CrossLOPER
They wouldn't need to do that. If one rebel front collapses, IS can just fill in from their front. Of course, a fight between other rebel groups and Assad will weaken both, leaving an easier battle for IS against whoever wins.Quote:
Originally Posted by Husar
It's relatively simple: if your goal is to destroy IS, start by attacking IS. If your goal is to keep Assad in power, bombing any rebel group will do. If you destroy all other groups than IS, other countries will have no other forces to back against IS than Assad.
The main problem with your evaluations along these lines is that military power over territories does not operate either like chits in RISK nor like gaseous matter in an enclosed environment.Quote:
They wouldn't need to do that. If one rebel front collapses, IS can just fill in from their front. Of course, a fight between other rebel groups and Assad will weaken both, leaving an easier battle for IS against whoever wins.
It's relatively simple: if your goal is to destroy IS, start by attacking IS. If your goal is to keep Assad in power, bombing any rebel group will do. If you destroy all other groups than IS, other countries will have no other forces to back against IS than Assad.
The analysis is of what might happen, not what will. Some actual (initial) trends should be clear in the next few weeks.
Shifting goal posts won't help you. It is entirely obvious that the Russians are helping Assad, he is a Russian ally after all. Your point was that they're aiding the IS in the end but they're actually just aiding Assad. Though whether Assad can stay in power after this may remain to be seen. Even if the IS can take a few meters from other rebel groups due to Russian attacks, guess who will be attacked by the Russians in the next wave of attacks?Quote:
Originally Posted by Viking
And why should Russia help other nations support their favorite rebels? When was the last time some other nation did something like that for Russia?
Russia bombing non-IS opposition makes strategic sense. They are the ones on Assad's doorstep - IS is not.
No, my point is and was that by having the aim of strengthening Assad as their first priority, they risk making IS stronger instead of weakening it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Husar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Viking
Regime forces have front lines with IS many places. E.g. at Palmyra, from where there is IS control all the way to Raqqah as well as to the border with Iraq.Quote:
Originally Posted by HitWithThe5
Russia is bombing everyone who is not Assad.Quote:
Originally Posted by Viking
Fight a war on one front if possible.
First step finish off the other fronts.
Hence Russia attacks the rebels
So your point is still BS then.Quote:
Originally Posted by Viking
Now that was simple. :sweatdrop:
Funny, but Putin said it in his UN speech: He supports Assad.
USA and EU (EU not really important now) disagree as they support "moderate" rebels that few week ago were an army of 5 but still holding vast amount of territory for the Russian to be be able, first to find them, then to bomb them.
USA is losing control of the situation...
For USA & EU, the first target was Assad because in reality, they can get rid of ISIL.
The problem now is, what if Russia succeed (reason why propaganda & media campaign about Russian missiles hitting the wrong country, which is a little bit too much when the US Air Force just destroyed an hospital, but there)?
What is the Syrian army really succeeded to retake some part of territory, or even worst, routs out ISIL and others?
We all investigate and question the situation if Russia become bog-down, which some of us wish, but what if Russia win?
The images of a group of men firing AK 47 on the Hind made me laugh, but what if the US decide like they did in Afghanistan than to defeat Russia is more important that to defeat Muslim fanatic extremists and murderers, and as in Afghanistan, provide them with anti-aircraft missiles?
:laugh4:Quote:
Originally Posted by Brenus
For 5 years NO COUNTRY has been able to effectively stem ISIL's expansion. And Russia by sending a score of SU's and MIG's and launching a score of rockets will? It will take a more serious involvement and an international scale land operation to defeat them military-wise. However, even this type if victory will not eradicate the phenomenon completely as new shoots will sprout elsewhere.
How effective Russian propaganda is:
September 29: 69% of Russians oppose Russia's military involvement in Syria
http://www.rferl.org/content/russia-.../27277333.html
October 8: more than 70% of Russians support air strikes against terrorists in Syria
https://www.rt.com/politics/317988-o...t-of-russians/
"For 5 years NO COUNTRY has been able to effectively stem ISIL's expansion. And Russia by sending a score of SU's and MIG's and launching a score of rockets will? It will take a more serious involvement and an international scale land operation to defeat them military-wise. However, even this type if victory will not eradicate the phenomenon completely as new shoots will sprout elsewhere." That is not the question. What if Russia win? Will USA sell the Stringer as they did to the Talibans? Will USA and EU accept to be out-maneuvered?
Even under the drunk Boris Yeltsin and a very damage Russian Army, the Chechen were defeated, if not completely, they were not able to gain independence. Ukraine is the result of a complete disaster in Western Intelligence Agencies in assessing Russian capacity and reaction.
So, what if?
Apparently after the latest shipments to Syria there is now about 1000 Spetnaz and paratroopers already in Syria. Though these fellows are most likely there to support the air operations, lazing targets etc from the ground.
Goodbye IS then
Not yet, they are attacking others rebels, if I believed the very reliable Yahoo information things.
What is ironic is, if Russia does succeed, it will a hint that USA never really want IS gone...
And look at that:
ISIS Makes Gains in Syria Territory Bombed by Russia
Just needs some independent verification.Quote:
BEIRUT, Lebanon — The Islamic State registered significant gains on Friday in the area of northwestern Syria that Russian warplanes have been bombing, taking six villages near Aleppo and threatening to cut off an important route north to the Turkish border. Late in the day, there were reports that rebels had reasserted control in one village.
[...]
“Daesh has exploited the Russian airstrikes and the preoccupation of the Free Syrian Army in its battles in Hama, and advanced in Aleppo,” one rebel commander told Reuters.
Question is if the regime forces have enough strength left to beat an enemy at one front; let alone more fronts after that.Quote:
Originally Posted by Papewaio
The advance had already begun before the airstrikes. The moderate salafists of FSA and Al-Nusra are paying the price for concentrating their forces against the real enemy, the Shia, the Christians and the secular Syrians. After all, no airstrikes have been made against the moderate Salafists of the region.Quote:
Originally Posted by Viking
Sources, please.
Specify, what you would consider a victory for Russia. Assad taking Homs or any other important city? Well, there are other cities he will have to take. The disappearance of any opposition to Assad? With the West's attitude it is a priori inachievable. The disappearance of ISIS? See above. The withdrawal of ISIS from Syria? They can return any time later. The withdrawal of the West/the USA from Middle East? Impossible.Quote:
Originally Posted by Brenus
So specify, please.
ISIL destroyed, vanishing, imploding, exploding: End of it, all theirs "fighters" and followers becoming bands of whatever: If Russia pushes them enough, the equivalent or even less than the GIA (Armed Islamic Group of Algeria, not Gemological Group of America). dust in the win.
The French more or less succeed to do this in Chad (sorry Mali). Yes, the number are different, but so are the means that Russia can deployed. It is all depending on what Russia will be willing to deploy, and the political will.
But until now, Putin never fail about political will, and he has the backing of his Parliament.
Now, he might be happy enough to push ISIL out of almost all Syria, then let the USA & EU to deal with the left over.
I think in political terms, he already won. No one can now put Russia aside and ignore it.
The big looser in this game is of course France.
USA Obama had to meet Putin, so others leaders, even if they still, for public display, play game of words. Putin put back Assad on the agenda, and if regime change comes, it will come with/according Putin's agenda.
You do realise that ISIL has no chance to stay alive if the real power wish it to disappear, do you?
So far Russia has been more inclined to crush moderate Sunni opposition, not ISIS. I believe this is the real aim of Putin (well, one of his aims). And Assad's army is on the offensive against them, not ISIS.Quote:
Originally Posted by Brenus
To turn his ire against ISIS Putin will have:
1) to deploy in Syria a large force (having an experience of war in corresponding climate and terrain) for land operations;
2) to provide and sustain effective logistics thereof;
3) to watch Russian Muslims closely;
4) to prevent any terroristic attacks from Muslims (either local or foreign) within Russia.
With current financial situation of Russia, too many bills to foot, to my mind.
But even if he surmounts suchlike obstacles he will have to win military-wise. As the Soviet experience in Afghanistan showed, one can never have a complete victory in a guerilla war in such countries (both because of climate and terrain and because of the type of adversary they will face), especially if the borders of Syria can't be secured. If he tries to do that he will have to deploy even a larger force and get embroiled with Kurds which means finding another enemy for himself.
But even if he does it (which is almost unreal) ISIS may arise at any time, since it is not a state, but a religious group likely to refill its dwindling ranks by recruiting new local and foreign adherents. And you can't start indisriminate massacres on suspicion that those are prospective ISIS militants. And if you do, the Muslim world will surely not like it.
The bottomline: a complete MILITARY victory by one country over ISIS (like it was over Hitler) is impossible by default, IMHO.
:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:Quote:
Originally Posted by Brenus
The latter as an independent branch of power is non-existent in Russia. It is like Putin has the backing of Putin.
Oh yes, this is a big victory - to have the world pay attention to you.Quote:
Originally Posted by Brenus
“1) to deploy in Syria a large force (having an experience of war in corresponding climate and terrain) for land operations;
2) to provide and sustain effective logistics thereof;
3) to watch Russian Muslims closely;
4) to prevent any terroristic attacks from Muslims (either local or foreign) within Russia.”
Really? ISIL has no army. They were successful just because the West let them be successful in having one of the stupidest policy for the last roughly 10 years . Do you really think that if the West would have put all its might on it, IS would still exist? ISIL is surrounded by enemies just ready to kill it. BTW, the Red Army was winning the war in Afghanistan, reason why the CIA decided to step in and to provide weapons to the Al-Qaida to come to stop the then Soviets to win.
2) Lol. Not really a problem to feed and equip 15,000 people. MSF and other Charities do it all the time (it is the equivalent of a very tiny refugee’s camp).
3) Re-lol. Chechen perhaps?
4) Re re lol.
The problem is, because you hate Putin, you try to convince your-self it is a very complex and difficult operation. Military speaking, it is not. All is in the political will.
Because USA and EU wanted to have first the skin of Assad, they didn’t put enough to defeat IS in order to gain it all later. Now, they started to feel the win of the bullet, as Iraq might call for Russians if they are successful in Syria. With Turkey playing the same game (Kurds are more a problem for Turkey than IS, as Turkish President, being a Islamist himself, thinks he can deal with ISIL. He is selling IS' oil for them. He just forgot, like the US in Afghanistan that if you want to have supper with the Devil, better to have a very long spoon).
“With current financial situation of Russia, too many bills to foot, to my mind.” Really? It is the same cost to have a Mig or Sukhoi 34 flying, or a T I don’t know the number to roll. Yeap, you might have to pay a little bit more the foot-soldiers, but it is just a margin. But again, we don’t speak of a massive army. And if it is a win, lot of weapons system to sell.
ISIL never face a modern Army willing to fight, and me thinking that they are probably hated in the region they control, and they will not defend their country as it is not their country. The Foreign volunteer who will not desert will soon discovered that they are not part of this part of the world, as much of them probably already know. They join IS because they wanted to be on the winning side, with the 4X4 car, sexual slaves at will and cool uniforms. Under real artillery barrage (and the Russian Army used to know to do really good ones), followed by advancing tanks and infantry, they might reconsider.
“As the Soviet experience in Afghanistan showed, one can never have a complete victory in a guerrilla war in such countries (both because of climate and terrain and because of the type of adversary they will face), especially if the borders of Syria can't be secured.” The Soviet defeat is, most of it, is a legend built by Western propaganda in order to match the USA defeat in Vietnam.
It is also a legend that you cannot win against a guerrilla, as several countries did exactly that.
ISIL is not the Vietcong/Vietminh.
The French did crush the Algerian guerrilla. It is due to the intelligence to the then French President Gal de Gaulle to give the independence for good political reasons.
“The latter as an independent branch of power is non-existent in Russia. It is like Putin has the backing of Putin.” Your opinion, not a fact backed by any real facts. All elections were recognised as fair by all international organisations. I could easily (and I do), say the same thing for the French Assembly that so far from the real population that more than 60 % of voters don’t go to vote. It is the George Carlin’s illusion of choice
https://youtu.be/rsL6mKxtOlQ
“Oh yes, this is a big victory - to have the world pay attention to you.” They tried hard not to do, and, well failed. Unfortunately for your country, you were the first to pay for this disdain.
Well, Putin is cunning, like a hungry wolfe.
If he wipes out all the less insane forces and it's just ISIS and Assad then he will force the West to back Assad - thye only Western play here is to try to crush ISIS before Putin crushes the other factions.
Of the Four Great Powers within NATAO Obama is disinclined to get involved and be seen as a "war monger" when he's looking to his legacy, Cameron is otherwise occupied with Domestic issues, Hollande is a fool and Merkel likely does not care overmuch, she'd rather take in the resulting refugees and distribute them throughout the EU thereby enhancing German standing that way.
Things were different in 2011 when the British and French governments were looking to assert themselves on the world-stage and Cameron and Sarkozy were of a mind on this sort of thing.
So I predict that by the time the West wakes up Putin will have pretty much achieved his aims and we move closer to war in Central Europe.
Yay.
Or, we might possibly consider that - and this is definitely a stretch - Russian involvement will not materially affect the situation on the ground and no grand aims will be met, nor sea changes effected, in any short period of time, for any state, organization, or faction with a stake in the events.
:rolleyes:
¿Qué?Quote:
Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla
How does one follow from the other?
Wouldn't you be happy if Putin wins and the evil people from Syria who don't belong here are contained by Assad once again?
And how does an Assad in control over Syria lead to war in central Europe? Sometimes I get the impression you just can't wait to see a glorious war in central Europe. :inquisitive:
Well, that's not quite it.Quote:
Sometimes I get the impression you just can't wait to see a glorious war in central Europe.
PVC has said many times that would love to participate in a new European war, despite not being a "war-lover".
His his conviction in the inevitability of such a war doesn't come from his desire to participate, or vice-versa, but in the underlying personality and belief-set that bring him the auguries.
Yet somehow in this desperate position it thrives and flourishes and recruits more supporters.Quote:
Originally Posted by Brenus
They were not. They were holding the most important cities, yet outside them the guerillas reigned supreme. Just because when the Soviets entered a village they hid their weapons and were meek peasants, when they left, the Afghans dug out their AK's and went on fighting. All Soviet army movements from a camp to a camp were fraught with danger and roads in a mountaineous terrain were very suitable for setting ambushes. Most casualties were inflicted in such ambushes.Quote:
Originally Posted by Brenus
So Gorbachev had to own up to the fact that 10 years later the USSR was no closer to any victory and withdrew the troops.
Al-qaeda was founded in 1988-1989 when the USSR was already contemplating this withdrawal, so if the USA started to help that late, it didn't really matter.
The number of Soviet troops in Afghanistan was more than 80 000 in 1979 and 120 000 in 1986. Shall I remind you what was the outcome of the war?Quote:
Originally Posted by Brenus
See above.Quote:
Originally Posted by Brenus
On numbers in such wars see above.Quote:
Originally Posted by Brenus
Neither did Afghans, nor Donbas rebels. Yet somehow they succeeded in withstanding the regular armies' offensive.Quote:
Originally Posted by Brenus
The same was supposed about Russian "volunteers" in Donbas. Yet they are still there, no mass defection happened even when the Ukrainian army almost surrounded them in Donetsk and Luhansk.Quote:
Originally Posted by Brenus
So you claim that the USSR won the Afghan war? And this is the person who accused ME of revisionism!Quote:
Originally Posted by Brenus
I didn't speak of impossibility to win. I said RUSSIA WON'T WIN. The French have a long and successful experience of colonial warfare under such conditions. Russians' recent experience was, to put it mildly, disappointing.Quote:
Originally Posted by Brenus
Did I claim the opposite? I just said that the Russian Duma does everything Putin wants because 238 out of 450 deputies represent his party, others vote in its wake. Can you name at least one decision of it that Putin didn't like?Quote:
Originally Posted by Brenus
“Yet somehow in this desperate position it thrives and flourishes and recruits more supporters.” Really? What I read recently was more about people deserting IS…
“Al-qaeda was founded in 1988-1989 when the USSR was already contemplating this withdrawal, so if the USA started to help that late, it didn't really matter.” That is why I said “will become then”. Bin Laden and Co were recruited much earlier, and this for the purpose to provide AA missile to the Mudjahdins/Talibans.
However, I was mistaken about the actual role of the Stingers.
The Mujahedeen victory was due to the Boris Yeltsin’s decision to cut all aid to the Afghan government then triggered desertion and changes in alliances.
Shall I remind you what was the outcome of the war?:
Reality check:
“ Morton Abramowitz, who directed the State Department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research at the time, said in 1997: "In 1985, there was a real concern that the [mujahideen] were losing, that they were sort of being diminished, falling apart. Losses were high and their impact on the Soviets was not great." In:
http://www.theguardian.com/world/201...ut-afghanistan
You can as well read the excellent series Ospreys series men-at-arms
“Neither did Afghans, nor Donbas rebels. Yet somehow they succeeded in withstanding the regular armies' offensive.” The fall of the “communist” government was when one of the bid supporter changed side, not on the value of the Rebels themselves. In fact, the Afghan Army did quite well, considering circumstances, better than the South Vietnamese Army…
I would say that the Ukrainian Army was not ready for the kind of “stab in the back” operations, and, but this is a blind guess, to the Russian’s back-up for the rebels. A probably a problem with how the legal government for Ukraine became legal…
“The same was supposed about Russian "volunteers" in Donbas. Yet they are still there, no mass defection happened even when the Ukrainian army almost surrounded them in Donetsk and Luhansk.” That might be explained because there were not foreigners. I tried (and not only me) few times to say it, but it fall in dead ears. So they were defending their lands.
“So you claim that the USSR won the Afghan war? And this is the person who accused ME of revisionism!” Not me, but Morton Abramowitz, see note above.
And this is confirmed but facts on the grounds, not by Rambo 3, the movie.
Gaddafi well quickly once the rebels had the backing of NATO Air-Power. How much easier will it be for the Syrian army (a trained force) to crush the disparate rebels with Russian Air-Power, especially given that the Russians will be even less discriminating in their targets than the Americans.Quote:
Originally Posted by Montmorency
IS is the hardest nut to crap and it being somewhat suppressed by NATO, even then they have made gains, whilst Assad's ability to deal with the other rebels has been hampered by NATO.
I believe Russia can tip that balance, and already has.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Husar
My belief there will be a new war in Central Europe is based on four factors.Quote:
Originally Posted by Montmorency
1. Putin considers "the West" the enemy of Russia, both ideologically and economically. This affects his perception of the West's actions and motivations. For a microcosm of that consider that Idaho described my views as "repugnant" because I don't support the attacks the Left have levelled at Cameron over Tragedy-gate. He has interpreted that as support for Cameron and then labelled be "Tory Scum" although he hasn't used the word yet.
2. Western inaction over Ukraine and Syria has led Putin to believe that the West is weak willed, conversely the Western belief that Putin was "reasonable" led us to suppose he would not start a new war in Europe, but in fact he confounded our expectations. If our expectations of Putin's actions are wrong and vice versa this greatly increases the likelihood of a military miss-step which will be misinterpreted by the other side and lead to war.
3. Putin has designs on certain countries within the EU in NATO, specifically the Baltics and the Warsaw Pact nations - he sees their joining the EU and NATO as a "betrayal" by the Western Great Powers rather than attributing their alignment to an internal desire to distance themselves from Russia and cleave to the West. In Putin's mind this must be a Western Plot.
4. Putin is already fighting an illegal and undeclared war in Ukraine and he is now engaged in a game of Brinkmanship with the NATO Bloc, if he is not checked he will believe he can escalate, and the more he escalates the more likely "checking" him will actually involve open warfare.
As to my "love" of war - I've just been more honest that most men and admitted that a part of me finds the prospect thrilling - but a part of me finds the prospect of jumping off a cliff without a parachute thrilling too. I don't think either is a good idea, or morally defensible.