Cadian
Regular Member
- Joined
- May 5, 2014
- Messages
- 824
- Likes
- 795
Да нет, вы нормальные, русские украинствующие дебилы.
This is written by pro-Ukrainian activists, who don't know what is a spell-checker. Or you have another version?
Russian involvement in Syrian crisis
- Thread starter LETHALFORCE
- Start date
This is written by pro-Ukrainian activists, who don't know what is a spell-checker. Or you have another version?
Akim
Professional
- Joined
- Jun 14, 2012
- Messages
- 10,240
- Likes
- 8,601
In the area of Aleppo, is found another Russian drone that landed in the emergency mode.
Maybe. Information warfare has not been canceled.
gadeshi
Senior Member
- Joined
- Jun 19, 2013
- Messages
- 9,223
- Likes
- 6,636
Yeah, like a war movie.
It's imptessive even on 5' phone screen
Отправлено с моего XT1080 через Tapatalk
gadeshi
Senior Member
- Joined
- Jun 19, 2013
- Messages
- 9,223
- Likes
- 6,636
Orly? Has not CNN and Fox translated Saaddam execution, Gaddafis horrible murder (with Hillary Clintons bloody laugh and dirty comments), Jugoslavia bombing - all online?
You are discusting...
Отправлено с моего XT1080 через Tapatalk
pmaitra
Senior Member
- Joined
- Mar 10, 2009
- Messages
- 33,262
- Likes
- 19,595
Report: Russia Blocked Israeli Overflight of Syria, Lebanon
Lebanese newspaper claims Israeli jets turn back after confrontation with Russian aircraft over northern Lebanon
Roi Kais | (Ynet) | Russia Insider
Originally appeared at YNet
Russian forces warned Israel over IAF flights in Russian controlled airspace near the Syrian–Lebanese border area after Israeli jets were detected nearby, according to a report Friday in the Lebanese media outlet As Safir.
The report comes a mere day after Russia announced that it had established a “hotline” with Israel in order to coordinate aerial activity over Lebanon and Syria.
As Safir quoted Lebanese diplomatic officials who were “in the know,” as saying that the warning was issued after Russian radar identified Israeli aircraft approaching Russian-controlled airspace two weeks ago.
“Russian aircraft immediately blocked the Israeli jets’ path while they flew above the Akkar region in northern Lebanon. The Russians immediately sent a clear warning to the Israelis that entering Syrian airspace would be a pretext for opening fire,” the source said.
According to the paper, which is considered loyal to Hezbollah, the Israeli aircraft quickly heeded the warnings and changed their course. The incident occurred mere days after talks were held between Israeli and Russian officials regarding the shared airspace. The report claimed that the Russian message instructed the Israelis to stay away from Syrian airspace.
Lebanese officials quoted in the report said that Israeli aircraft typically fly over northern Lebanon on a daily basis, “and tended to fly on a path above the Akkar region, later conducting reconnaissance in a circular pattern above the Lebanese territorial waters, eventually reaching the Syrian territorial waters.”
The report quoted an official as saying that, “Their goal was to observe the movement of ships in the port of Tartus, as well as tracking the air traffic coming in an out of Latika airport – out of concern over possible weapons transfers to Hezbollah.”
The same official claimed that the Lebanese army had noticed a decline in Israeli over flights since the warning was issued on the first of October, but clarified that flights in the area remained ongoing.
__________________________________________
Commentary: Notice how these Israelis were Putin place by Putin? Typically, they can bully everyone around whoever they want, and also come to the rescue of ISIS and al-Qaida by attacking the Syrian Army often times when ISIS and al-Qaida are engaged by Syrian Army. What are they going to do now?
Lebanese newspaper claims Israeli jets turn back after confrontation with Russian aircraft over northern Lebanon
Roi Kais | (Ynet) | Russia Insider
Originally appeared at YNet
Russian forces warned Israel over IAF flights in Russian controlled airspace near the Syrian–Lebanese border area after Israeli jets were detected nearby, according to a report Friday in the Lebanese media outlet As Safir.
The report comes a mere day after Russia announced that it had established a “hotline” with Israel in order to coordinate aerial activity over Lebanon and Syria.
As Safir quoted Lebanese diplomatic officials who were “in the know,” as saying that the warning was issued after Russian radar identified Israeli aircraft approaching Russian-controlled airspace two weeks ago.
“Russian aircraft immediately blocked the Israeli jets’ path while they flew above the Akkar region in northern Lebanon. The Russians immediately sent a clear warning to the Israelis that entering Syrian airspace would be a pretext for opening fire,” the source said.
According to the paper, which is considered loyal to Hezbollah, the Israeli aircraft quickly heeded the warnings and changed their course. The incident occurred mere days after talks were held between Israeli and Russian officials regarding the shared airspace. The report claimed that the Russian message instructed the Israelis to stay away from Syrian airspace.
Lebanese officials quoted in the report said that Israeli aircraft typically fly over northern Lebanon on a daily basis, “and tended to fly on a path above the Akkar region, later conducting reconnaissance in a circular pattern above the Lebanese territorial waters, eventually reaching the Syrian territorial waters.”
The report quoted an official as saying that, “Their goal was to observe the movement of ships in the port of Tartus, as well as tracking the air traffic coming in an out of Latika airport – out of concern over possible weapons transfers to Hezbollah.”
The same official claimed that the Lebanese army had noticed a decline in Israeli over flights since the warning was issued on the first of October, but clarified that flights in the area remained ongoing.
__________________________________________
Commentary: Notice how these Israelis were Putin place by Putin? Typically, they can bully everyone around whoever they want, and also come to the rescue of ISIS and al-Qaida by attacking the Syrian Army often times when ISIS and al-Qaida are engaged by Syrian Army. What are they going to do now?
pmaitra
Senior Member
- Joined
- Mar 10, 2009
- Messages
- 33,262
- Likes
- 19,595
Week Two of Russian Syria Campaign: Options for ISIS, US and Moscow
The Saker | (The Unz Review) | Russia Insider
Originally appeared at The Unz Review
The Russian offensive in Syria is still very much in full swing and it is hard to make sense of what is really happening or how effective it has been.
According to the Syrians, 40% of all the infrastructure of “Daesh” (meaning ISIS+al-Qaeda+all the hundreds of smaller groups fighting together against the Syrian government) has been destroyed.
Russian sources are less enthusiastic and speak of a rather slow and hesitant Syrian offensive. So far, no major victory has been reported, but since all sides agree that the Russian air campaign is devastatingly effective and highly disruptive for Daesh, I think that there is a good probability that the Syrians will soon achieve a major success.
If not, then the Iranians most definitely have the capability to truly tip the balance. So this might be a good time to look at what options Daesh will have.
How Daesh can adapt to the new circumstances
First, up until now, Daesh basically could move around at night with total impunity because the Syrian Air Force simply did not have the technology to detect and engage Daesh units at night. This has now changed since all the Russian aircraft (rotary and fixed wing) engaged in the current campaign are fully night capable.
This is a major problem for Daesh which will now have to operate in an extremely dangerous environment 24 hours a day. The solution? Camouflage and dispersal.
Daesh forces will have to learn to pay much more attention to avoiding detection, including radio detection, and they will have to avoid as much as possible any detectable concentrations. Not an easy task, for sure, but one which has been successfully learned by others in the past.
Second, Daesh forces will have to adapt to guerrilla-style ‘hit and run’ kinds of attacks. Until now, both sides were willing to engage in a bizarre kind of “trench warfare” in which each side would dig in and shell the other. Now that Russian bombers and close air support aircraft can be called in by the Syrian frontline commanders, this will become very dangerous for Daesh, probably forcing them to switch to faster, ambush warfare.
Third, most sources agree that currently Daesh controls roughly 80% of the land and 20% of the population. This is mostly due to the size of the Syrian armed forces which are stretched too thin to hold on to lightly populated areas.
Daesh can use that to its advantage and try to move around any attacking Syrian forces and then ambush any units whose flanks and supply routes are not secured. The Syrians will have to be very careful not to fall into a “cauldron” trap like the Ukrainians in Novorussia.
Fourth, if things become really ugly for Daesh, they can start using the Turkish, Iraqi, Lebanese and Jordanian borders to hide from the Syrian/Iranian forces and enjoy the kind of safe heaven the Afghans had in Pakistan during the Soviet invasion.
Fifth, Daesh might do what the Ukrainians have done and organized a ‘Russian atrocity’ false flag, maybe the bombing of a pediatric clinic or hospital. They could even try a “Russian chemical attack in feeling refugees.” The corporate media will be more than happy to pick up and spread the story, no matter how ridiculous.
Finally, we can be absolutely certain that if the Syrian military is “too” successful, at least from the point of view of the Empire, then all the “friends of Syria” will join forces and demand a “peace conference” whose main purpose will be to save Daesh from complete destruction. This is the strategy used by the West with the Minsk-1 and Minsk-2 peace talks to save the Ukronazi junta from military defeat.
The world has seen numerous examples of Daesh-like forces (in military, not political, terms) adapting to a technologically superior enemy. Right now, the government’s superiority is primarily in the skies (thanks to the RuAF) and in intelligence (thanks to the OsNaz GRU units on the ground and the Russian “eyes and ears” in the sky and in space).
With time, however, Russian could bring in new equipment (modern multiple rocket launchers, TOS-1 heavy flame-throwers, newer armor and artillery systems) which can make a real difference but at the end of the day, it will be ‘boots’, in the sense of infantry, which will decide the outcome.
Will the Syrians and Kurds be enough to break Daesh or will the Iranians make a move? I honestly don’t know, but my bet is on Iran and Hezbollah moving in. As for a Russian intervention, Putin has now totally excluded such a possibility.
Options recommended by US politicians
US politicians have come up with two suggestions to help their “moderate terrorists”: supply advanced anti-air missiles to Daesh and impose a no-fly zone. I consider both of these suggestions highly impractical and very dangerous.
Delivering advanced anti-air missiles: which ones?! Daesh already has man-portable air defense systems (MANPADS) like the US Stingers and Russian Iglas. These are fine missiles, but they don’t have the reach to hit Russian aircraft which mostly fly at 5000m.
True, they can hit a low flying target like a SU-25 on a close air support mission or a Mi-24 helicopter. Both of these aircraft have been heavily modified during and after the wars in Afghanistan and Chechnia and they are well-protected against such attacks.
Still, sooner or later a Russian aircraft will get hit by such a missile and it is even possible that it will be downed. Daesh already has this capability and sending them more MANPADs just makes no sense but is very dangerous considering the kind of use any terrorist group can make of them against civilian airliners.
Syria is not Afghanistan and we are not in the 1980s. MANPADs are simply not likely to make a major difference in this war, especially not against the kind of aircraft the Russians are currently deploying.
A no-fly zone: against whom, Russian aircraft? For one thing, this would be insanely provocative and the potential consequences of the US shooting down a Russian aircraft are truly terrifying. But this also begs the question of where such a zone would be created. Hillary and the other Neocon crazies are suggesting a no-fly zone over northern Syria. Okay, what if in response Russia declares another no fly zone over the rest of the country? Then what?
Setting aside the insanity of actually threatening to attack Russia in military terms, in legal terms the Empire has no mandate to declare such a zone while Russia is standing on 100% legal grounds should she declare one. And if the Empire really goes crazy and declares that it will impose a no-fly zone over all of Syria you can be absolutely certain that S-300s will “suddenly” show up in sufficient numbers to make that an extremely dangerous exercise.
By the way, at that point, the Russians can declare that all the S-300s in Syria are manned exclusively by Syrian personnel and are under Syrian command and thus they will be able to shoot down US aircraft in total impunity (as they already have in the past in Vietnam and Lebanon).
A no-fly zone makes sense against a defenseless country, but against one armed with semi-modern or modern air defenses this is a very dangerous proposition. I want to believe that there are enough mentally sane men in the JCS and Pentagon to reject any plan which can end up triggering a nuclear war between Russia and the USA.
The “sulking superpower”
Right now, the USA appears to be completely clueless. First, they accused the Russians of bombing the “wrong” terrorists. The Russians then replied “okay, give us a list of “bad terrorists” targets and we will destroy them.” The Americans refused. Then the Russians told them, “okay then, in this case at least give us a list of “good terrorist” targets not to bomb, and we will not hit them.” But the Americans refused again! At this point, the Russians began making openly fun of the Americans and Putin even declared that his American “partners” have “mush for brains.”
Furthermore, the USA have also refused a Russian invitation to send military specialists to the Russian General Staff and now they have apparently even refused to receive a Russian military delegation headed by Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev himself! I don’t think I have ever heard of a “sulking superpower” but that is what we are apparently observing right now. How long Uncle Sam will continue to pout in his corner is anyone’s guess, but this is clearly not a sustainable policy. In fact, it is no policy at all.
I see no sign of the USA having the courage to look at reality and act accordingly. Not only is the Obama Administration at an absolutely unprecedented level of incompetence and intellectual mediocrity, the upcoming Presidential election is just making things worse: with bona fide psychopaths like Hillary, McCain or Fiorina making irresponsible statements on an almost daily basis, the White House must constantly dodge accusations of being “too soft on Russia.”
And since no US politician can afford to tell the American public the basic truth that the US is not omnipotent, US politicians are stuck in a never ending race to prove how “tough” they are on “defense”. As for the Europeans, they probably have the brains to see all of the above, but what they lack is the spine to say anything to their American overlords.
Just like in the Ukraine, the West has made created a total mess and now is completely clueless as to what to do about it.
Russian options
Contrary to the impression given by the western media, the Russian force in Syria is still a very small one.
The main reason for that is that the airfield near Latakia simply cannot accommodate a larger Russian force. As far as I know, there are no other locations in Syria where Russia could deploy more aircraft. True, the number of sorties flown by the Russians has baffled USAF experts who could never have achieved that kind of figures with US aircraft and pilots. Still, the Russian force is small and vulnerable.
Of course, one option for the Russians would be to expand the airfield near Latakia, but that would take time and more resources and my understanding is that they want to consolidate their current airfield first.
However, as a stop-gap measure, the Russians could use Russian-based bombers. If Iran allows Russia to conduct in-air refueling in Iranian airspace or if Iran allows Russia to use Iranian airbases, then many more SU-34/SU-35SM or SU-34/SU-30SM “air force packages” that could be engaged in Syria.
In theory, Russia could even provide her Tu-22M3 to deliver gravity bombs, her Tu-95MS to deliver cruise missiles and her Tu-160 to deliver either one or both. I don’t think that there is any military necessity to use these strategic bombers right now, but it might be a good idea to do so for political reasons – just to flex some more ‘military muscle’ and show the Neocons that Russia is not to be messed with.
Submarine launched cruise missiles would also work, especially if launched by a Russian sub in the Mediterranean which the USN did not detect. What is certain is that after the first volley of Russian cruise missiles the US withdrew its only aircraft carrier – the Theodore Roosevelt – from the Persian Gulf.
The main problem with any military escalation or increased Russian involvement is that Putin would have to sell it to the Russian public which, at least so far, has been totally supportive, but which is generally weary of “mission creep” and open ended military commitments (for example, most Russians oppose an overt Russian intervention in the Donbass).
So far, the Kremlin has done a superb PR job explaining that Daesh is a direct threat to Russia and that it was better for Russia to “fight them over there than over here.” This logic, however, is predicated on the idea that a very limited Russian intervention can tip the balance. There is a very fine conceptual line between tipping the balance and fighting someone else’s war and that is something the Kremlin is acutely aware of. Hopefully, this line will never be crossed.
The Saker | (The Unz Review) | Russia Insider
Originally appeared at The Unz Review
The Russian offensive in Syria is still very much in full swing and it is hard to make sense of what is really happening or how effective it has been.
According to the Syrians, 40% of all the infrastructure of “Daesh” (meaning ISIS+al-Qaeda+all the hundreds of smaller groups fighting together against the Syrian government) has been destroyed.
Russian sources are less enthusiastic and speak of a rather slow and hesitant Syrian offensive. So far, no major victory has been reported, but since all sides agree that the Russian air campaign is devastatingly effective and highly disruptive for Daesh, I think that there is a good probability that the Syrians will soon achieve a major success.
If not, then the Iranians most definitely have the capability to truly tip the balance. So this might be a good time to look at what options Daesh will have.
How Daesh can adapt to the new circumstances
First, up until now, Daesh basically could move around at night with total impunity because the Syrian Air Force simply did not have the technology to detect and engage Daesh units at night. This has now changed since all the Russian aircraft (rotary and fixed wing) engaged in the current campaign are fully night capable.
This is a major problem for Daesh which will now have to operate in an extremely dangerous environment 24 hours a day. The solution? Camouflage and dispersal.
Daesh forces will have to learn to pay much more attention to avoiding detection, including radio detection, and they will have to avoid as much as possible any detectable concentrations. Not an easy task, for sure, but one which has been successfully learned by others in the past.
Second, Daesh forces will have to adapt to guerrilla-style ‘hit and run’ kinds of attacks. Until now, both sides were willing to engage in a bizarre kind of “trench warfare” in which each side would dig in and shell the other. Now that Russian bombers and close air support aircraft can be called in by the Syrian frontline commanders, this will become very dangerous for Daesh, probably forcing them to switch to faster, ambush warfare.
Third, most sources agree that currently Daesh controls roughly 80% of the land and 20% of the population. This is mostly due to the size of the Syrian armed forces which are stretched too thin to hold on to lightly populated areas.
Daesh can use that to its advantage and try to move around any attacking Syrian forces and then ambush any units whose flanks and supply routes are not secured. The Syrians will have to be very careful not to fall into a “cauldron” trap like the Ukrainians in Novorussia.
Fourth, if things become really ugly for Daesh, they can start using the Turkish, Iraqi, Lebanese and Jordanian borders to hide from the Syrian/Iranian forces and enjoy the kind of safe heaven the Afghans had in Pakistan during the Soviet invasion.
Fifth, Daesh might do what the Ukrainians have done and organized a ‘Russian atrocity’ false flag, maybe the bombing of a pediatric clinic or hospital. They could even try a “Russian chemical attack in feeling refugees.” The corporate media will be more than happy to pick up and spread the story, no matter how ridiculous.
Finally, we can be absolutely certain that if the Syrian military is “too” successful, at least from the point of view of the Empire, then all the “friends of Syria” will join forces and demand a “peace conference” whose main purpose will be to save Daesh from complete destruction. This is the strategy used by the West with the Minsk-1 and Minsk-2 peace talks to save the Ukronazi junta from military defeat.
The world has seen numerous examples of Daesh-like forces (in military, not political, terms) adapting to a technologically superior enemy. Right now, the government’s superiority is primarily in the skies (thanks to the RuAF) and in intelligence (thanks to the OsNaz GRU units on the ground and the Russian “eyes and ears” in the sky and in space).
With time, however, Russian could bring in new equipment (modern multiple rocket launchers, TOS-1 heavy flame-throwers, newer armor and artillery systems) which can make a real difference but at the end of the day, it will be ‘boots’, in the sense of infantry, which will decide the outcome.
Will the Syrians and Kurds be enough to break Daesh or will the Iranians make a move? I honestly don’t know, but my bet is on Iran and Hezbollah moving in. As for a Russian intervention, Putin has now totally excluded such a possibility.
Options recommended by US politicians
US politicians have come up with two suggestions to help their “moderate terrorists”: supply advanced anti-air missiles to Daesh and impose a no-fly zone. I consider both of these suggestions highly impractical and very dangerous.
Delivering advanced anti-air missiles: which ones?! Daesh already has man-portable air defense systems (MANPADS) like the US Stingers and Russian Iglas. These are fine missiles, but they don’t have the reach to hit Russian aircraft which mostly fly at 5000m.
True, they can hit a low flying target like a SU-25 on a close air support mission or a Mi-24 helicopter. Both of these aircraft have been heavily modified during and after the wars in Afghanistan and Chechnia and they are well-protected against such attacks.
Still, sooner or later a Russian aircraft will get hit by such a missile and it is even possible that it will be downed. Daesh already has this capability and sending them more MANPADs just makes no sense but is very dangerous considering the kind of use any terrorist group can make of them against civilian airliners.
Syria is not Afghanistan and we are not in the 1980s. MANPADs are simply not likely to make a major difference in this war, especially not against the kind of aircraft the Russians are currently deploying.
A no-fly zone: against whom, Russian aircraft? For one thing, this would be insanely provocative and the potential consequences of the US shooting down a Russian aircraft are truly terrifying. But this also begs the question of where such a zone would be created. Hillary and the other Neocon crazies are suggesting a no-fly zone over northern Syria. Okay, what if in response Russia declares another no fly zone over the rest of the country? Then what?
Setting aside the insanity of actually threatening to attack Russia in military terms, in legal terms the Empire has no mandate to declare such a zone while Russia is standing on 100% legal grounds should she declare one. And if the Empire really goes crazy and declares that it will impose a no-fly zone over all of Syria you can be absolutely certain that S-300s will “suddenly” show up in sufficient numbers to make that an extremely dangerous exercise.
By the way, at that point, the Russians can declare that all the S-300s in Syria are manned exclusively by Syrian personnel and are under Syrian command and thus they will be able to shoot down US aircraft in total impunity (as they already have in the past in Vietnam and Lebanon).
A no-fly zone makes sense against a defenseless country, but against one armed with semi-modern or modern air defenses this is a very dangerous proposition. I want to believe that there are enough mentally sane men in the JCS and Pentagon to reject any plan which can end up triggering a nuclear war between Russia and the USA.
The “sulking superpower”
Right now, the USA appears to be completely clueless. First, they accused the Russians of bombing the “wrong” terrorists. The Russians then replied “okay, give us a list of “bad terrorists” targets and we will destroy them.” The Americans refused. Then the Russians told them, “okay then, in this case at least give us a list of “good terrorist” targets not to bomb, and we will not hit them.” But the Americans refused again! At this point, the Russians began making openly fun of the Americans and Putin even declared that his American “partners” have “mush for brains.”
Furthermore, the USA have also refused a Russian invitation to send military specialists to the Russian General Staff and now they have apparently even refused to receive a Russian military delegation headed by Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev himself! I don’t think I have ever heard of a “sulking superpower” but that is what we are apparently observing right now. How long Uncle Sam will continue to pout in his corner is anyone’s guess, but this is clearly not a sustainable policy. In fact, it is no policy at all.
I see no sign of the USA having the courage to look at reality and act accordingly. Not only is the Obama Administration at an absolutely unprecedented level of incompetence and intellectual mediocrity, the upcoming Presidential election is just making things worse: with bona fide psychopaths like Hillary, McCain or Fiorina making irresponsible statements on an almost daily basis, the White House must constantly dodge accusations of being “too soft on Russia.”
And since no US politician can afford to tell the American public the basic truth that the US is not omnipotent, US politicians are stuck in a never ending race to prove how “tough” they are on “defense”. As for the Europeans, they probably have the brains to see all of the above, but what they lack is the spine to say anything to their American overlords.
Just like in the Ukraine, the West has made created a total mess and now is completely clueless as to what to do about it.
Russian options
Contrary to the impression given by the western media, the Russian force in Syria is still a very small one.
The main reason for that is that the airfield near Latakia simply cannot accommodate a larger Russian force. As far as I know, there are no other locations in Syria where Russia could deploy more aircraft. True, the number of sorties flown by the Russians has baffled USAF experts who could never have achieved that kind of figures with US aircraft and pilots. Still, the Russian force is small and vulnerable.
Of course, one option for the Russians would be to expand the airfield near Latakia, but that would take time and more resources and my understanding is that they want to consolidate their current airfield first.
However, as a stop-gap measure, the Russians could use Russian-based bombers. If Iran allows Russia to conduct in-air refueling in Iranian airspace or if Iran allows Russia to use Iranian airbases, then many more SU-34/SU-35SM or SU-34/SU-30SM “air force packages” that could be engaged in Syria.
In theory, Russia could even provide her Tu-22M3 to deliver gravity bombs, her Tu-95MS to deliver cruise missiles and her Tu-160 to deliver either one or both. I don’t think that there is any military necessity to use these strategic bombers right now, but it might be a good idea to do so for political reasons – just to flex some more ‘military muscle’ and show the Neocons that Russia is not to be messed with.
Submarine launched cruise missiles would also work, especially if launched by a Russian sub in the Mediterranean which the USN did not detect. What is certain is that after the first volley of Russian cruise missiles the US withdrew its only aircraft carrier – the Theodore Roosevelt – from the Persian Gulf.
[Sidebar: some Russian observers have suggested that the first volley of Russian cruise missiles included 26 missiles because the 26th President of the United States was Theodore Roosevelt, the name of the only carrier which was in the Persian Gulf, and that this was a subtle message to the USA. Dunno. Maybe so. Maybe not. But if it is a coincidence, it is a neat one. What is certain is that for the first time in a very long while there are no US carriers in the Persian Gulf]
The main problem with any military escalation or increased Russian involvement is that Putin would have to sell it to the Russian public which, at least so far, has been totally supportive, but which is generally weary of “mission creep” and open ended military commitments (for example, most Russians oppose an overt Russian intervention in the Donbass).
So far, the Kremlin has done a superb PR job explaining that Daesh is a direct threat to Russia and that it was better for Russia to “fight them over there than over here.” This logic, however, is predicated on the idea that a very limited Russian intervention can tip the balance. There is a very fine conceptual line between tipping the balance and fighting someone else’s war and that is something the Kremlin is acutely aware of. Hopefully, this line will never be crossed.
pmaitra
Senior Member
- Joined
- Mar 10, 2009
- Messages
- 33,262
- Likes
- 19,595
Next Syria-Russia Move: Relief of Aleppo?
A push to conclude the standof in and around Aleppo could very well be what’s coming next in Syria but it’s hard to say as Russians aren’t in the habit of telegraphing their moves
(Moon of Alabama) | Russia Insider
Originally appeared at Moon of Alabama
Yesterday the Syrian Arab Army supported by Iraqi and Iranian forces and the Russian air force launched a surprise attack to the south and east of Aleppo. Progress at the beginning was rapid but resistance has by now grown and the current progress is at a slower and more sustainable pace. As the front lines are constantly moving the the news about actual positions vary.
An excellent map of the ongoing operation via TexMapMaker1. (Again with green=insurgents, red=Syrian government and allied forces)
big version
There are three important axis. The first one (the upper left marked 1 and 2 in the map) towards the besieged cities Nubl and Al-Zahra developed when earlier this week foreign paid insurgents lost some of their positions north-east of Aleppo in fighting with the Islamic State. The SAA took the opportunity of that fighting in the area to extend its position towards the besieged cities. Extending that position to relief the cities would also cut off the supply line of the insurgents within the northern parts of Aleppo city.
Towards the east SAA troops are fighting to relief the besieged military airport of Kuweiris (on the right of the map). Coming from the south they bypassed the direct west to east road that connects Aleppo city with Kuweiris but is under insurgent control. They made decent progress and might reach the airport tomorrow or the day after.
The main surprise attack yesterday and today was southward from Aleppo city. The troops progressed some six miles south before turning right towards the west and the M5 highway (in dark yellow on the left). They will try to reach the insurgency held highway or at least the controlling range of hills directly east of it.
This operation came as a surprise for the insurgents. Operational security was obviously tight. Several hundred Iran supported fighters from Iraq under Quds force commander Suleiman were transferred overnight from Latakia to Aleppo to support the south Aleppo attack.
There has also been news of some additional 3,000 Hizbullah fighters coming in which would bring up the number of fighters on the Syrian government side from Iran, Iraq and Lebanon to 10,000 total. The Pentagon is estimating the number of Russian soldiers in Syria at 3,000, much higher than the 1,250 I am aware of.
Some months ago I estimated the Syrian army would need a division sized (15,000 men) outside support to again gain ground. The current influx of foreign government allies has nearly reached that mark. Should the rumored about new armored brigade run by Hizbullah join the current forces a sustained large attack towards Idleb and then towards the Turkish border could be sustainable. That would close the main supply lines of the insurgency and would likely be the beginning of its end.
But that attack has not started yet. Instead we are seeing several smaller operation around Rastan where Russian helicopters help (video) to slice and dice an insurgent bubble, in Latakia, in the Ghab plain and now in Aleppo.
We must keep in mind that the whole campaign is now influenced by Russian operational thinking. Maskirovska, the feinting here and there before hitting somewhere else, is part of every bigger Russian military operation. What we currently know about the disposition of Syrian government and allied forces is mostly what someone wants us to know. It might or might not reflect the real dispositions and plans. Expect to see more surprises.
_____________________________________________
Commentary: This map is several times better than the unprofessionally created maps presented by the British propaganda website called BBC.
A push to conclude the standof in and around Aleppo could very well be what’s coming next in Syria but it’s hard to say as Russians aren’t in the habit of telegraphing their moves
(Moon of Alabama) | Russia Insider
Originally appeared at Moon of Alabama
Yesterday the Syrian Arab Army supported by Iraqi and Iranian forces and the Russian air force launched a surprise attack to the south and east of Aleppo. Progress at the beginning was rapid but resistance has by now grown and the current progress is at a slower and more sustainable pace. As the front lines are constantly moving the the news about actual positions vary.
An excellent map of the ongoing operation via TexMapMaker1. (Again with green=insurgents, red=Syrian government and allied forces)
big version
There are three important axis. The first one (the upper left marked 1 and 2 in the map) towards the besieged cities Nubl and Al-Zahra developed when earlier this week foreign paid insurgents lost some of their positions north-east of Aleppo in fighting with the Islamic State. The SAA took the opportunity of that fighting in the area to extend its position towards the besieged cities. Extending that position to relief the cities would also cut off the supply line of the insurgents within the northern parts of Aleppo city.
Towards the east SAA troops are fighting to relief the besieged military airport of Kuweiris (on the right of the map). Coming from the south they bypassed the direct west to east road that connects Aleppo city with Kuweiris but is under insurgent control. They made decent progress and might reach the airport tomorrow or the day after.
The main surprise attack yesterday and today was southward from Aleppo city. The troops progressed some six miles south before turning right towards the west and the M5 highway (in dark yellow on the left). They will try to reach the insurgency held highway or at least the controlling range of hills directly east of it.
This operation came as a surprise for the insurgents. Operational security was obviously tight. Several hundred Iran supported fighters from Iraq under Quds force commander Suleiman were transferred overnight from Latakia to Aleppo to support the south Aleppo attack.
There has also been news of some additional 3,000 Hizbullah fighters coming in which would bring up the number of fighters on the Syrian government side from Iran, Iraq and Lebanon to 10,000 total. The Pentagon is estimating the number of Russian soldiers in Syria at 3,000, much higher than the 1,250 I am aware of.
Some months ago I estimated the Syrian army would need a division sized (15,000 men) outside support to again gain ground. The current influx of foreign government allies has nearly reached that mark. Should the rumored about new armored brigade run by Hizbullah join the current forces a sustained large attack towards Idleb and then towards the Turkish border could be sustainable. That would close the main supply lines of the insurgency and would likely be the beginning of its end.
But that attack has not started yet. Instead we are seeing several smaller operation around Rastan where Russian helicopters help (video) to slice and dice an insurgent bubble, in Latakia, in the Ghab plain and now in Aleppo.
We must keep in mind that the whole campaign is now influenced by Russian operational thinking. Maskirovska, the feinting here and there before hitting somewhere else, is part of every bigger Russian military operation. What we currently know about the disposition of Syrian government and allied forces is mostly what someone wants us to know. It might or might not reflect the real dispositions and plans. Expect to see more surprises.
_____________________________________________
Commentary: This map is several times better than the unprofessionally created maps presented by the British propaganda website called BBC.
Last edited:
pmaitra
Senior Member
- Joined
- Mar 10, 2009
- Messages
- 33,262
- Likes
- 19,595
Reclaiming the Media Narrative After Russian Intervention in Syria — by Russell O’Phobe
For urgent and immediate distribution to the foreign affairs departments of all mainstream media organisations. From Russell O’Phobe
(TheBlogMire) | Russia Insider
Originally appeared at TheBlogMire
Dear Friends and Colleagues,
You will recall that I wrote to you back in September with my Primer on the art of writing Russian scare stories. I had felt it necessary to write back then in order to make sure that you were all on-message, and to give you the confidence and the tools you need to maintain the narrative that many of us have been working hard to get across over the last couple of years or so.
And no mistake, much has been accomplished. I know that many of you have been labouring hard to ensure your readers are fed a steady diet of reports on “Russian aggression” and “Russian invasions.”
And so long as the Russians didn’t actually invade anywhere — be it Ukraine or the Baltics or anywhere else for that matter —, we were free to tell the world as often as we liked that they had either invaded Ukraine or would shortly be starting on Lithuania or Poland. It was fun while it lasted. My department kept a tally going to see which major paper could come up with the most Ukrainian invasions in one year, and I know I really shouldn’t boast, but we came out on top with a total of 57.
But of course things have changed dramatically over the past three weeks, perhaps in ways that none of us could have envisaged. Frankly, things aren’t quite so whimsical now. I think I’m right in saying that for much of those three weeks, we have been in danger of losing the narrative completely, and — forgive me if I’m wrong — it seems to me that there is genuine confusion out there as to how exactly we should spin things.
Entirely understandable. I mean, it is one thing scaring readers by writing about “Russian aggression” when the Russian military isn’t actually doing anything, but what on earth are you supposed to do when they actually start successfully bombing the living daylights out of a terrorist organisation that we are supposed to have been bombing the living daylights out of for the past year, but to no effect?
This is why I say that if circulating something a month ago was necessary, it is doubly — no triply — vital now. Forgive my nervousness, but the stakes are high, and quite honestly for the last three weeks the Kremlin Gremlin has been making an Assad out of us all.
Before coming on to some positive things we could be doing, let me just sound a note of caution. I trust that what I’m about to say is obvious, but I think it best to be on the safe side and say it anyway. Please, please, please let’s have no more stories about invasions of Ukraine. The narrative worked fine for the last year and a half whilst there was no invasion, but now that the world has seen what things actually look like when the Russian military get into action, I’m afraid nobody is going to buy the 58th invasion of Ukraine story right now. Don’t even go there.
So how do we proceed, given that the blighters are going after ISIS like there’s no tomorrow and our side are in danger of looking really rather foolish? Well, whilst I have some suggestions for the longer term, which I will come on to in a moment, I do want to urge you all in the short term to keep level heads and to continue doing the basics well.
Many of you have been doing this, and I’m thankful to you for doing so. For example, the use of totally unverified claims, which are then quietly forgotten, has been used to good effect in the last few weeks. I’m talking about things like the claim of civilian casualties, which was reported on within moments of the first Russian air strikes.
I know some of you are still a little queasy about making such claims, but really there is no need to be. The truth or falsehood of this sort of thing quickly gets lost in the fog of war, so there is no need to worry about accountability. On the other hand, the impression such stories sow in the minds of your readers will have a tendency to linger long after they have been shown by the other side to be false, so please don’t be afraid to be innovative and creative with these stories.
Casting doubts on motives is also good practice, and I’ve been glad to see many of you repeating the claim that the Russians are not really targeting ISIS at all. That being said, I’m not sure how long we can get away with peddling that if they do continue to target ISIS.
We’ve also had some textbook examples of the use of quotation marks, which is especially cheering for me personally since I very much encouraged it in my Primer. For instance, a recent BBC article ran with the following headline: Syria crisis: Russian Caspian missiles ‘fell in Iran.’ Wonderful use of speech marks that. They really are your Get-Out-of-Jail-Free card, leaving you free to write pretty much anything you want, but if perchance someone should call your report into question you can just hold your hands up and say, “Don’t shoot the Messenger, guv. I was just quoting, that’s all.”
That article was also noteworthy for its eloquent use of spurious sources, with the opening line running as follows:
Isn’t that masterful? Unnamed US officials! Love it! Doesn’t say where they happen to be officials or what they are officials of. Could be the Pentagon. Then again, they could be officials in the district council of a small town in Wisconsin for all we know. And they can’t tell you where the missiles fell or what they fell on, these unnamed sources. But what does that matter? Whoever wrote this piece is savvy enough to know that there are still a lot of people out there for whom a phrase like “US officials say” carries a lot of clout, and who will come away actually believing that four Russian missiles did actually hit Iran. And that’s a great narrative, isn’t it, since it performs the double whammy of making readers believe not only that Russian technology is Soviet-era junk circa 1955, but also that they inadvertently managed to whack Iran.
Just one more thing before moving on to the longer term, please, please, please can I urge any of you covering the Syrian crisis not to start trying to provide too much explanation. I say this because in doing so we put ourselves in great danger of alerting the more discerning reader to what is really going on. I came across this in another BBC article and I’m afraid it provides a perfect example of how not to cover events:
For pity’s sake. Does this writer have any clue what narrative the BBC is meant to be peddling? Look, ever since the Russians started bombing, our message has been that they are bombing the “moderate rebels,” right? Now you and I know that there are no “moderate rebels” and that the “moderate rebels” the CIA has been training have all just happened to end up either in ISIS or al-Nusra. Right? But do we really need to start using the term “al-Qaeda affiliate” to describe the “rebels”? I doubt whether your average reader out there knows the difference between al-Assad, al-Nusra and Al Gore for that matter. But they have heard of al-Qaeda because they’ve had it rammed down their throats for 20 years that al-Qaeda is our deadly enemy. Now what do you suppose will happen if we start to let on that one of the rebel groups is an “al-Qaeda” affiliate? I’ll tell you: even the dimmest of readers is going to start scratching their heads and wondering why on earth we are supposed to have such a problem with Russia bombing guys who we’ve been warned about for two decades! This sort of careless use of words just has to stop, or else the whole narrative will just implode on us and we’ll all be out of jobs.
So what of the longer term strategy? Actually, there was something in the first BBC piece I mentioned above that caught my eye, which I think we ought to be making good use of. They quoted our man in Kiev, Poroshenko, as saying, “Russia wants to create a belt of instability from Syria to Ukraine.” You know I find this quite challenging as a journalist that this came from a politician. Really, we shouldn’t be leaving it to the politicians to feed us great narratives — we are meant to be feeding them. However, really Mr Poroshenko has done us all a great service with this idea and especially the use of the wonderful phrase “belt of instability.”
In the long term, this has got to be the way to go. We need to be playing the “instability” card and the “destabilisation” card constantly. We cannot have our readers thinking that Russia is going in there to stabilise the mess made by the West. I know some of you might object to this and tell me that this is a difficult one to pull off since it was NATO and not Russia that has been messing around in the Middle East. True, but memories are short and if we can hammer home the “belt of instability” meme, along with maybe the “arc of destabilisation,” I think we can really get ourselves out of the hole we’re in and get the world blaming the Russians for all the problems caused by us.
Part of me — and yes I know this is a high risk strategy — wonders whether we could begin to circulate rumours from “unnamed officials” that the Russians were secretly responsible for the false intelligence information that “forced” the Americans and their allies to go to war in Iraq. There’s a good old-fashioned espionage story in there if someone has the bottle to write it, and if we’re clever we could end up pinning the blame on them for the lot: Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya and Syria (maybe even the Native American Indians?). Perhaps I can leave that with you to give it some thought?
I want to leave you with one other idea for a long term narrative, which is the theme of Empire. We need to use this more. I came across this from the Kremlin Gremlin in an interview the other day:
I was immediately struck by how his denial could — with a little tweak — easily be made to look like the exact opposite of what he actually said. All it takes is the use of the inverted comma, which I’ve done in the headline for my latest piece:
You see what the addition of those two little marks does? Not only does the reader now believe that his intention is to reconstruct the Soviet Union, but it gives me carte blanche to speculate in the article — which I do via a number of “unnamed US officials” — on how he plans to first create a “belt of instability” from Ukraine to Syria, before going on to recreate the Soviet Union, this time from Dublin to Vladivostok.
So let’s keep up the good work. Don’t forget the basics. Don’t let the narrative slip. And let’s start seeing some of those longer term themes appearing in your pieces shortly.
Best wishes,
Russell
________________________________________
Commentary: This article does a fantastic ante mortem analysis of how the western propaganda mouthpieces, such as, but not limited to, the BBC, NYT, etc., inject thought seeds in the minds of the readers.
For urgent and immediate distribution to the foreign affairs departments of all mainstream media organisations. From Russell O’Phobe
(TheBlogMire) | Russia Insider
Originally appeared at TheBlogMire
Dear Friends and Colleagues,
You will recall that I wrote to you back in September with my Primer on the art of writing Russian scare stories. I had felt it necessary to write back then in order to make sure that you were all on-message, and to give you the confidence and the tools you need to maintain the narrative that many of us have been working hard to get across over the last couple of years or so.
And no mistake, much has been accomplished. I know that many of you have been labouring hard to ensure your readers are fed a steady diet of reports on “Russian aggression” and “Russian invasions.”
And so long as the Russians didn’t actually invade anywhere — be it Ukraine or the Baltics or anywhere else for that matter —, we were free to tell the world as often as we liked that they had either invaded Ukraine or would shortly be starting on Lithuania or Poland. It was fun while it lasted. My department kept a tally going to see which major paper could come up with the most Ukrainian invasions in one year, and I know I really shouldn’t boast, but we came out on top with a total of 57.
But of course things have changed dramatically over the past three weeks, perhaps in ways that none of us could have envisaged. Frankly, things aren’t quite so whimsical now. I think I’m right in saying that for much of those three weeks, we have been in danger of losing the narrative completely, and — forgive me if I’m wrong — it seems to me that there is genuine confusion out there as to how exactly we should spin things.
Entirely understandable. I mean, it is one thing scaring readers by writing about “Russian aggression” when the Russian military isn’t actually doing anything, but what on earth are you supposed to do when they actually start successfully bombing the living daylights out of a terrorist organisation that we are supposed to have been bombing the living daylights out of for the past year, but to no effect?
This is why I say that if circulating something a month ago was necessary, it is doubly — no triply — vital now. Forgive my nervousness, but the stakes are high, and quite honestly for the last three weeks the Kremlin Gremlin has been making an Assad out of us all.
Before coming on to some positive things we could be doing, let me just sound a note of caution. I trust that what I’m about to say is obvious, but I think it best to be on the safe side and say it anyway. Please, please, please let’s have no more stories about invasions of Ukraine. The narrative worked fine for the last year and a half whilst there was no invasion, but now that the world has seen what things actually look like when the Russian military get into action, I’m afraid nobody is going to buy the 58th invasion of Ukraine story right now. Don’t even go there.
So how do we proceed, given that the blighters are going after ISIS like there’s no tomorrow and our side are in danger of looking really rather foolish? Well, whilst I have some suggestions for the longer term, which I will come on to in a moment, I do want to urge you all in the short term to keep level heads and to continue doing the basics well.
Many of you have been doing this, and I’m thankful to you for doing so. For example, the use of totally unverified claims, which are then quietly forgotten, has been used to good effect in the last few weeks. I’m talking about things like the claim of civilian casualties, which was reported on within moments of the first Russian air strikes.
I know some of you are still a little queasy about making such claims, but really there is no need to be. The truth or falsehood of this sort of thing quickly gets lost in the fog of war, so there is no need to worry about accountability. On the other hand, the impression such stories sow in the minds of your readers will have a tendency to linger long after they have been shown by the other side to be false, so please don’t be afraid to be innovative and creative with these stories.
Casting doubts on motives is also good practice, and I’ve been glad to see many of you repeating the claim that the Russians are not really targeting ISIS at all. That being said, I’m not sure how long we can get away with peddling that if they do continue to target ISIS.
We’ve also had some textbook examples of the use of quotation marks, which is especially cheering for me personally since I very much encouraged it in my Primer. For instance, a recent BBC article ran with the following headline: Syria crisis: Russian Caspian missiles ‘fell in Iran.’ Wonderful use of speech marks that. They really are your Get-Out-of-Jail-Free card, leaving you free to write pretty much anything you want, but if perchance someone should call your report into question you can just hold your hands up and say, “Don’t shoot the Messenger, guv. I was just quoting, that’s all.”
That article was also noteworthy for its eloquent use of spurious sources, with the opening line running as follows:
Four Russian cruise missiles fired at Syria from the Caspian Sea landed in Iran, unnamed US officials say [my italics]. It was unclear whether the missiles caused any damage, they said.
Isn’t that masterful? Unnamed US officials! Love it! Doesn’t say where they happen to be officials or what they are officials of. Could be the Pentagon. Then again, they could be officials in the district council of a small town in Wisconsin for all we know. And they can’t tell you where the missiles fell or what they fell on, these unnamed sources. But what does that matter? Whoever wrote this piece is savvy enough to know that there are still a lot of people out there for whom a phrase like “US officials say” carries a lot of clout, and who will come away actually believing that four Russian missiles did actually hit Iran. And that’s a great narrative, isn’t it, since it performs the double whammy of making readers believe not only that Russian technology is Soviet-era junk circa 1955, but also that they inadvertently managed to whack Iran.
Just one more thing before moving on to the longer term, please, please, please can I urge any of you covering the Syrian crisis not to start trying to provide too much explanation. I say this because in doing so we put ourselves in great danger of alerting the more discerning reader to what is really going on. I came across this in another BBC article and I’m afraid it provides a perfect example of how not to cover events:
A senior commander of the al-Nusra Front, the al-Qaeda affiliate which has forces in the area, has issued a call to all the rebel groups to unify and launch a co-ordinated counter-attack on all fronts. He said if the rebels lost the initiative to the regime and the Russians, they would suffer a series of collapses and their future would be bleak.
For pity’s sake. Does this writer have any clue what narrative the BBC is meant to be peddling? Look, ever since the Russians started bombing, our message has been that they are bombing the “moderate rebels,” right? Now you and I know that there are no “moderate rebels” and that the “moderate rebels” the CIA has been training have all just happened to end up either in ISIS or al-Nusra. Right? But do we really need to start using the term “al-Qaeda affiliate” to describe the “rebels”? I doubt whether your average reader out there knows the difference between al-Assad, al-Nusra and Al Gore for that matter. But they have heard of al-Qaeda because they’ve had it rammed down their throats for 20 years that al-Qaeda is our deadly enemy. Now what do you suppose will happen if we start to let on that one of the rebel groups is an “al-Qaeda” affiliate? I’ll tell you: even the dimmest of readers is going to start scratching their heads and wondering why on earth we are supposed to have such a problem with Russia bombing guys who we’ve been warned about for two decades! This sort of careless use of words just has to stop, or else the whole narrative will just implode on us and we’ll all be out of jobs.
So what of the longer term strategy? Actually, there was something in the first BBC piece I mentioned above that caught my eye, which I think we ought to be making good use of. They quoted our man in Kiev, Poroshenko, as saying, “Russia wants to create a belt of instability from Syria to Ukraine.” You know I find this quite challenging as a journalist that this came from a politician. Really, we shouldn’t be leaving it to the politicians to feed us great narratives — we are meant to be feeding them. However, really Mr Poroshenko has done us all a great service with this idea and especially the use of the wonderful phrase “belt of instability.”
In the long term, this has got to be the way to go. We need to be playing the “instability” card and the “destabilisation” card constantly. We cannot have our readers thinking that Russia is going in there to stabilise the mess made by the West. I know some of you might object to this and tell me that this is a difficult one to pull off since it was NATO and not Russia that has been messing around in the Middle East. True, but memories are short and if we can hammer home the “belt of instability” meme, along with maybe the “arc of destabilisation,” I think we can really get ourselves out of the hole we’re in and get the world blaming the Russians for all the problems caused by us.
Part of me — and yes I know this is a high risk strategy — wonders whether we could begin to circulate rumours from “unnamed officials” that the Russians were secretly responsible for the false intelligence information that “forced” the Americans and their allies to go to war in Iraq. There’s a good old-fashioned espionage story in there if someone has the bottle to write it, and if we’re clever we could end up pinning the blame on them for the lot: Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya and Syria (maybe even the Native American Indians?). Perhaps I can leave that with you to give it some thought?
I want to leave you with one other idea for a long term narrative, which is the theme of Empire. We need to use this more. I came across this from the Kremlin Gremlin in an interview the other day:
“Russia has no intention of creating an empire or reconstructing of the Soviet Union, yet we must defend our independence and sovereignty. We’ve done it before, we are going to do it in future.”
I was immediately struck by how his denial could — with a little tweak — easily be made to look like the exact opposite of what he actually said. All it takes is the use of the inverted comma, which I’ve done in the headline for my latest piece:
Putin: “Russia has ‘no intention’ of reconstructing the Soviet Union”
You see what the addition of those two little marks does? Not only does the reader now believe that his intention is to reconstruct the Soviet Union, but it gives me carte blanche to speculate in the article — which I do via a number of “unnamed US officials” — on how he plans to first create a “belt of instability” from Ukraine to Syria, before going on to recreate the Soviet Union, this time from Dublin to Vladivostok.
So let’s keep up the good work. Don’t forget the basics. Don’t let the narrative slip. And let’s start seeing some of those longer term themes appearing in your pieces shortly.
Best wishes,
Russell
________________________________________
Commentary: This article does a fantastic ante mortem analysis of how the western propaganda mouthpieces, such as, but not limited to, the BBC, NYT, etc., inject thought seeds in the minds of the readers.
Zebra
Senior Member
- Joined
- Mar 18, 2011
- Messages
- 6,060
- Likes
- 2,303
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/artic...id-to-admit-real-syrian-goals-are-far-broader
Putin Officials Said to Admit Real Syria Goal Is Far Broader
October 19, 2015 — 9:56 PM AEDT Updated on October 20, 2015 — 2:13 AM AEDT
Putin Officials Said to Admit Real Syria Goal Is Far Broader
October 19, 2015 — 9:56 PM AEDT Updated on October 20, 2015 — 2:13 AM AEDT
pmaitra
Senior Member
- Joined
- Mar 10, 2009
- Messages
- 33,262
- Likes
- 19,595
Nobody admitted anything. The article makes an unverified claim citing an unnamed official, which is as good as not true. Also, it is one unnamed official, not officials.
gadeshi
Senior Member
- Joined
- Jun 19, 2013
- Messages
- 9,223
- Likes
- 6,636
They are broader, but not the way described in the article.
Отправлено с моего XT1080 через Tapatalk
pmaitra
Senior Member
- Joined
- Mar 10, 2009
- Messages
- 33,262
- Likes
- 19,595
Well, it is a safe way to make claims, as in my post above, where one can give his own spin. I can also say that an official from NASA said that the 'earth is flat.' See? I don't have a name. I don't have a quote. Just a false statement within quotes to save my posterior from criticism.
Typical western news style reporting.
I have to admit thought, Bloomberg is better than most others.
jouni
Senior Member
- Joined
- Jul 29, 2014
- Messages
- 3,900
- Likes
- 1,138
Military training given by Finnish experts has significantly reduced the Kurdish Peshmerga fighters losses in the battle against the extremist organization ISIS
http://www.iltasanomat.fi/ulkomaat/art-1445313558663.html
Iltasanomat
VALIKKO
ULKOMAAT
Suomalaissotilaat alkoivat kouluttaa kurditaistelijoita Irakissa – rintamalla tapahtui iso muutos
Kurditaistelijat valtasivat Isisin hallitsemia alueita Pohjois-Irakissa
Julkaistu: 20.10. 19:15
Google-mainokset
airberlin Flight + Hotel
Great package holiday deals. Book now with airberlin holidays.
www.airberlinholidays.com/Packages
Suomalaisten antama sotilaskoulutus on vähentänyt merkittävästi kurdien peshmerga-taistelijoiden tappioita taistelussa äärijärjestö Isisiä vastaan.
ARMEIJOISSA on kautta historian kulkenut oppilogiikka, että hiki koulutuksessa säästää verta taistelussa. Suomi aloitti kesällä Irakin Kurdistanissa kurdien peshmerga-taistelijoiden koulutuksen. Peshmergat taistelevat terroristijärjestö Isisiä vastaan Pohjois-Irakissa.
Maavoimien operaatiopäällikkö prikaatikenraali Petri Hulkko kertoo Ilta-Sanomille, että ensimmäinen komppania on jo koulutettu elo-syyskuun aikana. Komppaniassa on noin 100–200 miestä.
– Havainnot, kokemukset ja tulokset ovat olleet äärimmäisen hyviä. Koulutetulta joukolta rintamalla on tullut palaute, että tappiot ovat oleellisesti vähentyneet tämän koulutuksen seurauksena. Se on selkä osoitus siitä, että koulutus on hyödyllistä ja se on mennyt perille.
Kurdien peshmerga-taistelijat pitelivät Isisin lippua, kun äärijärjestö oli karkotettu Kirkukin lähistöltä viime marraskuussa. (KUVA: EPA / KHALIL AL-ANEI)
Toisen komppanian koulutus on jo alkanut. Kuusi viikkoa kestävä koulutus on Hulkon mukaan pääosin perusjalkaväkikoulutusta. Siihen sisältyy muun muassa asutuskeskustaistelukoulutus. Lisäksi kurdit saavat suomalaisilta muun muassa lääkintä- ja johtamiskoulutusta.
– Sitten on esimerkiksi improvisoitujen räjähteiden havaitsemista ja niiden purkamiskoulutusta, Hulkko sanoo.
SUOMELLA on Irakissa tällä hetkellä 50 sotilasta, joista varsinaisia kouluttajia on 35. Loput ovat kansallista tukihenkilöstöä. Pohjoisen alueen koulutusta johtavat vuorotellen Saksa ja Italia.
Suomalainen reserviläinen on erittäin hyvä kouluttaja.
Alueella sijaitsee neljä koulutusleiriä. Suomalaisten koulutusleiri sijaitsee Erbilin kaupungin ulkopuolella ja samassa leirissä toimivat myös norjalaiset ja britit.
Hulkko kertoo, että suurin osa suomalaisista on reserviläisiä. Vain koulutusryhmien johtajat ovat palkattua kantahenkilökuntaa.
– Suomalainen reserviläinen on erittäin hyvä kouluttaja. Monissa olosuhteissa reserviläinen osaa suhtautua koulutustehtäviin jopa paremmin kuin ammattiarmeijan sotilas. Reserviläiset ovat kansanläheisempiä, ihmisläheisempiä, silloin koulutuksen ottaa vastaan paremmin kuin perinteisen palkka-armeijan koulutusmetodeilla.
HULKKO kuvailee, että suomalaiset reserviläiset kouluttavat tavallaan kurdikollegoitaan. Ensimmäinen koulutettava komppania oli jatkokoulutettavia reserviläisiä, jotka olivat jo saaneet sotilaskoulutuksen. Nyt koulutettava toinen komppania taas on asevelvollisia, jotka eivät ole olleet aiemmin taisteluissa.
– Vastaanotto on ollut äärettömän positiivista. Niin kouluttajista, rivimiehistä kuin peshmergojen johdosta on tullut pelkästään positiivista palautetta.
Suomalaisten koulutustoiminta Irakin Kurdistanissa alkoi elokuussa. Kuvassa koulutettavan joukon johto keskustelee suomalaisten kanssa. (KUVA: Puolustusvoimat)
Petri Hulkon mukaan Kurdistanin turvallisuustilanne on olosuhteisiin nähden hyvä. Peshmerga-taistelijoilla on maine motivoituneina taistelijoina ja Kurdistanin joukot ovat saaneet pidettyä oman alueensa turvallisuuden yllä.
Koulutetulta joukolta rintamalla on tullut palaute, että tappiot ovat oleellisesti vähentyneet tämän koulutuksen seurauksena.
– Isis ei ole päässyt levittäytymään Kurdistaniin. Suomalaisilla on myös paras mahdollinen varustus. Sanotaan, että operaatioturvallisuudeltaan Kurdistan on hyvässä mallissa.
MAAVOIMILLA on vuoden mandaatti jatkaa operaatiota Irakissa. Jatko on Suomen poliittisen johdon päätettävissä.
– Toimimme ensi vuoden elokuun loppuun asti. Näillä näkymin valmistaudumme olemaan alueella vuoden, mutta tietenkin jatkamme, jos niin päätetään, Hulkko sanoo.
Jalkaväkikoulutuksen lisäksi suomalaiset järjestävät lääkintäkoulutusta. Kuvan harjoitus järjestettiin yhteistyössä saksalaisten kanssa syyskuussa. (KUVA: Puolustusvoimat)
Hulkko kertoo, että Yhdysvallat johtaa koko koalitiota. He tosin kouluttavat myös Irakin turvallisuusjoukkoja Kurdistanin ulkopuolella. Tähän Suomi ei osallistu.
– Kaiken kaikkiaan olen ymmärtänyt, että Yhdysvaltain on tarkoitus pysyä siellä pidempään.
Ensimmäiset suomalaiskouluttajat kotiutuvat Irakista vuodenvaihteen jälkeen. Vuoden operaatio toteutetaan kahdessa puolen vuoden rotaatiossa.
Yllä olevalla videolla esitellään kurditaistelijoita Pohjois-Irakissa 30. syyskuuta. Peshmerga-taistelijat valtasivat Isisin hallinnoimia alueita Kirkukin kaupungin lähistöllä.
http://www.iltasanomat.fi/ulkomaat/art-1445313558663.html
Iltasanomat
VALIKKO
ULKOMAAT
Suomalaissotilaat alkoivat kouluttaa kurditaistelijoita Irakissa – rintamalla tapahtui iso muutos
Kurditaistelijat valtasivat Isisin hallitsemia alueita Pohjois-Irakissa
Julkaistu: 20.10. 19:15
Google-mainokset
airberlin Flight + Hotel
Great package holiday deals. Book now with airberlin holidays.
www.airberlinholidays.com/Packages
Suomalaisten antama sotilaskoulutus on vähentänyt merkittävästi kurdien peshmerga-taistelijoiden tappioita taistelussa äärijärjestö Isisiä vastaan.
ARMEIJOISSA on kautta historian kulkenut oppilogiikka, että hiki koulutuksessa säästää verta taistelussa. Suomi aloitti kesällä Irakin Kurdistanissa kurdien peshmerga-taistelijoiden koulutuksen. Peshmergat taistelevat terroristijärjestö Isisiä vastaan Pohjois-Irakissa.
Maavoimien operaatiopäällikkö prikaatikenraali Petri Hulkko kertoo Ilta-Sanomille, että ensimmäinen komppania on jo koulutettu elo-syyskuun aikana. Komppaniassa on noin 100–200 miestä.
– Havainnot, kokemukset ja tulokset ovat olleet äärimmäisen hyviä. Koulutetulta joukolta rintamalla on tullut palaute, että tappiot ovat oleellisesti vähentyneet tämän koulutuksen seurauksena. Se on selkä osoitus siitä, että koulutus on hyödyllistä ja se on mennyt perille.
Kurdien peshmerga-taistelijat pitelivät Isisin lippua, kun äärijärjestö oli karkotettu Kirkukin lähistöltä viime marraskuussa. (KUVA: EPA / KHALIL AL-ANEI)
Toisen komppanian koulutus on jo alkanut. Kuusi viikkoa kestävä koulutus on Hulkon mukaan pääosin perusjalkaväkikoulutusta. Siihen sisältyy muun muassa asutuskeskustaistelukoulutus. Lisäksi kurdit saavat suomalaisilta muun muassa lääkintä- ja johtamiskoulutusta.
– Sitten on esimerkiksi improvisoitujen räjähteiden havaitsemista ja niiden purkamiskoulutusta, Hulkko sanoo.
SUOMELLA on Irakissa tällä hetkellä 50 sotilasta, joista varsinaisia kouluttajia on 35. Loput ovat kansallista tukihenkilöstöä. Pohjoisen alueen koulutusta johtavat vuorotellen Saksa ja Italia.
Suomalainen reserviläinen on erittäin hyvä kouluttaja.
Alueella sijaitsee neljä koulutusleiriä. Suomalaisten koulutusleiri sijaitsee Erbilin kaupungin ulkopuolella ja samassa leirissä toimivat myös norjalaiset ja britit.
Hulkko kertoo, että suurin osa suomalaisista on reserviläisiä. Vain koulutusryhmien johtajat ovat palkattua kantahenkilökuntaa.
– Suomalainen reserviläinen on erittäin hyvä kouluttaja. Monissa olosuhteissa reserviläinen osaa suhtautua koulutustehtäviin jopa paremmin kuin ammattiarmeijan sotilas. Reserviläiset ovat kansanläheisempiä, ihmisläheisempiä, silloin koulutuksen ottaa vastaan paremmin kuin perinteisen palkka-armeijan koulutusmetodeilla.
HULKKO kuvailee, että suomalaiset reserviläiset kouluttavat tavallaan kurdikollegoitaan. Ensimmäinen koulutettava komppania oli jatkokoulutettavia reserviläisiä, jotka olivat jo saaneet sotilaskoulutuksen. Nyt koulutettava toinen komppania taas on asevelvollisia, jotka eivät ole olleet aiemmin taisteluissa.
– Vastaanotto on ollut äärettömän positiivista. Niin kouluttajista, rivimiehistä kuin peshmergojen johdosta on tullut pelkästään positiivista palautetta.
Suomalaisten koulutustoiminta Irakin Kurdistanissa alkoi elokuussa. Kuvassa koulutettavan joukon johto keskustelee suomalaisten kanssa. (KUVA: Puolustusvoimat)
Petri Hulkon mukaan Kurdistanin turvallisuustilanne on olosuhteisiin nähden hyvä. Peshmerga-taistelijoilla on maine motivoituneina taistelijoina ja Kurdistanin joukot ovat saaneet pidettyä oman alueensa turvallisuuden yllä.
Koulutetulta joukolta rintamalla on tullut palaute, että tappiot ovat oleellisesti vähentyneet tämän koulutuksen seurauksena.
– Isis ei ole päässyt levittäytymään Kurdistaniin. Suomalaisilla on myös paras mahdollinen varustus. Sanotaan, että operaatioturvallisuudeltaan Kurdistan on hyvässä mallissa.
MAAVOIMILLA on vuoden mandaatti jatkaa operaatiota Irakissa. Jatko on Suomen poliittisen johdon päätettävissä.
– Toimimme ensi vuoden elokuun loppuun asti. Näillä näkymin valmistaudumme olemaan alueella vuoden, mutta tietenkin jatkamme, jos niin päätetään, Hulkko sanoo.
Jalkaväkikoulutuksen lisäksi suomalaiset järjestävät lääkintäkoulutusta. Kuvan harjoitus järjestettiin yhteistyössä saksalaisten kanssa syyskuussa. (KUVA: Puolustusvoimat)
Hulkko kertoo, että Yhdysvallat johtaa koko koalitiota. He tosin kouluttavat myös Irakin turvallisuusjoukkoja Kurdistanin ulkopuolella. Tähän Suomi ei osallistu.
– Kaiken kaikkiaan olen ymmärtänyt, että Yhdysvaltain on tarkoitus pysyä siellä pidempään.
Ensimmäiset suomalaiskouluttajat kotiutuvat Irakista vuodenvaihteen jälkeen. Vuoden operaatio toteutetaan kahdessa puolen vuoden rotaatiossa.
Yllä olevalla videolla esitellään kurditaistelijoita Pohjois-Irakissa 30. syyskuuta. Peshmerga-taistelijat valtasivat Isisin hallinnoimia alueita Kirkukin kaupungin lähistöllä.
That language tho.Military training given by Finnish experts has significantly reduced the Kurdish Peshmerga fighters losses in the battle against the extremist organization ISIS
http://www.iltasanomat.fi/ulkomaat/art-1445313558663.html
Iltasanomat
VALIKKO
ULKOMAAT
Suomalaissotilaat alkoivat kouluttaa kurditaistelijoita Irakissa – rintamalla tapahtui iso muutos
Kurditaistelijat valtasivat Isisin hallitsemia alueita Pohjois-Irakissa
Julkaistu: 20.10. 19:15
Google-mainokset
airberlin Flight + Hotel
Great package holiday deals. Book now with airberlin holidays.
www.airberlinholidays.com/Packages
Suomalaisten antama sotilaskoulutus on vähentänyt merkittävästi kurdien peshmerga-taistelijoiden tappioita taistelussa äärijärjestö Isisiä vastaan.
ARMEIJOISSA on kautta historian kulkenut oppilogiikka, että hiki koulutuksessa säästää verta taistelussa. Suomi aloitti kesällä Irakin Kurdistanissa kurdien peshmerga-taistelijoiden koulutuksen. Peshmergat taistelevat terroristijärjestö Isisiä vastaan Pohjois-Irakissa.
Maavoimien operaatiopäällikkö prikaatikenraali Petri Hulkko kertoo Ilta-Sanomille, että ensimmäinen komppania on jo koulutettu elo-syyskuun aikana. Komppaniassa on noin 100–200 miestä.
– Havainnot, kokemukset ja tulokset ovat olleet äärimmäisen hyviä. Koulutetulta joukolta rintamalla on tullut palaute, että tappiot ovat oleellisesti vähentyneet tämän koulutuksen seurauksena. Se on selkä osoitus siitä, että koulutus on hyödyllistä ja se on mennyt perille.
Kurdien peshmerga-taistelijat pitelivät Isisin lippua, kun äärijärjestö oli karkotettu Kirkukin lähistöltä viime marraskuussa. (KUVA: EPA / KHALIL AL-ANEI)
Toisen komppanian koulutus on jo alkanut. Kuusi viikkoa kestävä koulutus on Hulkon mukaan pääosin perusjalkaväkikoulutusta. Siihen sisältyy muun muassa asutuskeskustaistelukoulutus. Lisäksi kurdit saavat suomalaisilta muun muassa lääkintä- ja johtamiskoulutusta.
– Sitten on esimerkiksi improvisoitujen räjähteiden havaitsemista ja niiden purkamiskoulutusta, Hulkko sanoo.
SUOMELLA on Irakissa tällä hetkellä 50 sotilasta, joista varsinaisia kouluttajia on 35. Loput ovat kansallista tukihenkilöstöä. Pohjoisen alueen koulutusta johtavat vuorotellen Saksa ja Italia.
Suomalainen reserviläinen on erittäin hyvä kouluttaja.
Alueella sijaitsee neljä koulutusleiriä. Suomalaisten koulutusleiri sijaitsee Erbilin kaupungin ulkopuolella ja samassa leirissä toimivat myös norjalaiset ja britit.
Hulkko kertoo, että suurin osa suomalaisista on reserviläisiä. Vain koulutusryhmien johtajat ovat palkattua kantahenkilökuntaa.
– Suomalainen reserviläinen on erittäin hyvä kouluttaja. Monissa olosuhteissa reserviläinen osaa suhtautua koulutustehtäviin jopa paremmin kuin ammattiarmeijan sotilas. Reserviläiset ovat kansanläheisempiä, ihmisläheisempiä, silloin koulutuksen ottaa vastaan paremmin kuin perinteisen palkka-armeijan koulutusmetodeilla.
HULKKO kuvailee, että suomalaiset reserviläiset kouluttavat tavallaan kurdikollegoitaan. Ensimmäinen koulutettava komppania oli jatkokoulutettavia reserviläisiä, jotka olivat jo saaneet sotilaskoulutuksen. Nyt koulutettava toinen komppania taas on asevelvollisia, jotka eivät ole olleet aiemmin taisteluissa.
– Vastaanotto on ollut äärettömän positiivista. Niin kouluttajista, rivimiehistä kuin peshmergojen johdosta on tullut pelkästään positiivista palautetta.
Suomalaisten koulutustoiminta Irakin Kurdistanissa alkoi elokuussa. Kuvassa koulutettavan joukon johto keskustelee suomalaisten kanssa. (KUVA: Puolustusvoimat)
Petri Hulkon mukaan Kurdistanin turvallisuustilanne on olosuhteisiin nähden hyvä. Peshmerga-taistelijoilla on maine motivoituneina taistelijoina ja Kurdistanin joukot ovat saaneet pidettyä oman alueensa turvallisuuden yllä.
Koulutetulta joukolta rintamalla on tullut palaute, että tappiot ovat oleellisesti vähentyneet tämän koulutuksen seurauksena.
– Isis ei ole päässyt levittäytymään Kurdistaniin. Suomalaisilla on myös paras mahdollinen varustus. Sanotaan, että operaatioturvallisuudeltaan Kurdistan on hyvässä mallissa.
MAAVOIMILLA on vuoden mandaatti jatkaa operaatiota Irakissa. Jatko on Suomen poliittisen johdon päätettävissä.
– Toimimme ensi vuoden elokuun loppuun asti. Näillä näkymin valmistaudumme olemaan alueella vuoden, mutta tietenkin jatkamme, jos niin päätetään, Hulkko sanoo.
Jalkaväkikoulutuksen lisäksi suomalaiset järjestävät lääkintäkoulutusta. Kuvan harjoitus järjestettiin yhteistyössä saksalaisten kanssa syyskuussa. (KUVA: Puolustusvoimat)
Hulkko kertoo, että Yhdysvallat johtaa koko koalitiota. He tosin kouluttavat myös Irakin turvallisuusjoukkoja Kurdistanin ulkopuolella. Tähän Suomi ei osallistu.
– Kaiken kaikkiaan olen ymmärtänyt, että Yhdysvaltain on tarkoitus pysyä siellä pidempään.
Ensimmäiset suomalaiskouluttajat kotiutuvat Irakista vuodenvaihteen jälkeen. Vuoden operaatio toteutetaan kahdessa puolen vuoden rotaatiossa.
Yllä olevalla videolla esitellään kurditaistelijoita Pohjois-Irakissa 30. syyskuuta. Peshmerga-taistelijat valtasivat Isisin hallinnoimia alueita Kirkukin kaupungin lähistöllä.
According to some sources,3 Russians have been killed. We do not know yet if they are regular russian soldiers,or volunteers or something else..‘Moderate Rebels’ Are Planning Suicide Attacks on Russians in Syria
Austin Bodetti | (The Daily Beast) | David Axe | Russia Insider
- Sounds moderate to us
- The Homs Liberation Movement is a ‘Free Syrian Army faction close to al Qaeda’ — things are just getting more and more moderate
Originally appeared at The Daily Beast
After more than a week of Russian aerial attacks, Syrian rebels plan to hit back with double agents and suicide bombers.
“First, we will endure the violent aerial bombardment, then move to weaken Russia by all means available, such as recruiting agents in the ranks of the regime to provide us with the movements of the Russians and the regime,” Capt. Rashid al-Hourani, from the rebel Homs Liberation Movement, told The Daily Beast by telephone.
The Homs Liberation Movement—a division of the U.S.-backed Free Syrian Army—seems ready to use tactics associated with ISIS. “We will conduct martyrdom operations carried out by dissident officers,” al-Hourani said, using a euphemism for suicide attacks.
Though this may not be all that surprising. The Movement is an Islamist faction known to be a close military ally of the official al Qaeda franchise in Syria known as Jabhat al-Nusra. According to Genevieve Casagrande, an analyst at the Washington, D.C.-based Institute for the Study of War, “The relationship between Nusra and Tahrir Homs with regards to governance was thought of as ‘uneasy’ when Nusra first started to assert itself (and it’s strict version of sharia) in Homs, however, they have likely grown closer as time has gone on and probably are currently participating in joint rebel governance structures together.” Al-Nusra has already warned Russia that it will face another Afghanistan in Russia.
Also, the Movement is in a desperate situation. Its bases are in al-Rastan, Talbiseh, and other cities in the rebel enclave between Hama and Homs in western Syria, an area encircled by the Russian-backed Syrian army—and a main target of Russian bombing and cruise-missile attacks that kicked off in late September.
Russia has deployed at least 35 warplanes plus helicopters and hundreds of military advisers to Syria.
The Movement’s territory bisects a highway linking Damascus with Latakia, where the Russian military has its Syria headquarters. For the Syrian government to link up with the Russians and secure arguably its most important supply route, it must clear out the rebels north of Homs, including al-Hourani’s fighters.
The battle will involve more than planes, tanks and infantry. The media are also a weapon.
The Syrian government and its Iranian and Russian allies portray all rebels, including the Free Syrian Army, as terrorists. The Movement has a plan to defend itself against potentially demoralizing propaganda. “We will create a unified media outlet to carry news of our victories over both the Russians and the regime to strengthen morale and enthusiasm among the fighters,” al-Hourani said.
Russian President Vladimir Putin has suggested that the FSA should join the Russian and Syrian militaries in battling ISIS, but al-Hourani said that Russian airstrikes have only succeeded in unifying Syria’s squabbling rebel factions against Moscow and Damascus. In early October, 41 rebel units announced that they would begin targeting Russian forces. The Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood and Saudi clerics have called for anti-Russian jihad.
But al-Hourani said he rejected holy war. “We are neither secular nor Islamic,” he said. “We represent Syrian society—a tolerant, moderate state.”
To be fair, even American-trained “secular” rebels have fought alongside al Qaeda, refused to oppose it, surrendered to it and armed it with American-made weapons. But the Movement says it wants to be an American ally in Syria. “There is no relationship between the Homs Liberation Movement and America,” al-Hourani told The Daily Beast, “but we would like there to be one.”
But the rebel officer said he wants different weaponry than the United States has provided other rebel brigades. “The weapons provided by the United States are defensive rather than offensive, requiring those who receive them to fight political battles according to implemented procedures,” al-Hourani said. “The factions armed by America cannot conduct any operations by themselves.” Al-Hourani said he hoped the Americans would arm his unit, as it has done for other FSA brigades. The United States had two separate programs to train and equip Syrian rebels—one run by the CIA, which targets Assad regime forces, plus another, less secretive effort that managed to deploy just a handful of fighters, tasked with only fighting ISIS, at a cost of $500 million. The White House canceled the latter program last week, after The Daily Beast showed how U.S.-provided materiel was last seen in the hands of a rebel commander who had gone rogue and denounced the Pentagon program. The White House said it would soon launch a new train-and-equip effort.
Left to its own devices, the Homs Liberation Movement won’t bother trying to fight like the Americans do, according to Al Hourani. Instead, the rebel group will borrow a page from ISIS—and infiltrate, then suicide-bomb, the Russian-regime coalition.
