ISIS on the offensive in Iraq

[Husar]

Isn't Erdogan already bombing the kurds?

[Tuuvi]

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.

[Brenus]

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.

[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.

[rvg]

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.

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.
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 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).

If Putin get bogged down, that's Putin's problem. The more problems Putin has, the better.

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 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.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

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.

The Kurds set a bad precedent for similar Muslim groups in Russia.

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.

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.

[rvg]

The Kurds set a bad precedent for similar Muslim groups in Russia.

IMHO they are too far away from Russia for their example to matter.

[Gilrandir]

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.

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.

[Brenus]

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.

[Gilrandir]

Once again, don't underestimated Putin. He is not bog down in Ukraine, he's got what he wanted, a neutralised Ukraine.

I thought we have had this out.

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.

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.

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.

[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.

[Gilrandir]

"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.

You choose to focus only on Ukraine's losses (which are no doubt significant) disregarding the setbacks Russia suffered.

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.

"if zink boxes start pouring from Syria" IF, and IF, Russia can do what USA did for Afghanistan, hind them.

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.


And on why Putin is making a bad mistake with Syria:
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/30/op...ollection&_r=1

[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.

[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.

[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.

[Gilrandir]

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

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.

[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.

[Husar]

No, like bombing Vietnam in order to weaken China.

If that would allow Japan to conquer Vietnam, how would it weaken the position of US allies?

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?

[AE Bravo]

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.

As if the other groups haven't already made this narrative.

[HopAlongBunny]

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...

[Greyblades]

Likewise they will defend/ignore any shortcomings, even at the UN; even in the face of clear evidence.

What do you mean "even at the UN"? The UN's been run by toothless fools for decades.

[Myth]

A GoPro cam attached to a Su-24M.

[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?

Like I pointed out in the post right above yours, it benefits IS if they take the territory instead of Assad.

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.

[CrossLOPER]

Like I pointed out in the post right above yours, it benefits IS if they take the territory instead of Assad.

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.

This is fun. We should do this more often.

[AE Bravo]

IS, the only remaining rebel group in Syria, conquers the rest of Syria and now has a proper caliphate. Everyone lived happily ever after.

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.

Whip up your magic lamp and tell us what happens next.

[Husar]

Like I pointed out in the post right above yours, it benefits IS if they take the territory instead of Assad.

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?

[Brenus]

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.