Russians in Syria

[Max 86]

Funny that no one mentions that they are going for control of the oil in the ME. That is what the U.S. is usually blamed for. If the Russians are going to do anything outside of Syria after occupying Syria, here is a simple map for reference. Where would they go? There are the Turks to the north, not a great history between them but is that really worth it? Otherwise it is a great jumping off point into several oil rich nations. Just saying... Hey, has anyone heard anything about Jordan? Yhey have to be feeling some of this heat from their neighbor?

[delete1]

Lack of common cause risks handing Syria to ISIS

September 21, 2015 Fyodor Lukyanov, Rossiyskaya Gazeta

Political analyst Fyodor Lukyanov discusses why there is no united front in the struggle against ISIS.


An official representative of the US administration has warned Russia that it risks being isolated if it continues supporting Bashar al-Assad’s regime in Syria. Other western leaders are also concerned, albeit rather vaguely – no one has a clear idea of what should be done in the crisis zone. The two camps fall broadly into those opposed to Russian troops entering the conflict and those who think they might just achieve what hand-wringing and western air strikes have failed to.

If we distance ourselves from the ideological preconceptions that colour all views of Russia, we may understand why there is no united front in the struggle against the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIS), even though all agree such an approach is desperately needed.

There are a range of basic discrepancies, either stated or implicit. First, ISIS is seen as a terrorist group, which is why everyone is speaking about an anti-terrorist campaign. This is not the right definition.The problem can be traced back to the beginning of the 2000s when the international fight against terrorism, declared by the Bush administration, stimulated processes that culminated in the current chaos.

Also, even if the world is now confronted by terrorism, ISIS represents a new type and level of terrorism. The Islamists headed by Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi are overrunning and destroying the institutional structure of the Middle East, intent on rebuilding not only the ideological but also the national and political order.

ISIS deserves to be countered by the most serious measures using the most modern arsenal that countries have at their disposal. The West continues viewing ISIS through the prism of familiar concepts of the fight against terrorism, while Russia is inclined to take up measures that are usually characteristic of interstate wars.

Ideas about Syria’s future also do not correspond. The West’s obsession with Assad is related to the question of who will manage Syria after the conflict. Here, the original meaning of the talks on sharing powers with the opposition, the renewal of the Geneva process and so on, come into focus.

Russia supported the Geneva and the Moscow processes, albeit with its own agenda, but now it is convinced that the challenge is much more acute. The problem is what will happen to the Syria that existed before. The country has practically been divided into zones of control (or lack thereof) and it is difficult to imagine the reconstruction of former statehood. Now, the question is: where will it be possible to dig in to stop the advance of ISIS?

It is clear that the issue of power in a reformatted system, whatever it may be called in the future, will arise. No doubt power will have to be shared, but first it is important to understand what exactly will remain.

As for the present, many in Moscow reasonably believe that a coalition in the conditions of a massive external attack is good only when the various forces, having set their differences aside, sincerely unite against a common enemy. That is not the case in Syria. Both the government and the opposition’s level of obstinacy is close to absolute. And to use force to impose co-operation in such a situation (theoretically external players can try to achieve this) means condemning the coalition to immediate failure with a clear result: the enthronement of ISIS in Damascus.

So despite the above-mentioned divergences, is it possible for the leading players to reach an agreement on joint actions in Syria? The inflows of refugees to Europe and its complete inability to do anything about it is quickly changing the public’s mood in the Old World. Now the mood is dominated by the opinion that, to stop the situation, Europe should do everything possible and not on its territory.

The American position is dictated by a tangle of various motifs, but in general it is no longer monolithic. Public declarations and real views do not always correspond, while opposition to Moscow is determined not by the desire to remove Assad, but by fears that Russia will strengthen its position in the region. But this is an issue of a rational balance of interests, which is always easier to solve (though still very difficult) in comparison to when the situation concerns ideological preferences.

It is clear that by initiating the anti-ISIS campaign and getting more involved in Middle Eastern intrigues, Russia is taking risks. Besides the threat of material and, more importantly, human losses (which cannot be denied, especially considering the inhumane enemy that will be opposed), there are always doubts related to reaching the objective. There are no guarantees of success, especially in this complex situation where everyone is fighting multiple enemies, and so-called allies are stabbing each other in the back. Russian public opinion must prepare itself for various scenarios.

It should also be recognised that Russia’s decision to participate more actively in the Syrian battle is informed by its past experience. In international politics, it is action and not criticism that is valued above all else.

Although it is action that wins points and elevates status, the opposite may occur. However, without risk there is no “Big Game”.

- http://rbth.com/opinion/2015/09/21/lack ... 49435.html)

[TheWombat_matrixforum]

ORIGINAL: Max 86

Funny that no one mentions that they are going for control of the oil in the ME. That is what the U.S. is usually blamed for. If the Russians are going to do anything outside of Syria after occupying Syria, here is a simple map for reference. Where would they go? There are the Turks to the north, not a great history between them but is that really worth it? Otherwise it is a great jumping off point into several oil rich nations. Just saying... Hey, has anyone heard anything about Jordan? Yhey have to be feeling some of this heat from their neighbor?

I've always felt the oil angle has been overplayed, for a variety of reasons. For instance, in 1990, when the Iraqis invaded Kuwait, there was never any risk to oil supplies. Saddam would have sold that oil just like the Kuwaitis. After all, you can't eat it. Maybe Islamic State would blow it all up but even those folks need money. And as oil continues its long, slow, slide into the twilight, while still a vital resource it is no longer the sort of thing that panicked people as it did back in the 1970s.

Besides, the Russians have so much oil that one of their problems is that the price is too low and they can't sell it at enough of a profit to fund their ambitions. I guess we could craft a way-out-there hypothesis of Russians trying to control Middle East oil to raise prices, but that's pretty much fantasy. As the map shows, Syria is far from, well, anywhere useful. It looks fairly close, but that's an awful lot of (hostile and crawling with nasty people) desert between Latakia and even western Iraq. And there's no way anyone would let the Russians physically occupy that area, even if they could. Hell, the US and its partners didn't have enough personnel to really occupy and pacify just Iraq.

But, there's a good point here nonetheless--the presence of a substantial Russian military force (and even if small, it's high-quality, trained, and presumably very capable) in the region shifts the balance a bit, and makes Russia a player in a way they haven't been before. I think that's the main reason for all of this--backup to Assad, sure, but also to get the Russians skin in the game.

Unfortunately, it all reeks of the Imperial era and things like the Moroccan Crisis and Fashoda at times....

[ivanov]

And Su-24M2's enter the fray


subir imagenes gratis

There's also an info by US DoD, that Russians are building two bases outside Lattakia. It seems that they are there to stay [X(]

[Stimpak]

Honestly, I'm excited to see Russia come down with the hammer on ISIS. Maybe their incursions in Dagestan were a good enough excuse?

[TheWombat_matrixforum]

It will be interesting to see if they actually do anything, or just sit there looking pretty. I'm pretty sure they won't begin ops against ISIS in the near term, while the coalition is doing so, because the risk for unintentional clashes between the different groups pounding ISIS is too great. And I can't really see the US and Russia teaming up on ISIS, though that might actually not be a bad idea.

[ivanov]

It looks like the airstrikes by Russian expeditionary regiment are quite possible. But I really doubt that Russian ground troops will be involved in any serious combat. They need some special forces for CSAR missions, marines to protect the bases and more special forces to train the Assad's troops. Maybe we'll see some artillery which has been a very effective Russian force multiplier in Ukraine.

[TheWombat_matrixforum]

The problem with any Russian air activity is interaction with the coalition. Unless there's some sort of effective, even if clandestine, coordination, Bad Things will happen.

[ivanov]

5 Russian Weapons of War ISIS Should Fear

[ivanov]

Aircraft:


subirimagenes


And vehicles:


imagenes gratis

[JosephM]

I was reading about this on the BBC, and although it stops the UK interest of a no-fly zone it seems to otherwise not be a bad idea of combating ISIS, as long as the coaltion and Assad/Russia don't interfere with each other. Time will tell.

But I think the new theory is that Assad would stay in power for at least the short term, although Europe still wants him out, as there isn't much of an alternative.

[ivanov]

I think that the West isn't so hell-bent on removing Assad, as it used to be up until now. The real question is, if the Russians are really going to strike IS. So far Assad was fighting everyone else, except for the Islamic State.

[ivanov]

Enter Fullbacks


http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-bu ... troy-13964

[delete1]

Mother Russia, make those lunatics pray for their god!

Defense Minister Shoigu has informed other members of the Collective Security Treaty Organization that the Russian jets were carrying out strikes on ISIL positions.

Russian combat jets have launched first 'pinpointed' airstrikes on positions of Islamic State militants in Syria, the Defense Ministry said Wednesday.

"In accordance with the decision by Supreme Commander of Russian Armed Forces Vladimir Putin, aircraft from the Russian Aerospace Force began today an operation which involves precision airstrikes on Islamic State land-based targets in Syria," spokesman Maj. Gen. Igor Konashenkov said.

According to Konashenkov, Defense Minister Sergei Shoigu has informed other members of the Collective Security Treaty Organization that the Russian jets carry out strikes on IS military hardware, arms and fuel depots.

Read more: http://sputniknews.com/middleeast/20150 ... z3nEw5vHhU

[TheWombat_matrixforum]

Well, there's some debate over just what was hit and what the results were, but that's pretty much par for the course in Syria no matter who is doing the bombing.

[Stimpak]

I'm pretty sure the airstrike was hitting targets north of Homs. Where the FSA is operating.
Nevertheless, Syria (And the middle east in general) is a sad situation, created by us, made worse by us, and now it's our job to try and fix it.
Let's just hope we do it right this time.

[ivanov]

On sustainability of Russian air campaign

While much of the media attention has focused on advanced Russian warplanes like the Sukhoi Su-30SM Flanker-H multirole fighter and Su-34 Fullback, U.S. Air Force officials note that there are only four each of those late-generation jets present in the theatre. Russia’s real combat power in the region comes from its force of two-dozen Su-25 Frogfoot close air support aircraft and Su-24 Fencer bombers.

Another recently retired U.S. Air Force official said, “Four jets might buy you eight to twelve sorties in a twenty-four hour period for a few days, but the pace wouldn't be sustainable,” the former official said. A typical squadron needs a minimum of six aircraft to sustain operations. “More likely they brought four to launch, plus two reserves—one spare and one in repairs.”

[delete1]

Russian Jets Carry Out 20 Sorties Against ISIL Targets in Syria

MOSCOW (Sputnik) — Russian military jets deployed in Syria on Wednesday carried out some 20 combat missions striking at least eight ISIL targets located in mountainous regions, the Russian Defense Ministry said.

Konashenkov added that all sorties were carried out after thorough reconnaissance and close coordination with the Syrian army.

He also stressed that the Russian planes did not target civilian facilities or their vicinity.

Russia, Iran, Iraq, and Syria have recently created an information center in Baghdad in order to coordinate the fight against the Islamic State. The information center’s main goals are to provide reconnaissance on the number of IS militants, their weapons, and their movements.

Earlier this week, it was revealed that the new center would begin operations in October or November and be headed by Russian, Syrian, Iraqi and Iranian officers on a three-month rotational basis.

Read more: http://sputniknews.com/middleeast/20150 ... z3nGgzDx10

[delete1]

Russia Expands Fleet in Syria With Jets That Can Attack Targets on Ground

WASHINGTON — Russia has sharply increased the number of combat aircraft at an air base near Latakia, Syria, giving its forces a new ability to strike targets on the ground in the war-stricken country.

Over the weekend, Russia deployed a dozen Su-24 Fencer and a dozen Su-25 Frogfoot ground-attack planes, bringing to 28 the number of warplanes at the base, a senior United States official said on Monday. Until the weekend, the only combat planes there had been four Flanker air-to-air fighters.

The deployment of some of Russia’s most advanced ground attack planes and fighter jets as well as multiple air defense systems at the base near the ancestral home of President Bashar al-Assad appears to leave little doubt about Moscow’s goal to establish a military outpost in the Middle East. The planes are protected by at least two or possibly three SA-22 surface-to-air, antiaircraft systems, and unarmed Predator-like surveillance drones are being used to fly reconnaissance missions.

“With competent pilots and with an effective command and control process, the addition of these aircraft could prove very effective depending on the desired objectives for their use,” said David A. Deptula, a retired three-star Air Force general who planned the American air campaigns in 2001 in Afghanistan and in the 1991 Persian Gulf war.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/22/world ... .html?_r=0

[TheWombat_matrixforum]

Right now the strikes are for political value (well, everyone's strikes are for political value, sure, but the coalition operation is a hell of a lot bigger, and hence, potentially more effective in practical terms). The number one impact will be to bolster the regime's morale, and give them some corseting as they try to figure out a way to hang on. It's also a very clear message to all of the anti-Assad groups: you can't get rid of Assad without going through Putin. In other words, Russia has pretty much thrown down the gauntlet to the groups opposed to the regime. There is zero chance at this point that Moscow would let Assad fall; they've put their prestige on the line, and Damascus now has a fighting chance.

Very little of the tactical and technical stuff matters; air planes are pretty much air planes when you're blowing up guys in Toyotas.