Russia jumping into the Syrian civil war

[revelations]

So the Americans couldnt make anything work in Syria - except to destabilize the area (which seems to be their end game) .... whats the take on Russia suddenly jumping into the party at the request of Assad?

Even Israel doesent really care all that much.

[Robin Goodfellow]

Originally posted by revelations
Even Israel doesent really care all that much.

Ummm ya. No surprise.

Syria used to have the single best Anti Aircraft defense in the middle east. it kept Israel out of its airspace.

This shield is no longer in effect.

The Israelis are happy to see sand monkeys killing sand monkeys.

It's like Jew Christmas.

[frizzlefry]

Russia hasn't jumped into anything. They have been supplying Assad for the while. They are officially allies. Russia is just increasing support. With the end goal of having more control in the region of course.

This is hardly surprising. More power to them. If they have the balls to do what needs doing and wipe ISIS out then at least negotiations in the region will be about something tangible like natural gas and not sharia law or some religious bullshit.

[Toma]

Within just a few days, Russia has decimated a huge part of ISIS in Syria. They also have their special ops guys on the ground. The first few campaigns are said to be so successful, that Iraq had asked the Russians for help as well fighting ISIS there.

Like the rest of the sane world, they dont care about a 2 front war, and helping ISIS get rid of Assad, while at the same tike claiming to be fighting Isis.

Fucking crooked Americans. They will never do what's right.

[Feruk]

Originally posted by Toma
Within just a few days, Russia has decimated a huge part of ISIS in Syria.

Lol... Before a couple cruise missile strikes, they've been targeting everyone except IS.

[codetrap]

.

[Mitsu3000gt]

Haven't they been hitting everything BUT ISIS? That's what every other country and every major news outlet is reporting anyway.

[ZenOps]

I think the US is just sore that they didn't wipe them all out (Assad and ISIS) with one swipe. Now that Russia is taking a stab at it, they might get the spoils that were softened up by US forces.

Or not. It still might take a few more years.

[codetrap]

.

[revelations]

Essentially most of the main-stream media from either the US or Russia is not to be trusted. I was hoping to find some information outside this.

There are probably half-dozen governments in the "Levant" area with troops on the ground so its a total cluster fuck of who is supporting who. There is also the danger that Russia might bomb Americans as well.

Russia claims strikes against "key" targets, but there is really no easy to way to tell with certainty if that means that they suceeded where America failed.

[eblend]

American's bombed a hospital and yet all you see in the Western media is that Russia is exposing itself to prosecution for war crimes for being an accomplice to Assad. The attitude of "our shit don't stink" is so blatantly obvious it hurts.

There were reports from Western media that Russia was bombing civilian areas....before the planes even took off....so don't believe everything you hear, from any news source. They are all biased as shit. It's an information war, which seems to be more important then the real war on the ground.

I love the "Russia isn't helping and pouring fuel on the fire", "They have a very poor strategy"..."They will not succeed"....coming from American's who so far have managed to supply "moderate" rebels with weapons which end up in ISIS hands...and trained like 6 people...and no tangible results.....and they think that this is the winning strategy?

Instead of concentrating on regime change they should maybe defeat ISIS first, then deal with Assad. Assad maybe an asshole, but he is an elected president, who is the USA to tell them who is to run the country. Seems like majority of the countries are warming up to the idea that perhaps Assad issues should be put to rest for now and to deal with ISIS first.

[revelations]

America only seems interested in de-stabilizing regions. Assad/Hussein/Qadaffi were both able to bring different religions of people together (even if by brutal force).

As this has been going on for 100s of years, the doctrine of American exceptionalism still applies. America is special and can do what the F it wants ....

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_exceptionalism

[Kloubek]

I know this may not be popular opinion, but this bombing campaign is destined for failure.... as is any bombing against those lead by a radical movement. The fact is that you can only safely kill a fraction of those involved - and of those who you don't manage to kill, it only fuels their resolve.

Add to that collateral civilian damage, and you're turning non extremists into moderate extremists and moderate extremists into radical extremists.

It's always a losing battle. You would have thought that the US and others would have taken note of what occurred in Afghanistan, whereby the Taliban were not at all wiped out despite overwhelming air AND ground attack. In fact, their numbers now are noticeably higher than when the campaign against them began.... you just don't hear about it anymore. And in Iraq, where after the US left the factions filled in the void which lead to even more violence which continues to this day.

In this case, you're fighting an even more radical movement, with fighters who are even more committed to the cause. Like any other radical movement, they can mix with the public and hide in places you simply can't get to them. They have no problem with hanging out until the coast is clear. Meanwhile, coalition forces are pouring money into maintaining military buildup in the region.

In addition to that, Canada and other coalition countries have now become even more of a target for terrorism than we would have been had we just kept our nose out of it.

But why would we do that? ISIS is a horrible entity who does unfathomable things to people. The world needs to stand up against people like this. Maybe. But then, what did developed nations do to combat ethnic cleansing in Sudan since the early 2000's, where half a million of died and 2 million have lost their homes? How about the near useless force developed nations provided in Rwanda where a million lost their lives?

The fact is that as horrible as these situations are, genocide and wars have been going on for thousands of years. It's hard enough to intervene as a peacekeeping force (which I agree with), let alone launching offensive military attacks which aren't and will not work. The US-led coalition is really doing themselves a disservice, considering they want Assad out anyway.

I personally believe we are best off leaving the fighting to those who have a direct interest in the region... like Russia and Arab nations. If concerns over terrorism here in Canada are so high, I'd rather see an increase of funding instead going into stopping home grown terrorism and ensuring radicals are not entering the country. I'd also like to see a portion of the funding going towards direct humanitarian aid. I don't want to see ANY funding into offensive strikes which don't work. Yet another topic Harper and I don't see eye-to-eye on. Here's an interesting article on the Liberal position. (I even agree with the NDP more for their position as well.)

https://www.liberal.ca/speech-justin...ng-into-syria/

[n1zm0]

Originally posted by Mitsu3000gt
Haven't they been hitting everything BUT ISIS? That's what every other country and every major news outlet is reporting anyway.

They went there to protect their interests mostly imo, the only Mediterranean base they have is in Tartus which has been there since the 70s iirc. Only just yesterday they started directing operations against IS.

Of course looking like they want to help the world fight against IS looks good overall but their allegiance is to Assad, hence the first round attacks on the rebels primarily.

Iraq's government also has just expressed interest in the Russians helping them fight IS in their country, basically saying to the US, thnx but you're doing a shitty job.

edit: Toma already said most of this, nvm

[Darell_n]

How many residents haven't left as refuges? They should have a deadline after which the coalition will kill everything on the ground that is human. After a year they can give it back to the refuges as clean land.

[Kloubek]

Originally posted by Darell_n
How many residents haven't left as refuges? They should have a deadline after which the coalition will kill everything on the ground that is human. After a year they can give it back to the refuges as clean land.

Good luck with that. I see so many issues:

- Not everyone will be willing to leave their homes. Those that don't will be killed... and regardless of whether that was their choice or not, that would be an impossibly huge black eye for the coalition. It just wouldn't happen.
- Once an area is "cleaned", who is going to ensure it remains that way? The Syrian military can't get the job done as it is, so you're looking for coalition to put boots on the ground there. Highly unlikely.
- By cleaning in your scenario, it basically means demolishing what little is left. Which means the land the Syrians come back to will have to be completely rebuilt. It's in rough shape right now, no doubt, but asking everyone to rebuild puts the blame on us.
- You aren't possibly going to be able to kill everyone from the air. Again, totally clearing an area will require combat troops on the ground.

There are a few other reasons I don't think it would work... but the above is enough I think. But to answer your question, I believe about 9 million have left, with a population of 22 million total.

[Mitsu3000gt]

Maybe Russia's involvement is for the best. They are far less likely to GAF about things like rules of engagement and such, against people who know these rules and use them to their advantage with women, children, etc. Downside is probably more collateral damage, but it might be more effective in the end.

[01RedDX]

.

[revelations]

Originally posted by 01RedDX

+1

Currently all sources agree that the Russians are building up a sizable ground force battalion.



LOL

Would love to see your source for that.

Must be why IAF planes used to regularly bomb terrorists and Hezbollah weapons convoys on the ground in Syria AND buzzed Assad's palace for good measure, on a regular basis.

The Syrians USED to have a very good setup. Not for a while.....

In 2009 IAF bombed a new nuclear facility in Syria with the help of American electronic warfare aircraft. Essentially telling the Syrian radars that nothing was there.
Fact is stranger than fiction sometimes.....

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Orchard

[killramos]

So all these people were going to be bombed anyways. I would much rather see the russians paying the bill for all the bombs than us