The Syrian Crisis

[pmaitra]

Erdogan feels the US left Turkey in the lurch with Syrian conflict
“Turkey wants the United States to come in strong on Syria, stop the Russians and stop the refugee flow that’s pouring out of Aleppo,” says Josh Landis, director of the Center of Middle East Studies at the University of Oklahoma. “Turkey feels like it's been left holding the bag both by the United States and Europe. ... America looks like it’s bowing out. It’s going to let Russia try to clean up Syria or at least have its way in Syria.”

http://www.pri.org/stories/2016-02-11/erdo-feels-us-left-turkey-lurch-syrian-conflict

That is true. Here is an excerpt from BBC.

Turkey has shelled a Kurdish militia in northern Syria and demanded it retreat from territory it has seized, Prime Minister Ahmet Davutoglu said.

The US urged Turkey to stop the shelling and focus on fighting the group Islamic State (IS).

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-35571663

I don't think the US wants to get dragged into a confrontation with Russia. It is about time to arms the YPG so that they can retaliate.

 

[sorcerer]

India on Syria: The rising power's position on a global conflict
January 13, 2016

The Syrian Foreign Minister's visit to India this week underscores the growing multipolarity of the Middle East. Various regional players are recognizing the importance of Asian powers in the Middle East's strategic future. The trip comes on the back of a visit to China last month of both senior Assad regime and opposition figures. During the China visit, the Syrian Foreign Minister confirmed that the government would be willing to participate in the peace process.

The Syrian regime has long sought India's support and diplomatic involvement in the conflict. Damascus backed Delhi's attendance at Geneva II. India has steadfastly opposed foreign intervention to oust the regime (as seen in Delhi's statements and votes at the UN). The Assad government sees India as a potentially influential, though quiet friend. The Indian Ministry of External Affairs (MEA) website, states that during the current unrest, "Syria has deeply appreciated the support...from India other members of BRICS at the UNSC"

The visit to India is part of the Assad regime's broader Asia strategy. The international optics of being hosted in Delhi, including reports of Foreign Minister Muallem meeting with Prime Minister Modi, will be seen as a victory by the Syrian government. Beyond this, it will seek to not only maintain the muted diplomatic support India and China have provided at the UN, but to convince these states that the new strategic reality of Russia's intervention should change their calculations.

Damascus will likely ask Delhi to be more vocal in its position. The Syrian government may try to persuade India that Russia's intervention has made Delhi's existing position look more centrist, providing cover for a more active approach. It may also argue that with Washington facing the major challenge of Moscow's military action, it will be in less of a position to push Delhi to acquiesce. Damascus might seek to convince India that the government of a post-conflict Syria will likely have remnants of the regime who will not forget who its friends were. It will highlight the US's backing down on its precondition that Assad leave, and emphasise Russian President Putin's push to ensure Assad is allowed to run in the 2017 elections.

The Syrian foreign minister may also pull the 'China card' during his India trip. Delhi sees the Middle East as a region of potential future strategic competition with Beijing. Syria could lobby India by outlining any support China has promised, appealing to Delhi's objective of not being outshone by Beijing in West Asia.

Post-visit, there will unlikely be major alterations in India's behaviour. Delhi's actions will continue to be centred on votes and statements at the UN and elsewhere. These may become slightly more vociferous now. Seeking to maintain its 'friend-to-all' image, India's diplomacy will be guided by the objective of balancing relationships with the US, Iran, the Gulf States and Israel. Delhi recognizes, however, that in each of its Middle Eastern relationships it has more leverage than its counterpart.

What's in it for India?

India has a number of interests and values which underpin its position on Syria. Opposition to foreign intervention and support for state sovereignty (regardless of regime type) are long-held principles that by default make India's position favorable to the Assad government. These principles are underpinned by anti-colonialism, Third World solidarity, interest in preventing foreign intervention in Kashmir, and cultural values such as pluralism, non-violence (at the interstate level) and tolerance. India can justify not criticizing Russia's involvement as this was at the invitation of the Assad regime.

Delhi also has major interests in stability in the Middle East given its increased dependency on oil and gas imports. A clean victory for the rebels in Syria will give a morale boost to certain other regional insurgents, potentially causing further instability. Delhi will recall having to, along with its consortium partners, abandon oil investments due to security concerns in 2013. Instability also threatens India's 7 million migrant workers.

Geopolitically, India will see Syria as an opportunity to strengthen its position as a potential security partner for Middle Eastern states (as it competes with both China and Pakistan). This includes countries feeling threatened or isolated by the West, like Iran and Syria, as well as those who feel they have received inadequate Western backing, like the Gulf States.

India will see its position as already strengthened given that there are now clearly two opposing international poles regarding the conflict with itself at neither extreme. By maintaining an independent, middle-ground stance on Assad, Delhi can maintain more leverage with all sides as they seek to win her over to their position. India will also closely monitor China's approach to the conflict, including Beijing's relations with both the Iran-led or Saudi-led camps.

Reducing the spread of terrorism is a driver for India's position on Syria. Delhi is likely more suspicious than the West with regard many Syrian rebel groups. There has also been an increased presence of Indian jihadists in the conflict. India also fears the influence of extremists in Afghanistan, Pakistan and Kashmir.

Potential Impact on Peace Efforts

India may be able to have an, albeit limited, impact on peace efforts. In potential mediation initiatives, Delhi could employ substantial soft power due to its longstanding trusted, positive, benign reputation amongst almost all international players in the conflict. Syria's ambassador to India stated that this placed Delhi in a "rare position". India has leverage with the Assad regime given the latter's isolation and Delhi's ability to help influence global public opinion, particularly throughout the developing world. India may also evoke positive memories amongst the Syrian people, given the two states' history of friendship. The MEA states that the countries share: long-standing historical and cultural ties; colonial experience; a secular, nationalist and developmental orientation; similar perceptions on many international and regional issues; and membership of the Non-Aligned Movement. India would also have economic leverage with the Gulf States who back the opposition, given its large and growing trade in energy and migrant labor.

http://www.brookings.edu/research/opinions/2016/01/13-india-on-syria-pethiyagoda

 

[Razor]

Turkey is getting desperate. I think they are trying hard to drag entire NATO into the fight, because by themselves, then can do nothing.

Saudi moved its forces into Syria are most likely hired guns from Sudan and Pakistan. The Saudis have been getting a lot of battering by the Houthis.

I see this as a sign of desperation.

I'm thinking what american moves will be; the ME is too important for the US, can not afford to diminish influence.

 

[Akim]

Turkey is getting desperate. I think they are trying hard to drag entire NATO into the fight, because by themselves, then can do nothing.

Saudi moved its forces into Syria are most likely hired guns from Sudan and Pakistan. The Saudis have been getting a lot of battering by the Houthis.

I see this as a sign of desperation.

This is not a sign of despair, but he does not promise anything good. In WW1, the Balkans were the "powder keg" of Europe, now it may be Syria.

 

[sorcerer]

That is true. Here is an excerpt from BBC.


http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-35571663

I don't think the US wants to get dragged into a confrontation with Russia. It is about time to arms the YPG so that they can retaliate.

US has all its orifices full in middle east. Russia is attacking the US concept of war in the middle east..US will let it play for some time...and will be more on damage control.

 

[pmaitra]

I'm thinking what american moves will be; the ME is too important for the US, can not afford to diminish influence.

The ME is important in a different way. Saudi Arabia used to be an asset to the US when it sold oil only for Dollars. Now, it is a competitor to US shale oil industry and the US is known to switch sides to safeguard its interests. I do not foresee the US supporting the Saudis. Regarding Turkey, I do not think Europe wants to get into a confrontation with Russia because of this maniac and Muslim Brotherhood member called Erdogan.

Let's see how things unfold.

 

[pmaitra]

US has all its orifices full in middle east. Russia is attacking the US concept of war in the middle east..US will let it play for some time...and will be more on damage control.

Well, the US has been selling the idea that the Kurds are its allies. Turkey is an ally as it is part of NATO. Even last time, Turkey bombed the Kurds, when US citizens were present there assisting the Kurds. This makes the US look really in a bind.

Small fries (like Turkey, Saudi) can always seek to escalate, but big powers have to act with restraint. Both US and Russia are major powers, and they have acted with caution and reason so far.

 

[pmaitra]

@myana, we have way too many threads on Syria. I have merged the thread about an apparently imminent Turkish-Saudi invasion of Syria with this one.

 

[Akim]

Well, the US has been selling the idea that the Kurds are its allies. Turkey is an ally as it is part of NATO. Even last time, Turkey bombed the Kurds, when US citizens were present there assisting the Kurds. This makes the US look really in a bind.

Small fries (like Turkey, Saudi) can always seek to escalate, but big powers have to act with restraint. Both US and Russia are major powers, and they have acted with caution and reason so far.

The Kurds were used only as ground forces. If SA starts ground operation to get rid of them like a used napkin.

 

[Nuvneet Kundu]

India on Syria: The rising power's position on a global conflict
January 13, 2016

The Syrian Foreign Minister's visit to India this week underscores the growing multipolarity of the Middle East. Various regional players are recognizing the importance of Asian powers in the Middle East's strategic future. The trip comes on the back of a visit to China last month of both senior Assad regime and opposition figures. During the China visit, the Syrian Foreign Minister confirmed that the government would be willing to participate in the peace process.

The Syrian regime has long sought India's support and diplomatic involvement in the conflict. Damascus backed Delhi's attendance at Geneva II. India has steadfastly opposed foreign intervention to oust the regime (as seen in Delhi's statements and votes at the UN). The Assad government sees India as a potentially influential, though quiet friend. The Indian Ministry of External Affairs (MEA) website, states that during the current unrest, "Syria has deeply appreciated the support...from India other members of BRICS at the UNSC"

The visit to India is part of the Assad regime's broader Asia strategy. The international optics of being hosted in Delhi, including reports of Foreign Minister Muallem meeting with Prime Minister Modi, will be seen as a victory by the Syrian government. Beyond this, it will seek to not only maintain the muted diplomatic support India and China have provided at the UN, but to convince these states that the new strategic reality of Russia's intervention should change their calculations.

Damascus will likely ask Delhi to be more vocal in its position. The Syrian government may try to persuade India that Russia's intervention has made Delhi's existing position look more centrist, providing cover for a more active approach. It may also argue that with Washington facing the major challenge of Moscow's military action, it will be in less of a position to push Delhi to acquiesce. Damascus might seek to convince India that the government of a post-conflict Syria will likely have remnants of the regime who will not forget who its friends were. It will highlight the US's backing down on its precondition that Assad leave, and emphasise Russian President Putin's push to ensure Assad is allowed to run in the 2017 elections.

The Syrian foreign minister may also pull the 'China card' during his India trip. Delhi sees the Middle East as a region of potential future strategic competition with Beijing. Syria could lobby India by outlining any support China has promised, appealing to Delhi's objective of not being outshone by Beijing in West Asia.

Post-visit, there will unlikely be major alterations in India's behaviour. Delhi's actions will continue to be centred on votes and statements at the UN and elsewhere. These may become slightly more vociferous now. Seeking to maintain its 'friend-to-all' image, India's diplomacy will be guided by the objective of balancing relationships with the US, Iran, the Gulf States and Israel. Delhi recognizes, however, that in each of its Middle Eastern relationships it has more leverage than its counterpart.

What's in it for India?

India has a number of interests and values which underpin its position on Syria. Opposition to foreign intervention and support for state sovereignty (regardless of regime type) are long-held principles that by default make India's position favorable to the Assad government. These principles are underpinned by anti-colonialism, Third World solidarity, interest in preventing foreign intervention in Kashmir, and cultural values such as pluralism, non-violence (at the interstate level) and tolerance. India can justify not criticizing Russia's involvement as this was at the invitation of the Assad regime.

Delhi also has major interests in stability in the Middle East given its increased dependency on oil and gas imports. A clean victory for the rebels in Syria will give a morale boost to certain other regional insurgents, potentially causing further instability. Delhi will recall having to, along with its consortium partners, abandon oil investments due to security concerns in 2013. Instability also threatens India's 7 million migrant workers.

Geopolitically, India will see Syria as an opportunity to strengthen its position as a potential security partner for Middle Eastern states (as it competes with both China and Pakistan). This includes countries feeling threatened or isolated by the West, like Iran and Syria, as well as those who feel they have received inadequate Western backing, like the Gulf States.

India will see its position as already strengthened given that there are now clearly two opposing international poles regarding the conflict with itself at neither extreme. By maintaining an independent, middle-ground stance on Assad, Delhi can maintain more leverage with all sides as they seek to win her over to their position. India will also closely monitor China's approach to the conflict, including Beijing's relations with both the Iran-led or Saudi-led camps.

Reducing the spread of terrorism is a driver for India's position on Syria. Delhi is likely more suspicious than the West with regard many Syrian rebel groups. There has also been an increased presence of Indian jihadists in the conflict. India also fears the influence of extremists in Afghanistan, Pakistan and Kashmir.

Potential Impact on Peace Efforts

India may be able to have an, albeit limited, impact on peace efforts. In potential mediation initiatives, Delhi could employ substantial soft power due to its longstanding trusted, positive, benign reputation amongst almost all international players in the conflict. Syria's ambassador to India stated that this placed Delhi in a "rare position". India has leverage with the Assad regime given the latter's isolation and Delhi's ability to help influence global public opinion, particularly throughout the developing world. India may also evoke positive memories amongst the Syrian people, given the two states' history of friendship. The MEA states that the countries share: long-standing historical and cultural ties; colonial experience; a secular, nationalist and developmental orientation; similar perceptions on many international and regional issues; and membership of the Non-Aligned Movement. India would also have economic leverage with the Gulf States who back the opposition, given its large and growing trade in energy and migrant labor.

http://www.brookings.edu/research/opinions/2016/01/13-india-on-syria-pethiyagoda

I'm not sure how much change we can affect even if we decide to pick a side? Everyone keeps talking about our soft power but how much of it can we leverage to bring real change on the ground? Given the fact that the west has no qualms about militarily bashing Russia in Syria, our position is precarious to put it mildly. US has gone to each and every European nation and stitched together a coalition that goes beyond the basic NATO mandate and is specific to the Syria conflict. Anyone who opposes this stands against a lot of powerful forces, not that it qualifies as a legitimate reason to not take a principled stance. But anything that brings any real change on the ground will have to be vested in hard power, not soft power. It will be nothing short of joining a Russian coalition to commit troops against the US coalition. World war it is.

 

[pmaitra]

The Kurds were used only as ground forces. If SA starts ground operation to get rid of them like a used napkin.

What do you mean by SA? Saudi Arabia? Syrian Army?

 

[Akim]

What do you mean by SA? Saudi Arabia? Syrian Army?

Of course I meant Saudi Arabia. The conversation went about choosing the US between Turks and Kurds.

 

[sorcerer]

Author : "Rakesh Krishnan Simha" - The After math of a Wet Dream


Six reasons why India should join Russian air strikes in Syria


Warplanes from multiple countries are screaming through the skies over Syria. On the ground, terrorist groups are nibbling at Syria’s extremities. It is an environment that India should jump right into. Here are six good reasons why India needs to send its well-trained and ferocious military to defend beleaguered Syria.

India needs to show support for an ally

Currently, Russia is conducting airstrikes against ISIS, al-Qaeda and CIA-backed terror groups all by itself. The Russian Air Force has brought a strong detachment of jet fighters and bombers to Syria, but the fact remains that it is a solo act. Iran has provided shock troops to fight on the ground, but no aircraft. India should send at least a squadron of jets for joint air strikes with the Russian Air Force against terror groups. This is a matter that concerns India’s only strategic partner. When your friend is in a fight, you enter the fray.

comment: Soldiers protect the nation..Diplomacy protects the soldiers and the nation

India’s counter-terror expertise can be a game changer

India’s experience in counter terrorism could play a decisive role in combating ISIS as well as CIA supported terrorist groups such as the so-called Free Syrian Army. The Indian Air Force (IAF) and the Indian Army have been fighting extremists in Kashmir and eastern India for decades. India also stamped out separatism in Punjab after a take-no-prisoners campaign that lasted nearly 20-years. Such valuable counter terror experience is precisely what Russia would appreciate having on its side in the Syrian war.

comment: Middle East is the earth's asshole India should not step into such a shitty place..but watch and guard its own borders for these shitheads spilling over.
Middle east manufactures terrorists...the whole exercise is futile with no magic solution.

India’s armed forces will gain invaluable experience

Significant events are happening over Syrian airspace and beyond. Turkish Air Force F-16s that attempted to come close to the action got a taste of Russian airpower when MiG-29s interceptors – providing top cover – achieved radar lock on the F-16s. Turkey’s military admitted that as many as eight Turkish F-16 jets patrolling the Turkish-Syrian border were “painted” by a MiG-29 as well as surface-to-air missile systems based in Syria in two separate incidents.

This is an eerie replication of the 1999 Kargil War when Indian MiG-29s – which were providing top cover to IAF jets targeting Pakistani intruders – achieved missile locks on Pakistan Air Force F-16s, forcing the latter to disengage from the battle.

The airspace over Syria is an environment that India’s MiG-29 and Sukhoi-30MKI pilots would relish. Not only would they be right at home in the Syrian cauldron, Indian pilots will also gain experience in a 21st century battlefield environment involving western air forces. The IAF can also test its ability to quickly airlift Indian troops into a war zone.

The opinion of the writer does not necessarily reflect the position of RIR.

After the bombardment by Russian and Indian aircraft, the Indian Army would savour the prospect of mopping up the remnants of the ISIS as well as CIA-backed rebel groups.

Comment: wow!! According to the author..Real War is Target Practice without consequences to international relations!!! If India is in a position to mediate things with soft power thats well and good than wasting economy at terrorist factories which offers 72 virgins for free!


Fight them in Syria, not at home

There will be plenty of naysayers who will argue India should not enter the mess because they fear the country will end up on the ISIS radar. But the point is to fight – and exterminate – ISIS in its home base than in India. ISIS should not be given any breathing space which would allow them to expand out of the Middle East. India – like Russia – faces a serious threat from these media and technology savvy terrorist organisations that are able to radicalise its citizens via the internet. India, therefore, has every right to destroy ISIS in its breeding grounds before it becomes a threat at home.

comment: Its not the fear..its NOT giving their international masters of ISIS run an active propaganda machinery inside India in support of ISIS.India has more traitors on the inside than ISIS.

India’s stock will rise globally

Despite sending spectacular missions to the Moon and Mars and becoming an IT superpower, India is still known as the land of holy men, tigers and Gandhi. What the country needs is an image makeover. If India sends its armed forces to Syria, its stock will rise globally as one of the few countries able to hit the ISIS. We are talking about fighting the world’s most vicious rebel group, whose terror tactics have achieved the impossible task of making al-Qaeda look like a moderate bunch.

There is an ancient Indian saying – the brave shall inherit the earth. India’s leadership needs to bite the bullet.

comment : India is already fighting war and psy-ops from west on a regular basis and winning without firing a single bullet.
India already has an established brand. The world economy is not good for a war for any nation.

India’s entry will be a landmark geopolitical event

The Russian airstrikes in Syria could be the beginning of a more assertive BRICS group. Until now it was the West which was enforcing no-fly zones and dictating terms. Now the Russian side is doing it – not against small, defenceless countries but against real terrorists who are a global menace. This is a significant development because Russia is finally taking decisive military action and has received wide support internationally.

Importantly, Russian air strikes against opponents of the secular Bashar al-Assad government have decapitated American foreign policy in the Middle East. People in the Middle East have front row seats to the wilting of American power in the face of a determined Russia.

India has rarely intervened outside the scope of the United Nations. The country is known as the reluctant superpower because it rarely ventures into global hot spots. If India sends its mighty defence forces to support Syria, it would have the weight of over 1.2 billion people saying no to terrorist groups holding a peaceful and secular country to ransom.

This is history in the making – don’t sit it out.

Comment: Russia is upsetting and offsetting the US Warcry at Ukraine in Syria. INdia is providing diplomatic support to Russia in Syria same was as Russians gave for Kashmir Issue.

http://in.rbth.com/blogs/stranger_t...hould-join-rusian-air-strikes-in-syria_480837

 

[pmaitra]

Of course I meant Saudi Arabia. The conversation went about choosing the US between Turks and Kurds.

The Saudis will get smothered if they enter Syrian territory. The best they can do is hire Colombian mercenaries to do their dirty job, but the Saudis themselves are no fighters. They used to be good fighters, before the petro-Dollar turned them into a comfort loving oil rich brats who are only good at things like sandal surfing.

Spoiler: Saudi Sandal Surfing

Author : "Rakesh Krishnan Simha" - The After math of a Wet Dream


Six reasons why India should join Russian air strikes in Syria

What is your take on this? I am against putting our troops in a place that is not directly accessible via sea. In principle, I don't see a problem with the points being made. From a practical standpoint, it might not be a good idea. India should, however, do all it can to support the Syrian government as much as it can, and probably send some of its weapons to Syria so that they can be tested and perfected.

 

[Razor]

Author : "Rakesh Krishnan Simha" - The After math of a Wet Dream


Six reasons why India should join Russian air strikes in Syria


Warplanes from multiple countries are screaming through the skies over Syria. On the ground, terrorist groups are nibbling at Syria’s extremities. It is an environment that India should jump right into. Here are six good reasons why India needs to send its well-trained and ferocious military to defend beleaguered Syria.

India needs to show support for an ally

Currently, Russia is conducting airstrikes against ISIS, al-Qaeda and CIA-backed terror groups all by itself. The Russian Air Force has brought a strong detachment of jet fighters and bombers to Syria, but the fact remains that it is a solo act. Iran has provided shock troops to fight on the ground, but no aircraft. India should send at least a squadron of jets for joint air strikes with the Russian Air Force against terror groups. This is a matter that concerns India’s only strategic partner. When your friend is in a fight, you enter the fray.

comment: Soldiers protect the nation..Diplomacy protects the soldiers and the nation

India’s counter-terror expertise can be a game changer

India’s experience in counter terrorism could play a decisive role in combating ISIS as well as CIA supported terrorist groups such as the so-called Free Syrian Army. The Indian Air Force (IAF) and the Indian Army have been fighting extremists in Kashmir and eastern India for decades. India also stamped out separatism in Punjab after a take-no-prisoners campaign that lasted nearly 20-years. Such valuable counter terror experience is precisely what Russia would appreciate having on its side in the Syrian war.

comment: Middle East is the earth's asshole India should not step into such a shitty place..but watch and guard its own borders for these shitheads spilling over.
Middle east manufactures terrorists...the whole exercise is futile with no magic solution.

India’s armed forces will gain invaluable experience

Significant events are happening over Syrian airspace and beyond. Turkish Air Force F-16s that attempted to come close to the action got a taste of Russian airpower when MiG-29s interceptors – providing top cover – achieved radar lock on the F-16s. Turkey’s military admitted that as many as eight Turkish F-16 jets patrolling the Turkish-Syrian border were “painted” by a MiG-29 as well as surface-to-air missile systems based in Syria in two separate incidents.

This is an eerie replication of the 1999 Kargil War when Indian MiG-29s – which were providing top cover to IAF jets targeting Pakistani intruders – achieved missile locks on Pakistan Air Force F-16s, forcing the latter to disengage from the battle.

The airspace over Syria is an environment that India’s MiG-29 and Sukhoi-30MKI pilots would relish. Not only would they be right at home in the Syrian cauldron, Indian pilots will also gain experience in a 21st century battlefield environment involving western air forces. The IAF can also test its ability to quickly airlift Indian troops into a war zone.

The opinion of the writer does not necessarily reflect the position of RIR.

After the bombardment by Russian and Indian aircraft, the Indian Army would savour the prospect of mopping up the remnants of the ISIS as well as CIA-backed rebel groups.

Comment: wow!! According to the author..Real War is Target Practice without consequences to international relations!!! If India is in a position to mediate things with soft power thats well and good than wasting economy at terrorist factories which offers 72 virgins for free!


Fight them in Syria, not at home

There will be plenty of naysayers who will argue India should not enter the mess because they fear the country will end up on the ISIS radar. But the point is to fight – and exterminate – ISIS in its home base than in India. ISIS should not be given any breathing space which would allow them to expand out of the Middle East. India – like Russia – faces a serious threat from these media and technology savvy terrorist organisations that are able to radicalise its citizens via the internet. India, therefore, has every right to destroy ISIS in its breeding grounds before it becomes a threat at home.

comment: Its not the fear..its NOT giving their international masters of ISIS run an active propaganda machinery inside India in support of ISIS.India has more traitors on the inside than ISIS.

India’s stock will rise globally

Despite sending spectacular missions to the Moon and Mars and becoming an IT superpower, India is still known as the land of holy men, tigers and Gandhi. What the country needs is an image makeover. If India sends its armed forces to Syria, its stock will rise globally as one of the few countries able to hit the ISIS. We are talking about fighting the world’s most vicious rebel group, whose terror tactics have achieved the impossible task of making al-Qaeda look like a moderate bunch.

There is an ancient Indian saying – the brave shall inherit the earth. India’s leadership needs to bite the bullet.

comment : India is already fighting war and psy-ops from west on a regular basis and winning without firing a single bullet.
India already has an established brand. The world economy is not good for a war for any nation.

India’s entry will be a landmark geopolitical event

The Russian airstrikes in Syria could be the beginning of a more assertive BRICS group. Until now it was the West which was enforcing no-fly zones and dictating terms. Now the Russian side is doing it – not against small, defenceless countries but against real terrorists who are a global menace. This is a significant development because Russia is finally taking decisive military action and has received wide support internationally.

Importantly, Russian air strikes against opponents of the secular Bashar al-Assad government have decapitated American foreign policy in the Middle East. People in the Middle East have front row seats to the wilting of American power in the face of a determined Russia.

India has rarely intervened outside the scope of the United Nations. The country is known as the reluctant superpower because it rarely ventures into global hot spots. If India sends its mighty defence forces to support Syria, it would have the weight of over 1.2 billion people saying no to terrorist groups holding a peaceful and secular country to ransom.

This is history in the making – don’t sit it out.

Comment: Russia is upsetting and offsetting the US Warcry at Ukraine in Syria. INdia is providing diplomatic support to Russia in Syria same was as Russians gave for Kashmir Issue.

http://in.rbth.com/blogs/stranger_t...hould-join-rusian-air-strikes-in-syria_480837

Holy shit.
A couple of months back, there was a thread here discussing whether India should strike ISIS in syria.
The reasons this guy gives is about the same as what I gave back then. Only doubt I had is whether India was capable to project and sustain power to syria.
I'm not able to find that thread, though
@pmaitra do you remember that thread.

 

[pmaitra]

Holy shit.
A couple of months back, there was a thread here discussing whether India should strike ISIS in syria.
The reasons this guy gives is about the same as what I gave back then. Only doubt I had is whether India was capable to project and sustain power to syria.
I'm not able to find that thread, though
@pmaitra do you remember that thread.

Yeah, I remember that thread. It is possible I merged it with this one.

 

[Razor]

The Saudis will get smothered if they enter Syrian territory. The best they can do is hire Colombian mercenaries to do their dirty job, but the Saudis themselves are no fighters. They used to be good fighters, before the petro-Dollar turned them into a comfort loving oil rich brats who are only good at things like sandal surfing.

Spoiler: Saudi Sandal Surfing

Exactly, I encountered some Saudi guys in college while in the US; except for one guy who was doing his phd and was really studious, the other 3 were doing hookah and hookers all the time.

Yeah, I remember that thread. It is possible I merged it with this one.

Okay.

 

[pmaitra]

Exactly, I encountered some Saudi guys in college while in the US; except for one guy who was doing his phd and was really studious, the other 3 were doing hookah and hookers all the time.

I've met quite a few. Some really decent folks. I also tutored two Saudi girls. Both were very hot. No wonder the Saudi Arabs keep their girls under a trapaulin sheet. :biggrin2:

 

[Akim]

The Saudis will get smothered if they enter Syrian territory. The best they can do is hire Colombian mercenaries to do their dirty job, but the Saudis themselves are no fighters. They used to be good fighters, before the petro-Dollar turned them into a comfort loving oil rich brats who are only good at things like sandal surfing.

Don't underestimate your opponent. The Syrian Army is also low morale. But the lack of combat experience from the Saudis, can compensate for a large amount of modern military equipment.

 

[pmaitra]

Don't underestimate your opponent. The Syrian Army is also low morale. But the lack of combat experience from the Saudis, can compensate for a large amount of modern military equipment.

If the Houthis' recent string of successes is anything to go by, modern weapons won't make a big difference.

I do agree that one should not underestimate the opponent.