ISIS on the offensive in Iraq

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

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.

[Montmorency]

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...

[Viking]

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.

[Husar]

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.

Seems like Russia is taking a far more active role in the fight against Islamic terrorism, wouldn't that be a good thing?

[Tuuvi]

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.

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.

[Crandar]

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.

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.
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.

[Fragony]

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.

Seems like Russia is taking a far more active role in the fight against Islamic terrorism, wouldn't that be a good thing?

I think they are more interested in the FSA

[Gilrandir]

Seems like Russia is taking a far more active role in the fight against Islamic terrorism, wouldn't that be a good thing?

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.

[rvg]

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.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

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.

[Gilrandir]

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.

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.

[Ice]

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.

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.

[Viking]

So it's not okay to strike the other nasty Islamist groups then?

If you want to weaken IS, starting by attacking their enemies is not a good idea.

[Brenus]

"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.

[Gilrandir]

"The latest polls never show a figure below 60%." Including the "Ukrainian Russian" territories?. And it is in fact irrelevant.

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.

Until Ukraine is reunited in a "peaceful" manner, even 100 % would not be enough.

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.

"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.

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?
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.

[Husar]

If you want to weaken IS, starting by attacking their enemies is not a good idea.

You mean like how you support the Taliban in order to weaken the Soviets?

[AE Bravo]

If you want to weaken IS, starting by attacking their enemies is not a good idea.

Don't see how making the only solution to IS stronger is a bad idea.

[Viking]

You mean like how you support the Taliban in order to weaken the Soviets?

No, like bombing Vietnam in order to weaken China.

Don't see how making the only solution to IS stronger is a bad idea.

It might just make IS stronger instead. Let's see who's better at filling any vacuum - IS or the dictator.

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.