Syria in 2017 (January-April)

[OUTLAW 09]

Not a good day for the Russian MoD....pilot crashes a new MIG 35 and their spy ship gets sunk by a ship full of cattle....

A livestock vessel in the Black Sea has just done more than the entire Western world to stop Russia's war crimes in Syria.

Correction..there was no cattle in the ship.....

It takes 8800 sheep to sink a Russian Navy intelligence ship. Quite an ammo.

Turkish RUMINT

Asuming the sinking of the Russian spy ship was really an MIT (Turkish intel) top secret op -- and its covername was Operation BAAAAAAA.

[Azor]

Outlaw,

RE: Cluster Munitions and Incendiary Weapons

The U.S. produces and uses cluster munitions, and neither it nor allies Israel and Saudi Arabia - which have used cluster munitions in Lebanon, Gaza and Yemen - are signatories to the Convention on Cluster Munitions. In addition, neither the U.S. nor Israel are signatories to the Protocol on Prohibitions or Restrictions on the use of Incendiary Weapons.

According to the U.S. State Dept. in 2008:

Cluster munitions are available for use by every combat aircraft in the U.S. inventory, they are integral to every Army or Marine maneuver element and in some cases constitute up to 50 percent of tactical indirect fire support. U.S. forces simply cannot fight by design or by doctrine without holding out at least the possibility of using cluster munitions

.

CrowBat is actually correct Russia would not have intervened back in 2013...simple as that...had in fact Obama struck Assad in 2013 FULLY grounding his capabilities of any bombing/CW use...we definitely would not be seeing Russia now in Syria…so says Lister...Hassan and Orton as well...if one listens to their public interviews.

Nyet. You have no way of knowing how Putin would have proceeded had Obama launched a TLAM strike in 2013. Arguably, Obama would have done nothing after delivering a slap on the wrist so long as Assad demurred from using Sarin again.

Russia intervened after they detected the inability and or the non-desire by Obama to engage on the Sunni side...

Nyet. Russia intervened when Assad was in danger of being defeated by the rebels in 2015.

…you will fully understand what CrowBat and myself have been saying...had Obama taken forceful actions in Syria in 2013 Russia would not have acted in support to Assad...it really is that simple…

Nyet. Had Obama launched a punitive airstrike in 2013, Putin would have intervened earlier. The U.S. was in no position to impose aerial supremacy and/or a blockade before the Russians could establish themselves. Moreover, I do not see U.S. pilots shooting down Russian aircraft for violating a no-fly zone.

... a solid indicator that one was supporting the other as Putin definitely knew Clinton would respond to him in Syria…

Clinton would have likely been more confrontational, but the fact that Putin would rather avoid confrontation if possible does not suggest that he would countenance direct U.S. intervention against Assad.

Unfortunately, both you and CrowBat seem to be applying binary choices to this situation when it is more an issue of nuances and tweaks. That is the same fallacy that proponents of a complete withdrawal from Syria are making.

Both of you will have to admit that to achieve your preferences will require a major and long-term U.S. commitment in and to Syria, well above and beyond the effort made to protect the KAR in Iraq. Regime change is the least of it. We are talking about state-building, peacekeeping and policing on the ground, economic reconstruction, de-radicalization, inter-sectarian and ethnic integration, truth and reconciliation and probably the demarcation of new international boundaries.

[Azor]

First a horde of wild boars overrun a Daesh position and kill several terrorists. Now, seafaring sheep have sunk a Russian spy ship. We need to deploy them off of King's Bay, Georgia...

[CrowBat]

I never claimed that you were an advocate for a U.S. military intervention, but that you believed that such intervention would have gone unchallenged.

Ah that. Yes, and I remain at that standpoint.

There is no way the Russians would 'merely ignore a blockade: they would never do that.

The principle of Putlerist style of war is that of demonstrating military power, but doing nothing that might risk an open military confrontation. Nobody else is more aware of all the PRBS about the Russian military, but Putler himself.

Point is: Putler is not seeking a military confrontation. He's seeking to avoid one. His idiotic pilots overflying USN's destroyers at low altitude is little else but a BS-itting bravado: they know better than anybody else, they couldn't get near that warship in any kind of a serious conflict scenario.

But that's it. Putin needs no war. War is bad for business. Moreover, bribing East European demagogues and various chauvinists in the EU, forging elections in the USA, France, Germany etc. works so far better - and is a lot cheaper too.

I do not understand how comes so many of 'you' are all too blind to see this...?

(And indeed, I am certainly going to get white-mad should anybody now come to explain me about 'Supermoderne Russische Armee' and similar BS. Keep that for such clowns like Harald Kujat & Co KG GesmbH, please. As if there is any necessity to discuss this any more... hell the Russians TODAY can't operate their FAC in Syria in the way the US military did back during the Korean War... their super-turbo Sukhois have NOW got the CCIP nav/attack systems comparable with those of the F-16A from 1976... and their 10 satellites in the orbit, and net-centric warfare, and 80 UAVs in Syria and whatever else aren't worth talking about... they threw themelves harum scarum into an adventure in Syria precisely because they were sure the USA wouldn't go there under any conditions - and now, they have no clue how to get out of there...)

Neither Turkey, Iraq nor Lebanon can control their borders in the first place it seems, to say nothing of the lack of political will in Iraq and Lebanon to do so in opposition to Iran.

Meh... Turkey can, and very much indeed. Iraq can't - but this is the case 'only' since the Daesh's spill-over into Iraq of 2014. Thank you Oblabla.

And - and various international laws and regulations by side (heh, the Pentagon can't care less if it's violating the US law that strictly prohibits cooperation with the PKK...) - since when was Lebanon a problem for anybody who wants to pass by, please?

What of Syria’s extensive coastline, the Russian base at Tartus and Russia’s cozy relations with nearby Cyprus?

Please Azor, get serious: a 'military base' of one power on some foreign soil is de-facto a colony of sort. A place where there are serious and active military facilities, where there is a military activity, where there is military and civilian housing, military police etc. Hell, every decent US military base abroad has got its own McDonald's or Burger King too.

Tartous was no Russian base until September 2015. The Russians had some storage depot and quasi 'their own' 200-300 metres of the docks, plus four guards for that. Even today, it's no serious facility: many of Russian ships hauling supplies for Hmmemm and elsewhere are unloading in Lattakia instead: it's closer to the airbase, and can do its business much quicker.

And Russia's relations with Cyprus were as 'cozy' - until the Russians completely ruined the Cypriot financial system and indebted the country for 100 years in advance. Ever since, even the staunchest Greek-Cypriot chauvinists and Putler-lovers have shut up. Enough said.

Bottom line: sorry, you're trying to discuss something that makes no sense discussing. That's kid stuff. Putler went to Syria because he was sure Oblabla wouldn't. Indeed, because the Iranians told them that Oblabla promised Tehran he wouldn't. And Iranians could do so because Oblabla told them so.

But you're day-dreaming about Russians doing what in the case of a US military intervention in Syria...?

All they could do in such a case would be to make their choice shall they watch it, live - via CNN or the RT.

[CrowBat]

What was the actual reason I came here this evening...?

Ah yes... here comes the next glorious act of the mighty, highly professional and endlessly estimated US military.

The pooh CENTCOM-boys can't stop whining about bad, bad, oh-so-bad Turks smashing their terrorist friends of the PKK: US: Turkey gave about 20 minutes notice before Syria strikes

Oh boy, how could they...?

The strike obviously endangered US troops cooperating directly with the PKK. Then, it's not as if professional military units deployed in the field - like US troops 'not' deployed in northern Syria (because, at least officially, the USA still have 'no boots on the ground' there) - should be able of moving out at 5-15 minutes notice. Any time. Isn't it?

Well, the very same Turkish troops declared 'incompetent' by the very same CENTCOM, are drilled to do so within 10 minutes.

So, when does the CENTCOM as next? Sends its proud and distinguished officers to demonstratively show themselves in the public together with worst sort of PKK's terrorists...

Hand on heart: what does the CENTCOM expect? The Turks to provide a 24-hours advance warning so the USA can inform the PKK terrorists that are fighting Turkey since 30+ years on time...?

****

Another 'pearl' about that affair: most of PKK/PYDYPG/YPJ units hit by Turks in this attack were those from the Efrin enclave.

Hey CENTCOM: you ever consult the map of the area you're talking about?

I know: things can get damn complex in the Middle East. But, any clue where is Efrin?

That's the north-western corner of Syria. The Kurds there are isolated from the outside world since five years: well, until they made friends with Assadists and the Russians. And, as firm as they always are, in the meantime they declared themselves the SDF - i.e. 'US supported'.

Now, sure: they never got an ounce of any kind of US support (well, not until now), nor ever fought the Daesh as a part of the SDF. But hey: they're Marxist terrorists of the PKK, which means they know everything better. It thus doesn't matter if for the last five years they were attacking the FSyA in the Azaz area (don't forget them parading 30+ bodies of Syrian revolutionaries KIA last year, 'Daesh-style', on the streets of Efrin) or ethnically cleansed 45,000 Arabs out of Tel Rifa'at - before looting that town to the last screw they were able to get out of that place.

And when they've got nothing better to do then they fight Turkey - the very same NATO-ally of the USA, from which soil the USA are running operations in support of the PKK - and that in a direct violation of US laws prohibiting any kind of cooperation with the PKK, because this is designated a terrorist organization.

Some lovely allies there, so much is sure.

But, heh, that's what one gets when the (quasi) democratically elected civilian administration completely loses the control of the Pentagon, and then the Department of Defence runs the US foreign policy - instead of the State Department (which, BTW, could be against certain laws and regulations in the USA... or couldn't it...? Hm... who can say nowadays....). This, of course, 'never happened'. Then, this is impossible to happen in the 'craddle of democracy'. Therefore, a process that began already under Oblabla, and is nowadays a tragic reality - even more so considering the Trump admin failed to appoint 47 positions under Mattis - 'never happened'.

Wonderful.

What a surprise then, when one reads stories of this kind:
Right now the Department of Defense can't even keep track of where a carrier is or where it is headed

[CrowBat]

BTW No. 2...

Reading about this morning's Israeli air strike on Damascus IAP - which seems to have smashed three Iranian airliners hauling IRGC's jihadists and their arms to Syria... reminded me to the following article, related to the last-month's Israeli air strike on one of best-protected parts of Syria still held by Assadists: Israel Destroyed Dozens of Hezbollah-bound Missiles in Last Syria Raid, Officer Says

The Israel Air Force destroyed around 100 Syrian missiles in its attack last month on weapons in Syria − many of which were due to be delivered to Hezbollah, a senior Israeli officer said Tuesday.

The officer, however, did not give details on the kind of missiles that were destroyed.

The episode marked a rare admission that Israel had taken military action in Syria, and the officer said the Israel Defense Forces had acted “not once” in similar situations.

Last month’s attack triggered an immediate retaliation by the Assad regime, which fired SA-5 surface-to-air missiles at the Israeli planes, marking a stark change in Syrian policy. None of the Israeli jets were damaged.
...

...makes me wonder where are the USAF's champions of SEAD/DEAD now, to declare such operations for 'impossible', or at least 'too dangerous'...?

I'll spend the rest of this evening waiting for some of my contacts in the DC to explain me that these are the Israelis, and they can walk on the water...

[Azor]

Yes, and I remain at that standpoint. There is no way the Russians would 'merely ignore a blockade: they would never do that.

It is stubborn and wishful thinking. A unilateral blockade against a client state of theirs?

Russian aircraft and vessels already engage in dangerous maneuvers in international airspace and on the high seas, and ignore NATO air defense identification zones and even sovereign airspace. Yet there has not been so much as a radar lock-on in response.

Moreover, the blockade would be largely unenforced as it would take time for the U.S. to assemble and deploy the assets necessary to enforce it, giving Russia lead time to ignore it.

These challenges are of course separate from any Iranian resistance, which would probably be kinetic and deniable, with various Shia militias operating anti-aircraft weaponry.

Such a NFZ would have about as much teeth as China’s ADIZ in the East China Sea.

Remember how the West dealt with Stalin's blockade of West Berlin in 1948-1949[/URL]? Who won that round? Remember the Cuban Crisis? Even then the U.S. was not settled on how to deal with Soviet blockade runners, despite the much higher stakes and the fact that the crisis was Soviet-instigated.

More recently:

• The NFZ in northern Iraq required the addition of a No-Drive Zone
• Operation Allied Force nearly failed to coerce Serb forces to retreat from Kosovo, and a ground invasion was being considered before Belgrade backed down
• The NFZ in Libya was enhanced with airstrikes on ground targets, arms to the rebels and the deployment of Qatari special forces

Point is: Putler is not seeking a military confrontation. He's seeking to avoid one.

He took action in Georgia and Ukraine, despite anxieties over NATO’s response, and intervened in Syria despite the fact that the U.S. was already operating there.

But that's it. Putin needs no war. War is bad for business. Moreover, bribing East European demagogues and various chauvinists in the EU, forging elections in the USA, France, Germany etc. works so far better - and is a lot cheaper too.

Putin doesn’t want another humiliation either, and I do believe that Putin would sacrifice Russian servicemen to U.S. air-to-air missiles if it would tarnish the U.S. as a rogue aggressor in the eyes of its NATO and EU allies. How he dealt with the Su-24 shootdown is instructive here, although that occurred in sovereign Turkish airspace, not a unilaterally imposed no-fly zone in airspace to which Russia was invited to fly.

In Putin’s mind, his use of soft power in Western elections is a response to the Color Revolutions in the former Soviet republics and Serbia, as well as unrest in Russia, all of which he believes is orchestrated by the West. Nor is he far off the mark, as there was an element in the Washington during the Clinton and Bush administrations that coveted Ukraine and Central Asia, and Brussels has more recently been seeking to include Ukraine, Moldova and even Belarus, which would shatter the Moscow-led CIS/CSTO/EAEU integration project.

In addition, to the south and east, Beijing is slowly encroaching on the former Soviet republics in Central Asia, and in particular Kazakhstan, the jewel in the crown. Russia has always been an integration project, and Putin believes that it is being both contained and rolled back by rival projects to the west and the east. Such is the back and forth of the steppes.

...they threw themelves harum scarum into an adventure in Syria precisely because they were sure the USA wouldn't go there under any conditions - and now, they have no clue how to get out of there...

Putin wanted the adventure for the sake of prestige, to spoil U.S. intentions and to provide his ramshackle military with combat experience. His objectives have largely been achieved, and Khamenei was content to allow Putin to showboat in order to avoid sparking opposition to the JCPOA; Obama colluded with Khamenei in this regard. Why would Putin want out? What he doesn’t want is to commit major ground forces and face a hostile population and guerrilla warfare.

Meh...Turkey can, and very much indeed.

So you are supporting the Russian and Syrian narrative that Turkey deliberately allowed Daesh fighters and supporters to criss-cross its border with Syria?

Please Azor, get serious: a 'military base' of one power on some foreign soil is de-facto a colony of sort. A place where there are serious and active military facilities, where there is a military activity, where there is military and civilian housing, military police etc. Hell, every decent US military base abroad has got its own McDonald's or Burger King too. Tartous was no Russian base until September 2015. The Russians had some storage depot and quasi 'their own' 200-300 metres of the docks, plus four guards for that. Even today, it's no serious facility: many of Russian ships hauling supplies for Hmmemm and elsewhere are unloading in Lattakia instead: it's closer to the airbase, and can do its business much quicker.

So what happens during a U.S. naval blockade when the Syrian express sails for Tartus? The USN assets in the Eastern Mediterranean would probably be busy with swarms of Iranian “civilian” craft running the blockade.

Like it or not, U.S. grand strategy does not revolve around the Free Syrian Army. By the way, while the PYD works to gradually and quietly to establish a one-party homogeneous Kurdish state in northern Syria, I wonder what the AKP is up to within the FSA, now that it is the FSA's main benefactor. Is Erdogan supporting the democrats, moderates and secularists in the FSA, while suppressing them at home?

[OUTLAW 09]

Outlaw,

RE: Cluster Munitions and Incendiary Weapons

The U.S. produces and uses cluster munitions, and neither it nor allies Israel and Saudi Arabia - which have used cluster munitions in Lebanon, Gaza and Yemen - are signatories to the Convention on Cluster Munitions. In addition, neither the U.S. nor Israel are signatories to the Protocol on Prohibitions or Restrictions on the use of Incendiary Weapons.

According to the U.S. State Dept. in 2008:

.



Nyet. You have no way of knowing how Putin would have proceeded had Obama launched a TLAM strike in 2013. Arguably, Obama would have done nothing after delivering a slap on the wrist so long as Assad demurred from using Sarin again.



Nyet. Russia intervened when Assad was in danger of being defeated by the rebels in 2015.



Nyet. Had Obama launched a punitive airstrike in 2013, Putin would have intervened earlier. The U.S. was in no position to impose aerial supremacy and/or a blockade before the Russians could establish themselves. Moreover, I do not see U.S. pilots shooting down Russian aircraft for violating a no-fly zone.



Clinton would have likely been more confrontational, but the fact that Putin would rather avoid confrontation if possible does not suggest that he would countenance direct U.S. intervention against Assad.

Unfortunately, both you and CrowBat seem to be applying binary choices to this situation when it is more an issue of nuances and tweaks. That is the same fallacy that proponents of a complete withdrawal from Syria are making.

Both of you will have to admit that to achieve your preferences will require a major and long-term U.S. commitment in and to Syria, well above and beyond the effort made to protect the KAR in Iraq. Regime change is the least of it. We are talking about state-building, peacekeeping and policing on the ground, economic reconstruction, de-radicalization, inter-sectarian and ethnic integration, truth and reconciliation and probably the demarcation of new international boundaries.

I will admit the following and it is actually backed up by actions on the ground not by "grand words coming out of DC...EU or UNSC"......

1. Russia was in no position to react in a Obama air strike via TLAMs in 2013...end of story....just check their military posturing in 2013...it was all focused on eastern Ukraine ramp up.

They had virtually no military expansion power in the ME at that moment in time.....

So stop the argument until you can show me their military power forward positioning that was available to react to any US movement...

There was none....

SECONDLY check the IHL treaties under the use of INCENDIARY cluster munitions against civilians....as well as the use of chlorine....and actually thermobaric weapons against civilians would in fact be also covered....

ALL solid IHL and GC violations.....learn to read international treaties para for para...

BUT WAIT....Assad was on the verge of defeat far earlier when the rebels launched a major offensive....and Putin did not move then.......did he?

BUT you point to something that goes to an article you posted on the Russian propaganda thread....and I replied that one needs to check Russian "actions against Russian words"....

WHY was the year 2015 selected as the entry point into Syria instead of say 2014 or not far earlier if one really just wants to expand influence with little military effort/little political costs?

Because by then Putin fully and completely understood that Obama would do nothing.........AND he fully understood Trump was openly stating that he wanted to work with Putin against IS/AQ in 2016 ----BUT I am assuming he knew this already in 1987........

NOW go back to several articles written in the NYTs right after the Iran deal was concluded and reread the Obama statements focused on thanking Putin for his assistance with the deal....

Analysts stated then that it was possible that Obama as a favor for Putin's assistance was quasi allowing Putin to expand Russian influence into Syria as a guarantor of the deal along with Iran....and as we see today. Russia is the sole instigator of UN peace dealings using this guarantor status granted by Obama that is why the Us went along with it...really reread that Obama statement as it is an eye opener....

Then go to the 2016 20,000 word Obama interview reinforced by the Rhodes 2016 interview...what was his position towards Iran and KSA openly stared in that set of interviews....BTW I critiqued both of those here..

Putin knew he had a clear and approved road into Syria.....

These "ground/FP conditions" were not available to Putin in 2013...so if you believe that they were available...show me.....

So reread and the come back....

[CrowBat]

It is stubborn and wishful thinking. A unilateral blockade against a client state of theirs?

What 'client state', please? What is making Syria of 1988-2015 a 'client state of Russia'?

Russian aircraft and vessels already engage in dangerous maneuvers in international airspace and on the high seas, and ignore NATO air defense identification zones and even sovereign airspace. Yet there has not been so much as a radar lock-on in response.

The NATO introduced the ROEs along which it can open fire. These ROEs have been announced to the Russians - and what's their reaction? They shut up and stopped such behaviour.

Moreover, the blockade would be largely unenforced as it would take time for the U.S. to assemble and deploy the assets necessary to enforce it, giving Russia lead time to ignore it.

...and then they would continue ignoring the situation in Syria, just like they did all the time before August 2015.

These challenges are of course separate from any Iranian resistance, which would probably be kinetic and deniable, with various Shia militias operating anti-aircraft weaponry.

Ah, now I see the problem.

OK. Look, this is a forum about military affairs and wars. Please, make no mistake: I do not expect everybody here to have a diploma from West Point, Sandhurst, or Frunze. I'm the first to point out: I've got none of that. Nothing even distantly similar. But, I would say that at least some basic idea about military-related affairs, at least the ability to understand the mechanics of warfare, how the entire system of fighting wars works, might be of some advantage - so that people participating in discussions can follow what's going on.

One of advantages of having at least the most basic ideas about military-related affairs is to understand the importance of something called 'logistics'. For essential definitions and descriptions of that term, please consult such places like Wikipedia.

Now, weirdos, not to say freaks - like me for example - insist that the logistics is the essence of warfare. I know: I'm stupid and clueless, and I tend to get sarcastic when I find things get ab absurdum...not to talk about none of my theories ever standing a chance whenever seriously checked...

But... and I'm very sorry sorry for bringing this to your attention... word has it, nobody can fight a war without beans, bullets and gas. Please, feel free to correct me, then I'm certainly wrong, and I actually have no idea how did anybody else, nor me, ever come to such conclusions - but that's what so many people say... I guess it's truth. Probably, the entire affair with importance of the logistics is like a wheel: it works, but nobody can explain why. Or doesn't, if there is none.

Ah, nevermind... let's say it's 2013 and the USA and allies decided to impose an aerial blockade of the Syrian airspace. Turks, Saudis, Emiratis, Kuwaitis, Jordanians etc. - all the supposed and/or true US allies in the area - were calling for the USA to do something in Syria... most of the countries in question (and their militaries) were then sent by Oblabla to fight a useless war in Yemen instead... Whatever: back then, they were all offering their militaries and their military bases for use for such an operation - if only the USA would lead.

Word is also, the USN has some swimming things called...what...something like 'aircraft carriers'. Can that be? No clue how they work but, supposedly, these can take a wing of about 48 combat aircraft to the sea and thus reach something like 70% of land mass of this planet. And somebody at the CENTCOM once said that Syria has a coast to some sea too... Provided Syria is not to be found on the western side of Kentucky, that might be truth.

Now, rumour has it, the logistics systems of these countries are closely tied to those of the US military logistics system - which is already massive because it's supporting military bases and deployments in something like hundred territories of all sorts on this planet. I mean: nobody might know why, but the system works, is well tested and oiled. And the militaries in question are spending hundreds of billions for new equipment and intensive, realistic training, every year. They're supported by an amazing intelligence apparatus: surely enough, this is meanwhile better at finding out what toothpaste is Outlaw09 using, or how often do I go to the toilette (even the consistency...), but from time to time it finds out a few useful things about potential enemies, too. If nothing else, even a broken watch is showing the correct time of the day - and that twice a day.

But no... now comes Putler. Oh man, that super-hero...he's going to scare everybody else away - by his sight alone... wow... simply fantastic. Guess, that's so because his intel services are excelling at helping oppositionals fall down some stairs (and then outta window, too) or from top of various buildings in New York. But especially because they are ah just so awesomely good at fighting PR-wars on the internet.

That in turn is going to make up for all the other issues they might face. Namely, Putler's intel actually has no trace of clue about even who's who in Syria; his military just woke up out of lethargic vegetation over the last 20 years. Since some pesky little clash near the place called Tsushima - supposedly fought some 112 years ago - it's clear his military has got no equipment suitable for expeditionary operations, not to talk about experience in this kind of operations; it lacks all sorts of modern combat and combat-support aircraft and (even more so) modern armament...but foremost: neither can his economy support a war away from Russia (if it can support any kind of a war at all), nor has his country and his military got a logistics system that would enable it to go fighting wars against a coalition of some 7-8 well-armed, well-trained, and combat-proven militaries with all of beans, bullets and gas already in place.

Nevermind! Nothing of this matters. Russia stronk. Putler can pull this off, and he's going to fight a war he's got no trace of chance of even starting, not to talk abut running. And that for Syria: a country for which we successfully convinced ourselves is the Russian 'client state' although it never really was...and if not, then just for the f..k of it. And especially because so many in the West are so sternously convinced the Russians can do it. Yeah, they simply know it.

Who cares about logistics or military realities? We've all played computer simulations of all sorts of Russian super-turbo Sukhoi fighter-bombers: we know they are armed with R-77 missiles. Sure, the VKS just received the first batch of 65 of these in 2017, but hey, in computer simulations of 2002 it turned out these are scoring kills by hitting enemy pilots in their hearts... and that was 15 years ago. Isn't that fantastic? Wow, simply great. And, we saw them pulling amazing manoeuvres at various air shows, not to talk about all the possible covers of our specialized magazines - and thus we all know that the Russian military can do it against everybody else over Syria. Period. So, better we do not do anything at all: these pesky Russkies are damn dangerous!

Ah yes, and then the next part of that equation: the bad, bad Iranians. Man, alone this Major-General Soleimani...the 'shadow leader'...the man who won the war against the USA in Iraq... brrrr.... isn't he scary? Arguably, some say the USA went there for no purpose and actually defeated itself (foremost through overspending) and all that bull####. But hey: no, that was Soleimani. The guy is so damn dangerous, I get scared from watching his photos alone, really.

Soleimani's aura of invincibility... his powerful karma... his witchcraft are so mighty, I get wet alone from talking about him. Did you know he can shoot down any F-22 by his looks alone? That's not only the reason why the USAF and the USN do not dare flying over Syria, but foremost: that's the reason why the IRGC has no air defences in Syria until this very day. They're simply unnecessary. They've got Solemani instead.

...ah sorry: I got so distracted discussing these super-heroes....

Whatever, it doesn't matter that gangs of Iranian jihadists deployed in Syria are living alone from the air bridge run by Mahan Air and similar Iranian companies. Plus the two Syrian Il-76s. No aerial blockade can stop that - because Boeing and Airbus want to sell hundreds of airliners to Tehran, and because a blockade is the same like a no-fly-zone. That's why they are spelled in exactly the same way, letter by letter, too.

...simply fantastic...

I'm soundly defeated, as always. Here's my white flag:



And don't worry, my dear Azor: should you still have any kind of problems to argument against my idea of an aerial blockade of Syria as of 2013, you can always bring in Mars People into this game. Or the Emperor, Darth Vader, and his Startroopers.

[OUTLAW 09]

Azor...if you reread all comments that I have posted as well as CrowBat you will notice that when we bashed Obama it was for specific FP actions or statements or non actions....or just out right stupid decisions/mistakes that reflected he did not fully understand Syria...

With Trump I bash him because he is playing American voters as being simply stupid and he can do "any deal he wants to because he is this greatest deal maker"....

BUT that is not a FP that cannot be built of a national level defined strategic set of strategies.....REMEMBER this is a President that admitted in a public interview he does not even read books..

SO convince me we have a US President that is in fact capable of developing a solid well through out US FP built on solid strategic strategies...ESPECIALLY when it comes to Syria and the entire ME including Israel....

HERE is the Trump FP hard at work yesterday evening in our closest ally in that area...SK....

[OUTLAW 09]

Tonight's biggest story: an editor for the single largest non-state-operated pro-Assad regime media outlet has been suspended for Nazism

Pro-Assad site Al-Masdar suspends editor Paul Antonopoulos after he was shown to be active on Nazi site StormFront

[OUTLAW 09]

Azor...read this and then tell me in all honesty that you seriously think this President is capable of even developing a solid FP for Syria and the entire ME?

So exactly how can Trump even begin to understand the complexities of Syria and the ME if he cannot even understand that THADD is in fact a US weapons system deployed/operated only by the US and paid for by DoD yearly budgets.....WHICH is used for strategic strategy related deployments?

I even know that sitting here in Berlin and he is in DC????

Sad...really sad....

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-us...-idUSKBN17U09M

[OUTLAW 09]

"The world is moving too fast for the institutions we created in the 20th century." - General Jones

[Azor]

Russia was in no position to react in a Obama air strike via TLAMs in 2013...end of story....just check their military posturing in 2013...it was all focused on eastern Ukraine ramp up.

Russia was in no position to react to the TLAM strike in 2017 either, short of deploying more advanced SAMs in Syria than it has in its Western Military District. My point is that the U.S. would have been in no position to prevent Russia establishing a military presence in Syria in 2013, admittedly centered upon naval and air assets.

…check the IHL treaties under the use of INCENDIARY cluster munitions against civilians....as well as the use of chlorine....and actually thermobaric weapons against civilians would in fact be also covered... ALL solid IHL and GC violations...learn to read international treaties para for para...

You’re awfully chirpy on this Friday. Did someone miss their morning Döner Kebab?

The issue isn’t about the U.S. being “legally” permitted to use IC and CM weapons against civilians. It is a matter of public relations. If Washington condemns the use of ICs and CMs by Moscow and Damascus, it will receive a barrage of criticism over its own use of such weapons in urban areas as well as defending Israel’s use of them in Lebanon and Gaza, and the GCC’s use of them I Yemen. Do you follow?

…Assad was on the verge of defeat far earlier when the rebels launched a major offensive...and Putin did not move then...did he? Why was 2015 selected as the entry point into Syria instead of say 2014 or not far earlier if one really just wants to expand influence with little military effort/little political costs? Because by then Putin fully and completely understood that Obama would do nothing...

Yet Iran was still in the process of ramping up its intervention in Syria and cobbling together its mercenary hordes even in early 2015. Perhaps Teheran did not want Moscow too involved until it found itself on the ropes facing defeat by the Free Syrian Army? Note that Putin largely ignored Syria until U.S. intervention seemed imminent in 2013, and until Khamenei needed Russian support in 2015.

Are you asserting that Obama gave Putin a free hand in Ukraine and Syria, and Khamenei a free hand in Iraq and Syria, in return for the JCPOA? What then of Ankara’s, Tel Aviv’s and Riyadh’s interests and concerns?

Putin’s role in Syria has been one of an offshore balancer to prevent the Alawi statelet from being overrun or coming under U.S. influence. Khamenei, on the other hand, is determined to have a strong Shia supremacist state in Syria that is a vassal of Iran. These objectives overlap but differ markedly once Assad is not in danger of defeat and the U.S. is not contemplating a major intervention.

[Azor]

What 'client state', please? What is making Syria of 1988-2015 a 'client state of Russia'?

I meant that in a very loose sense. Russia has difficulty playing with others in the kindergarten so it doesn’t have much in the way of friends. Syria was a friend of Iran’s but it was certainly friendly toward Russia, and was part of the ad hoc authoritarian axis that allegedly resists "American imperialism", or more accurately, the spread of liberal democracy.

NATO introduced the ROEs along which it can open fire. These ROEs have been announced to the Russians - and what's their reaction? They shut up and stopped such behaviour.

Proof?

Ah, now I see the problem. OK. Look, this is a forum about military affairs and wars. Please, make no mistake: I do not expect everybody here to have a diploma from West Point, Sandhurst, or Frunze. I'm the first to point out: I've got none of that. Nothing even distantly similar. But, I would say that at least some basic idea about military-related affairs, at least the ability to understand the mechanics of warfare, how the entire system of fighting wars works, might be of some advantage - so that people participating in discussions can follow what's going on.

Military affairs and wars? That is curious, because both you and Outlaw seem to believe that you know what was going on behind closed doors in Obama’s National Security Council and that you understand Putin’s intentions.

So OSINT on military capabilities and activities is now the same as politics and intent?

Ah, nevermind...let's say it's 2013 and the USA and allies decided to impose an aerial blockade of the Syrian airspace. Turks, Saudis, Emiratis, Kuwaitis, Jordanians etc. - all the supposed and/or true US allies in the area - were calling for the USA to do something in Syria...

Alright, I’ll play.

• Assad’s air force is grounded, and he goes back to relying on his ground forces
• Moscow and Teheran decide that U.S.-supported regime change is imminent
• Assad formally invites Russian and Iranian forces to Syria to defend it against foreign aggression
• Russia begins dispatching naval units and combat aircraft to Syria
• Iran starts an airlift of men and materiel using civilian airliners
• Iran and Russia publicly declare that the NFZ is illegal and that they will ignore it

What then?

[OUTLAW 09]

It is stubborn and wishful thinking. A unilateral blockade against a client state of theirs?

Russian aircraft and vessels already engage in dangerous maneuvers in international airspace and on the high seas, and ignore NATO air defense identification zones and even sovereign airspace. Yet there has not been so much as a radar lock-on in response.

Moreover, the blockade would be largely unenforced as it would take time for the U.S. to assemble and deploy the assets necessary to enforce it, giving Russia lead time to ignore it.

These challenges are of course separate from any Iranian resistance, which would probably be kinetic and deniable, with various Shia militias operating anti-aircraft weaponry.

Such a NFZ would have about as much teeth as China’s ADIZ in the East China Sea.

Remember how the West dealt with Stalin's blockade of West Berlin in 1948-1949[/URL]? Who won that round? Remember the Cuban Crisis? Even then the U.S. was not settled on how to deal with Soviet blockade runners, despite the much higher stakes and the fact that the crisis was Soviet-instigated.

More recently:

• The NFZ in northern Iraq required the addition of a No-Drive Zone
• Operation Allied Force nearly failed to coerce Serb forces to retreat from Kosovo, and a ground invasion was being considered before Belgrade backed down
• The NFZ in Libya was enhanced with airstrikes on ground targets, arms to the rebels and the deployment of Qatari special forces

He took action in Georgia and Ukraine, despite anxieties over NATO’s response, and intervened in Syria despite the fact that the U.S. was already operating there.



Putin doesn’t want another humiliation either, and I do believe that Putin would sacrifice Russian servicemen to U.S. air-to-air missiles if it would tarnish the U.S. as a rogue aggressor in the eyes of its NATO and EU allies. How he dealt with the Su-24 shootdown is instructive here, although that occurred in sovereign Turkish airspace, not a unilaterally imposed no-fly zone in airspace to which Russia was invited to fly.

In Putin’s mind, his use of soft power in Western elections is a response to the Color Revolutions in the former Soviet republics and Serbia, as well as unrest in Russia, all of which he believes is orchestrated by the West. Nor is he far off the mark, as there was an element in the Washington during the Clinton and Bush administrations that coveted Ukraine and Central Asia, and Brussels has more recently been seeking to include Ukraine, Moldova and even Belarus, which would shatter the Moscow-led CIS/CSTO/EAEU integration project.

In addition, to the south and east, Beijing is slowly encroaching on the former Soviet republics in Central Asia, and in particular Kazakhstan, the jewel in the crown. Russia has always been an integration project, and Putin believes that it is being both contained and rolled back by rival projects to the west and the east. Such is the back and forth of the steppes.



Putin wanted the adventure for the sake of prestige, to spoil U.S. intentions and to provide his ramshackle military with combat experience. His objectives have largely been achieved, and Khamenei was content to allow Putin to showboat in order to avoid sparking opposition to the JCPOA; Obama colluded with Khamenei in this regard. Why would Putin want out? What he doesn’t want is to commit major ground forces and face a hostile population and guerrilla warfare.



So you are supporting the Russian and Syrian narrative that Turkey deliberately allowed Daesh fighters and supporters to criss-cross its border with Syria?



So what happens during a U.S. naval blockade when the Syrian express sails for Tartus? The USN assets in the Eastern Mediterranean would probably be busy with swarms of Iranian “civilian” craft running the blockade.

Like it or not, U.S. grand strategy does not revolve around the Free Syrian Army. By the way, while the PYD works to gradually and quietly to establish a one-party homogeneous Kurdish state in northern Syria, I wonder what the AKP is up to within the FSA, now that it is the FSA's main benefactor. Is Erdogan supporting the democrats, moderates and secularists in the FSA, while suppressing them at home?

New US Admin looking for a quick win against IS in Syria, CENTCOM seems convinced only YPG can deliver that despite alarming consequences!

Azor...you do realize PKK is still the same 1978 Communist Party revolutionary group as it is in 2017?

Footage allegedly of French forces in Northern #Raqqa countryside, supporting the SDF in the war against ISIS terrorists.

Joint patrol of YPG and US troops on the border with Turkey in order to stop Turkish aggression.

YPG, PKK's Syrian branch enjoys protection of US and Russia. This will lead to a long Turk-Arab-Kurd conflict post ISIS era that will last.

But as soon as one of those three protective powers abandons the YPG - and this will happen sooner or later - it is in deep trouble

With the Americans guarding them in Raqqa, the Russians in Afrin and the Assadis near Manbij, #Turkey can't attack the #YPG nowhere for now.

US troops patrolling Kurdish held areas, recently attacked by the Turkish military

Show of force.
A combined#US-#YPG (not "SDF"!) convoy travels near the Turkish border in northern #Syria.
https://twitter.com/SonKaleTurkiye2/...2501867982850#

That was fast, now that US troops spotted near Tal Abyad, the Russians are expected to show up around Manbij soon.

[Azor]

New US Admin looking for a quick win against IS in Syria, CENTCOM seems convinced only YPG can deliver that despite alarming consequences!

Azor...you do realize PKK is still the same 1978 Communist Party revolutionary group as it s in 2017?

No different from the previous Administration. Kurdish and Shia paramilitaries are being used to suppress a Sunni Arab insurgency and occupy Sunni Arabs, and somehow Washington believes that this will not provoke more insurgency.

Having said that, the Peshmerga are preferable to the YPG, the politics of "Rojava" seem to be pluralistic (perhaps a facade or temporary arrangement), and the Coalition has made efforts to integrate and reconcile Iraqi Sunni and Shia Arabs and prevent sectarian cleansing in areas taken from Daesh.

[OUTLAW 09]

No different from the previous Administration. Kurdish and Shia paramilitaries are being used to suppress a Sunni Arab insurgency and occupy Sunni Arabs, and somehow Washington believes that this will not provoke more insurgency.

Having said that, the Peshmerga are preferable to the YPG, the politics of "Rojava" seem to be pluralistic (perhaps a facade or temporary arrangement), and the Coalition has made efforts to integrate and reconcile Iraqi Sunni and Shia Arabs and prevent sectarian cleansing in areas taken from Daesh.

BUT again you do realize that all of the above I just posted refers to YPG which is in fact PKK...a US named terror group since 1978...??

NOT a single mention of the US fig leaf SDF....was there?

[OUTLAW 09]

Verifying a cluster munition attack that targeted Jisir Al Shugur in #Idlib
#Video #evidence:
https://syrianarchive.org/database/61908/
#

[Azor]

From The Jamestown Foundation: https://jamestown.org/program/russia...-syria-beyond/

By Pavel Felgenhauer

Russian state propaganda has definitively changed its portrayal of United States President Donald Trump after the April 7 Tomahawk cruise missile strike on the Syrian airbase of Shayrat (Homs province). The forces loyal to Syrian President Bashar al-Assad (the Syrian Arab Army—SAA) had allegedly used this base to launch chemical weapons attacks, on April 4, against a rebel-held area of Khan Sheikhoun (Idlib province). According to a poll published this week by the Kremlin-controlled pollster VtSIOM, 82 percent of Russians believe Washington’s attack on the Shayrat airbase was “unjust” and a “US provocation designed to destabilize the situation.” According to VtSIOM general director Valery Fedorov, only 6 percent of Russians believe the US attacked Shayrat to punish the al-Assad regime for allegedly using chemical weapons. The rest believe it was an act of illegal aggression and a provocation designed to harm Russia and its allies. The Russian public supports its country’s continued military involvement in Syria (53 percent), though this support is not overly high despite a continuous pro-war message broadcast by state TV propaganda. VtSIOM data reveals that 34 percent want Russian forces to withdraw from Syria. According to Fedorov, the Tomahawk attack has dramatically diminished the previously positive image of President Trump in Russia (Wciom.ru, April 20). The latest VtSIOM poll concludes that Trump’s popularity among Russians has decreased from 38 to 13 percent; 39 percent of Russians see him today in a negative light, compared to 7 percent a month ago (RIA Novosti, April 17).

Damascus and Moscow have both adamantly rejected any involvement in the alleged April 4 sarin gas attack on Khan Sheikhoun. Initially the main spin coming from Moscow was a theory that a rogue rebel chemical weapons arsenal in Khan Sheikhoun could have been hit by a conventional SAA aerial bombardment, and the inadvertent spill of poisonous gas caused civilian casualties (see EDM, April 13). Now, the emphasis has shifted: The Russian military insists the entire Khan Sheikhoun chemical attack was a deliberate hoax staged by the rebels to implicate al-Assad (Militarynews.ru, April 18). At a meeting in the headquarters of the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW), in The Hague, Russian high-level diplomat Mikhail Ulyanov presented photo evidence that, according to Moscow, implies there was no real chemical weapons attack in Khan Sheikhoun (TASS, April 19).

The same day, in a special statement, the OPCW announced it had irrefutable forensic evidence sarin was used in Khan Sheikhoun (TASS, April 19). Apparently Moscow knew the use of sarin would be confirmed by OPCW and attempted to preempt that news. Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov has accused the OPCW of perpetrating regime change in Syria and of “one-sidedness” (Militarynews.ru, April 19). The defense ministry has accused the OPCW’s Director General Ahmet Üzümcü of “a politically motivated statement” about the use of sarin in Khan Sheikhoun and of “ignoring the facts” (Militarynews.ru, April 20).

Moscow seems to have gone into total denial over the alleged chemical attack in Khan Sheikhoun. This month’s visit to Moscow by US Secretary of State Rex Tillerson, who met with Lavrov and President Vladimir Putin, apparently changed little in the US-Russian standoff. Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov acknowledged that Tillerson presented in Moscow a detailed plan of a possible resolution of the crisis in Syria, but “we [Russia] do not see much that is new.” According to Ryabkov there are some fresh suggestions, but they are mostly the same talking points that have always come out of Washington (Kommersant, April 19).

The US missile attack seems to have seriously hampered the operational capabilities of the SAA air force. The Shayrat airbase’s air defenses, which Russia had reportedly enhanced, turned out to be incapable of stopping the Tomahawks; and the Russian aerospace forces (VKS) in Syria proved equally powerless. Last October, Russia enhanced its air defenses in Syria by deploying its newest army mobile S-300V4 anti-missile/anti-aircraft system to its naval base in Tartus, in addition to the S-400 missiles that were deployed at the Khmeimim air base in 2015. The S-400 and the S-300V4 both reportedly have a range of some 400 kilometers, theoretically allowing them to cover all of Syria (Militarynews.ru, October 6). At that time, the Russian foreign ministry declared that these additional deployments were intended to deter a possible US cruise missile attack threat (RIA Novosti, October 7).

More recently, however, reports surfaced that the SAA has flown a number of its still-operational jets to an airfield adjacent to the Khmeimim airbase, apparently to avoid another devastating US attack. But according to Russian military experts, being based out of an area near Khmeimim could seriously hamper further Syrian air operations (Militarynews.ru, April 20). Russia’s public bluff was called, and it turned out the Russian “denial of access” air defenses are not as formidable as believed and apparently guarantee cover from cruise missile attack only in the immediate vicinity of the Tartus and Khmeimim bases—a sobering climb-down for Russian state/military propaganda.

This week (April 26), in Moscow, top Russian generals demonstrated additional public humility at an international security conference organized by the Ministry of Defense. Russian officials condemned Western actions in Syria, denounced the enlargement of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), and alleged that the Alliance was carrying out a military build-up along its eastern flank, facing Russia (Kommersant, April 27). According to the chief of the Russian General Staff, Army General Valery Gerasimov, “NATO expansion changes the regional balance of power in Europe; increased reconnaissance activity amplifies the risk of clashes. NATO actions are destructive and provocative” (Militarynews.ru, April 26). Whereas, according to the Russian deputy chief of the Main Operational Directorate of the General Staff, Lieutenant General Viktor Poznikhir, by 2020 the Pentagon will have the capability to instantaneously kill Russia’s top political and military leadership, destroy its command-and-control systems, and seriously maim its nuclear strategic forces in a sudden preemptive “global strike” (Interfax, April 26). At the same time US missile-defense capabilities are dramatically expanding and may soon exceed the number of Russian intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBM), Poznikhir implied, which “forces Russia to improve its strategic nuclear forces to meet the US challenge”(Interfax, April 26).

The Russian military is acting much like as any military around the world—exaggerating existing external threats and inventing new ones to win more rearmament funding from a reluctant finance ministry and presidential administration. To obtain the money, the Russian Armed Forces are ready to demonstrate their opponents’ vulnerabilities and surpass their capabilities—something the US Pentagon was always good at.