Russian involvement in Syrian crisis

apple

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 15, 2011
Messages
612
Likes
174
Time has come now to exploit the war spoils.So it's waste of time fighting by either of the proxies.Transition of power may happen.Russia will put it's might on backing Assad.ISIS is not their concern.They are buying time for negotiations to start.
Don't really agree (to be honest I'm not fully sure what you're trying to say) with any of that. But, I'm not going to argue with you.

While it's setting the bar incredibly low, Assad is less bad in comparison to ISIS.

I'd, personally, be very happy for a strong Syrian state, even if it's an Assad led, pro-Russian state, defeat ISIS. Am a bit ashamed by my lack of humanity, but every member of ISIS has forfeited the right to be treated as a human, in my opinion, and think other Arabs/ Muslims/ Russian savages have the appropriate level of brutality to properly deal what that kind of scum.
 

Yumdoot

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 10, 2015
Messages
778
Likes
688
Since there is no 'Indian involvement in Syria' thread.

At first I thought what is Bhagwat ji doing with Jaatnis. :p



The media jhamela on the Russians getting into Syria reminded me of this (sorry but only Indians would be able to make out what it is):
 
Last edited:

Varahamihira

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 4, 2015
Messages
245
Likes
291
Country flag
Don't really agree (to be honest I'm not fully sure what you're trying to say) with any of that. But, I'm not going to argue with you.

While it's setting the bar incredibly low, Assad is less bad in comparison to ISIS.

I'd, personally, be very happy for a strong Syrian state, even if it's an Assad led, pro-Russian state, defeat ISIS. Am a bit ashamed by my lack of humanity, but every member of ISIS has forfeited the right to be treated as a human, in my opinion, and think other Arabs/ Muslims/ Russian savages have the appropriate level of brutality to properly deal what that kind of scum.
If Russia fights ISIS then they are not only going to fight them in Syria but may also fight at home too.They have to spend more money which they are losing everyday.But if they wait and defend Assad they can buy time to negotiate power transition deal with US.But if US want to escalate they will drag their feet on negotiations.And there might be direct fight b/w Russia and ISIS.
Hope that helps you understand.
 

apple

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 15, 2011
Messages
612
Likes
174
If Russia fights ISIS then they are not only going to fight them in Syria but may also fight at home too.They have to spend more money which they are losing everyday.But if they wait and defend Assad they can buy time to negotiate power transition deal with US.But if US want to escalate they will drag their feet on negotiations.And there might be direct fight b/w Russia and ISIS.
Hope that helps you understand.
OK, I sort of get what your trying to say. Sorry to seem to bail out, but I'm not too interested in hypothetical discussions about International Relations.

But, as it was me that responded to you I should have the decency to reply.

I can't see how Russia can defend Assad without fighting ISIS, unless there is somekind of truce between Assad and ISIS.

You think the US want to negotiate a power transition? Once again I don't agree with that. They want Assad gone and ISIS destroyed.

And isn't Russia going there prop up Assad? Why would they want to take part in negotiations about his removal and, last but not least, Assad's still in power, why would he negotiate?

Fundamentally, I think you've misjudged the whole position. ISIS want to behead Assad. The other anti Assad groups; FSA, the Kurds, Al Nusra, etc... want him gone too and aren't under anyone's control. You seem to imply, or perhaps I'm just presuming things, that the US is controlling groups on the ground in Syria and can negotiate on those groups behalf. I really, really, really don't believe that.

I think I'll stop here. As I was saying, I don't like doing hypothetical debates.
 

Varahamihira

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 4, 2015
Messages
245
Likes
291
Country flag
I think I'll stop here. As I was saying, I don't like doing hypothetical debates.
You don't have to reply but for benefit of others I will try to explain what I think is going on.

I can't see how Russia can defend Assad without fighting ISIS, unless there is somekind of truce between Assad and ISIS.
Russians won't attack until they see some danger to Assads' life or on his assets.Russians were in Syria for more than 2 years but in small numbers, now mobilising forces quickly.They don't want to escalate.

You think the US want to negotiate a power transition? Once again I don't agree with that. They want Assad gone and ISIS destroyed.
Assad gone but in what manner when he is ready to negotiate.
Do you remember US dropped weapons in Syria to groups fighting ISIS but these weapons landed into the hands of ISIS.Do you think it happened accidentally.

When US can sit and watch ISIS and Assad fight each other then why would they want ISIS destroyed.Just like US supplied weapons to Taliban in 80's(they even hosted them in White House) they just doing the same with ISIS.This time they are not doing it in open and not doing directly.What I'm trying to say is US created a situation where ISIS became strong.This may be preposterous but US supported Osama too to bring down Soviets.

And isn't Russia going there prop up Assad? Why would they want to take part in negotiations about his removal and, last but not least, Assad's still in power, why would he negotiate?
Russia is losing it's clout over others and if it succeeds in power transition in Syria it's clout increases in others eyes.

Assad is losing the war so only option for him is to negotiate a deal and maybe live in London or some other place afterwards.

Fundamentally, I think you've misjudged the whole position. ISIS want to behead Assad. The other anti Assad groups; FSA, the Kurds, Al Nusra, etc... want him gone too and aren't under anyone's control. You seem to imply, or perhaps I'm just presuming things, that the US is controlling groups on the ground in Syria and can negotiate on those groups behalf. I really, really, really don't believe that.
US don't have to control them,give them what they want that is not defending Assad and scare the hell out of him.Thus destroying Syria.
The main objective is to destroy Syria so much that it's natural resources are under control(direct or indirect) of Western powers.
 

pmaitra

Senior Member
Joined
Mar 10, 2009
Messages
33,262
Likes
19,600
Why Russia Won’t Let Syria Fall
  • The kind of extremism ISIS represents is a threat to Russia
  • Moscow can not stand idly by as yet more Middle East Christians are forced to flee
  • Damascus has been a partner to Moscow for decades
Martin Sieff | (The Arab Weekly) | Russia Insider



This article originally appeared at The Arab Weekly

Russian President Vladimir Putin is running increased risks of clashes with the United States, Saudi Arabia, other major Muslim nations and Israel by intervening in Syria.

Although the move is being painted in the US media as reckless, meaningless and dangerous, Putin is making a rational calculation. And once again he has caught Obama administration policymakers and Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu by surprise.

First, Putin is moving decisively to rescue the last Russian foothold in the Middle East and on the Mediterranean.

Russia is a country deeply concerned with maintaining the status quo and preserving its increasingly challenged position in the world. That is a far cry from the revolutionary communist ideology of the Khrushchev and Brezhnev eras that fantasised with perfect faith about toppling every Sunni Arab monarchy and emirate from the Atlantic to the Indian oceans.

Putin has every reason to be concerned about stopping the Islamic State (ISIS) in its tracks. Russians fear a triumphant ISIS in Syria and Iraq would re-radicalise Chechens and other Muslim nationalities in Russia and set off a new wave of terror.

The fact that Putin made his decision in early September is significant, too. At the beginning of September Russians remember and grieve the 186 children killed by Chechen terrorists who had held them hostage during three days of terror at Beslan school in the Caucasus from September 1st to September 4th, 2004.

Putin has consistently worked to re-establish the standing and prestige of the Orthodox Christian Church in Russia. Traditionally, until the 1917 Bolshevik revolution, Russia took its role as the defender of Christians — especially Orthodox ones — across the Middle East very highly. Russia fought the 1853-56 Crimean War against Protestant England and Catholic France precisely over the issue of which Christian power should have the dominant role in protecting holy sites and Christians in the old caliphate of the Ottoman empire.

Syria was about 10% Christian 20 years ago; now its historic Christian communities, among the oldest in the world, are virtually extinct. Much as secular Westerners may sneer, the motive of protecting and restoring what is left is also a factor in Moscow’s calculations.

Most of all, Syria represents Russia’s last foothold in the region and on the Mediterranean shore. And the Assad dynasty has been a loyal ally of both the Soviet Union and modern Russia. Russian policymakers feel a comparative loyalty to Damascus as the United States has felt for so many years to Tel Aviv.

The United States’ still-ascendant neo-cons and neo-liberal hawks led by Susan Rice, Samantha Powers and Victoria Nuland remain committed to their 21st-century crusade of spreading secular democracy, peace and freedom Washington-style across the Middle East by fire, sword and drone — heedless of the tens of thousands of innocent civilians who get in the way of US friendly fire.

The neo-liberals, like the neo-cons before them, continue to grind up every pre-existing, previously stable government that stands in their way. The pattern of Iraq, Yemen, Egypt and Libya looked set to be repeated in Syria. Then Putin stepped in.

There is one more motive for Putin’s intervention: It is retaliation for the continued, enormously dangerous US game of arming and training Ukraine troops and feeding the fires of anti-Russian prejudice both in Ukraine and in the United States.

Putin’s move to support Syrian President Bashar Assad is a strong signal to Washington that Russia is perfectly capable of striking back.

Initial reports suggest Putin’s decision to send aid and military advisers to Syria have prompted Washington to show it is prepared to cooperate with Russia over crafting a compromise political solution for Syria.

The US government had shown it was prepared to outrage and ignore Russia by installing its favourites next door to Moscow in Ukraine. Putin is determined not to let them get away with it again in the Middle East.

From the Kremlin’s perspective the risks of intervening in Syria are far outweighed by the opportunities and by the danger Russia believes it can prevent through its intervention.

One thing above all is clear. The Russians are back: They aren’t going away soon.
 

pmaitra

Senior Member
Joined
Mar 10, 2009
Messages
33,262
Likes
19,600
PM Netanyahu: Israel, Russia to Avoid Coming to Blows in Syria
  • The two find themselves on the opposite sides - Israel has repeatedly struck against Syrian forces that Russia is supplying
  • There is little either can do to end the intervention of the other
  • Israeli PM was adamant that Israeli strikes will continue - but apparently wants to avoid endangering Russians and claims a technical agreement to that effect has been reached
Raphael Ahren | (The Times of Israel) | Russia Insider


Putin’s dominant hand gesture and Netanyahu’s defensive elbow block (paraphrased caption)

Originally appeared at The Times of Israel

Israel and Russia agreed on a mechanism to avoid military confrontations between the two countries in Syria, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said Monday after a meeting with Russian President Vladimir Putin in Moscow.

“My goal was to prevent misunderstandings between IDF forces and Russian forces. We have established a mechanism to prevent such misunderstandings. This is very important for Israel’s security,” Netanyahu told Israeli reporters during a telephone briefing from the Russian capital.

“Our conversation was dedicated to the complex security situation on the northern border,” the prime minister said. “I explained our policies in different ways to try to thwart the deadly weapons transfers from the Syrian army to Hezbollah — action actually undertaken under the supervision of Iran.”

Netanyahu said that he told Putin in “no uncertain terms” that Israel will not tolerate Tehran’s efforts to arm Israel’s enemies in the region, and that Jerusalem has taken and will continue to take action against any such attempts. “This is our right and also our duty. There were no objections to our rights and to what I said. On the contrary: there was readiness to make sure that whatever Russia’s intentions for Syria, Russia will not be a partner in extreme actions by Iran against us.”

Ahead of their meeting, as they made statements to the press, Netanyahu told Putin that Iran and Syria have been arming Hezbollah with advanced weapons, thousands of which are directed at Israeli cities. “At the same time, Iran, under the auspices of the Syrian army, is attempting to build a second terrorist front against us from the Golan Heights.”

The prime minister told his Russian host that Israel’s policy is to prevent these weapons transfers “and to prevent the creation of a terrorist front and attacks on us from the Golan Heights.” Netanyahu came to the Kremlin to “clarify our policies, and to make sure that there is no misunderstanding between our forces,” he said.

Putin replied by saying that the Syrian army was too bogged down in its own civil war to deal with fighting against Israel.

“All of Russia’s actions in the region will always be very responsible,” Putin said. “We are aware of the shelling against Israel and we condemn all such shelling. I know that these shellings are carried out by internal elements. In regard to Syria, we know that the Syrian army is in a situation such that it is incapable of opening a new front. Our main goal is to defend the Syrian state. However, I understand your concern.”

He also said he remains mindful that many émigrés from the former Soviet Union live in Israel, which “has a special effect on our bilateral relations.”
 

pmaitra

Senior Member
Joined
Mar 10, 2009
Messages
33,262
Likes
19,600
Al Qaeda Blames Russia for Slower Progress in Syria
Terrorists believe Russian involvement is a major setback for them

Jason Ditz | (Antiwar.com) | Russia Insider


Tough luck guys

Originally appeared at Antiwar.com

Talk of increased Russian military involvement in Syria has the various rebel factions simultaneously conceding that it’s a setback to their civil war, and one that’s liable to extend the conflict many additional years, while threatening huge Russia casualties and “another Afghanistan” for the troops being deployed.

The rebels are trying to shoehorn the model of the 1979-1989 Soviet occupation of Afghanistan on the war, pushing the idea of forming a new mujahideen to combat the Russians. The differences are stark, however, as this war has been ongoing for years before there was a hint of increased Russian involvement, and ISIS is the major power in Syria at this point, at least from a territorial perspective.

Indeed, the increased involvement is at this point largely speculative, with Russia denying that anything they’re doing is really “new” but rather just a fulfillment of existing military deals with Syria. The “escalation” has been heavily hyped by US officials, who have lashed Russia even though they’re nominally both opposed to ISIS.

The Islamist faction, led by al-Qaeda, which has been trying to push into Latakia is blaming Russia for the increased resistance they are encountering, saying it shows that Russia is “taking the lead,” though most of the battles there haven’t been against the Syrian military in the first place, but rather against local Alawites, supportive of the government, who rightly believe they’ll be wiped out if al-Qaeda seizes their coastal homeland.

Russia’s primary interest in Syria has always been their naval base in Tartus, which could be imperiled if the Syrian government is completely wiped out, yet the claims by secular FSA rebels that the Russian government is opposed to a “political solution” is a flat out lie, as Russia has been trying to get the FSA and the other rebels to talk political settlement for years, with those rebels ruling out anything short of complete regime change.

Some of those meetings occurred as recently as last month, and an attempt by Russia to organize “unity government” talks collapsed quite recently on the refusal of the FSA and other rebels to even take part. Though the US at time gave lip service to the “unity” idea, they have similarly insisted recently that any “deal” needs to amount to full regime change, ousting Assad and his inner circle in favor of pro-US figures.

That’s where the big problem lies, as Russia believes, and probably rightly so, that installing a pro-US regime will cost them their naval base, the only Russian base in the Mediterranean.
 

pmaitra

Senior Member
Joined
Mar 10, 2009
Messages
33,262
Likes
19,600
Russia Is Not the Enemy
When will US elites stop living in the Cold War?

Stephen Kinzer | (The Boston Globe) | Russia Insider



Originally appeared in The Boston Globe

Real enemies are a threat to any country, but imagined enemies can be even more dangerous.

They sap resources, provoke needless conflicts, and divert attention from true challenges.

The United States has constructed such a fantasy by turning Russia into an enemy.


Our current campaign against Russia was set off by what some in Washington call its “aggression” against neighboring Ukraine. Russia’s decision to aid the Assad regime in Syria has also angered us. The true reasons for anti-Russia sentiment, though, lie deeper.

Most leading figures in the American political and security establishments grew up during the Cold War. They spent much of their lives believing that the Antichrist lived in Moscow. Today they speak as if the Cold War never ended.

For a brief period in the 1990s, it appeared that Russia had lost control over its own security. Stunned into paralysis by the collapse of the Soviet Union, and without any power to resist, Russians had to watch helplessly as NATO, their longtime enemy, established bases directly on their borders. Many in Washington believed that the United States had permanently broken Russian power. In their jubilation, they imagined that we would be able to keep our foot on Russia’s neck forever.

That was highly unrealistic. By pressing our advantage too strongly in the years after the Cold War, we guaranteed a nationalist reaction. President Vladimir Putin embodies it. He is popular in Russia because his people believe he is trying to claw back some of Russia’s lost power. For the same reason, he is demonized in Washington.

Having Russia as an enemy is strangely comforting to Americans. It reassures us that the world has not really changed. That means we do not have to change our policies. Our back-to-the-future hostility toward Russia allows us to pull out our dusty Cold War playbook. We have resurrected not just that era’s anti-Moscow policies but also the hostile rhetoric that accompanied them.

This summer’s most extreme exaggeration of Russia’s power came not from an inveterate Cold Warrior like John McCain or Hillary Clinton, but from the new chairman of our Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Joseph Dunford. At his Senate confirmation hearing in July, Dunford said Russia “could pose an existential threat to the United States.” He suggested that, to defend ourselves, we should send aid to Ukrainians who want to fight Russia.

Statements like these are bizarre on several levels. First, Russia is a fundamentally weak country with a tottering economy. It is far from being able to compete with the United States, much less threaten it. Second, Russia is surrounded by American military bases, hears threats from the West every day, faces NATO guns on its borders, and therefore has reason to fear for its security. Third, by pushing Russia away, we are driving it toward China, thereby encouraging a partnership that could develop into a true threat to American power.

The most important reason it is folly to turn Russia into an enemy is more far-reaching than any of these. Europe remains stable only when all of its major countries are included in the process of governing, and each one’s security concerns are taken seriously.

The visionary Prince Metternich grasped this truth 200 years ago. Metternich was foreign minister of the Austrian Empire and mastermind of the Congress of Vienna, which was charged with reconstructing Europe after nearly a quarter-century of war. France was the villain. French armies under Napoleon had ravaged much of Europe. Anti-French sentiment was widespread and virulent. Delegates to the Congress of Vienna demanded harsh punishment for the troublemaker. Metternich resisted their pressure. He persuaded other leaders that in the interest of future stability, they must invite the miscreant back into the family. That kept Europe at peace for generations.

Emotion argues that Russia is a troublemaker because it refuses to play by our rules, and must be confronted and punished. Reason should reply that Russia is a legitimate power, cannot be expected to take orders from the West, and will not stand quietly while the United States promotes anti-Russia movements on its borders.

In our current standoff, Russia has at least one advantage: Its leaders are not foolish enough to consider the United States an existential threat. We would benefit from a bit of their realism.

_____________________________________________________________________________
Commentary: This is the Boston Globe. Boston is the place where the Tsarnayev brothers exploded pressure cooker bombs, after the FBI and the CIA failed to take adequate action even after two prior warnings from the Russian secret service. Not all Americans think the same way.
 

Cadian

Regular Member
Joined
May 5, 2014
Messages
824
Likes
795
Russia deploys powerful strike group to Syria
Jeremy Binnie, London and Sean O'Connor, Indianapolis and Gareth Jennings, London - IHS Jane's Defence Weekly
21 September 2015


The Russian Air Force has deployed a powerful air group to Syria that includes 12 Su-24 and 12 Su-25 ground attack aircraft, satellite imagery from Airbus Defence & Space has confirmed. The Su-25s had arrived at the Syrian naval aviation base in Latakia by 20 September and the Su-24s were there by 21 September.

Airbus Defence & Space satellite imagery showing four Russian Su-30SM, 12 SU-24, and 12 Su-25 jets on the taxiway at Bassel al-Assad International Airport in Syria's Latakia province on 21 September. (Copyright CNES 2015, Distribution Airbus DS)

The aircraft supplement four Su-30 multirole fighters that were present in 15 September imagery of the Syrian base, which shares a runway with Bassel al-Assad International Airport and is home to the Syrian Arab Navy's Mi-14P and Ka-28 helicopters.

It is unclear at this stage whether the Russian jets, which were lined up on the taxiway on 21 September, will remain at the base.

http://www.janes.com/article/54709/russia-deploys-powerful-strike-group-to-syria

P.S. Does anyone have Janes's account?
 

Screambowl

Ghanta Senior Member?
Senior Member
Joined
Jan 1, 2015
Messages
7,950
Likes
7,911
Country flag
So the Russians are going to create their own version of Zion in Middle East.

Syria-ites are going to be the thorn in Middle East just like the Israelites were 50 years back.

And again 50 years from today the same game we see today will get repeated only that time it would be in another direction. My god, this is getting crazier by the day.

And we don't even have 50 years worth of pop-corns :p to watch the same crab.
same like Afghan Soveit war......
 

Yumdoot

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 10, 2015
Messages
778
Likes
688
Its overwhelmingly ground attack capability that has been sent into Syria.

Essentially they do not seem to be providing for top cover. Is there a chance the West and Russia struck a side deal, an annexure deal at the time of Iranian Nuke Deal. Russians move in, the western press creates FUD and then nothing happens. If the West decides to really go against ISIS then you can expect the Araps to create ruckus. But right now the Araps ko to saanp soongh gaya, absolutely quite.

ISIS is as much Arap creation as its western.
 

pmaitra

Senior Member
Joined
Mar 10, 2009
Messages
33,262
Likes
19,600
Providing Thats a Russian Air Legion in Syria: What Will It Strike?
Assuming those 28 new planes spotted at Latakia airport will be flown by Russian pilots, will they strike solely at ISIS, or Nusra and other fundamentalists as well?

Aron Lund | (Carnegie - American think tank) | Russia Insider



Originally appeared at Carnegie

Russian President Vladimir Putin’s decision to order his military into Syria may simply have been the gut reaction of a hard-power ruler who, for lack of tools other than a hammer, can imagine no problem other than a nail. But dispatching the Russian Air Force in support of the embattled Syrian leader Bashar al-Assad may also have been a true political masterstroke, in which case its political impact is likely to make a far bigger crater than any of the bombs that Putin is preparing to drop on Syria.

The first indications of a Russian military deployment in Syria leaked out in late August. It gradually became clear that something big was happening at the Basil al-Assad International Airport near Latakia in government-controlled western Syria. Not only was Assad’s army getting new weapons, it was also getting new comrades-in-arms.

According to satellite imagery reviewed by the Washington Post and The Aviationist, a specialist blog, the Russian expeditionary corps has now grown to nearly thirty Sukhoi combat aircraft. Most are SU-24 and SU-25 models that fly “low and slow” in order to take out ground targets, but there are also a few SU-30 jets—a “game changer,” according to a pilot interviewed by the Post, since this multi-role fighter could pose a serious threat to American aircraft in Syria.

Apart from the Sukhoi jets, the airport has also become home to several Mi-24 attack helicopters, transport aircraft, air defense systems, and an unknown number of remotely piloted drones. In addition, there is a small but growing ground force, although it is not clear whether it could be tasked with more than guarding the air base and surrounding areas. Russian forces have been seen embedding with Syrian forces, although it is perhaps as trainers or coordinators.

Today, Wednesday, satellite imagery also revealed two more Russian outposts. U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry has said that American intelligence indicates that these bases are not so much the start of an additional deployment as defensive outposts serving to protect the initial air base.

Political Results

The deployment is military, but its first and perhaps most important effects are political. Israel, which occasionally attacks what it says are Hezbollah targets inside Syria, and the United States have already met with the Russians to “deconflict,” a military term for how to avoid accidents and unwanted clashes.

Israel couldn’t care less about public opinion in Syria, but for the United States, this is an embarrassing position to be in. There is already much ill will among Syrian rebels over U.S. strikes on al-Qaeda targets within the anti-Assad guerrillas. The White House may continue to insist that Bashar al-Assad must step down, but the U.S. Air Force will henceforth be sharing Syrian airspace with both Assad’s own air force—which is notorious for its unrelenting bombing of civilian neighborhoods and infrastructure—and with a Russian expeditionary corps sent to aid him. It won’t be popular with American allies.

By introducing Russian jets and air defense systems into the Syrian theatre, Putin has also created facts on the ground (or just above it) that will help forestall further action against Assad by the United States or its allies. American Syria policy is currently under scrutiny and if internal White House debates about Assad were indeed moving in the do-something direction as some claim, then Vladimir Putin has just served up a brand new counter-argument.

Whether by accident or design, the Latakia deployment will also draw attention to Vladimir Putin’s appearance before the United Nations General Assembly in late September, his first in ten years. The Russian leader has been trying to promote an international coalition against the self-proclaimed Islamic State, of which Assad would be a part. Having just thrown his gauntlet down in Latakia, Putin won’t necessarily gain a more sympathetic hearing from the world leaders assembled in New York, but they’re sure to listen very closely.

Military Results

Although the Russian intervention seems partly designed for political effect, those Sukhoi jets aren’t just going sit on a runway in Latakia for the benefit of satellite paparazzi. According to U.S. officials, Russian airstrikes in Syria are likely to begin “soon”—and as this article was being written, as-yet unconfirmed reports alleged that Russian jets were already backing a regime offensive in the Aleppo area.

Will the Russian Air Force be able to make a difference on the ground?

Yes, probably, says David A. Deptula—and he should know. A retired U.S. Air Force lieutenant-general and air warfare theoretician, Deptula planned the American bombing campaign against Saddam Hussein’s army in 1991, when the U.S. and its allies—including, at the time, Syria—liberated Kuwait from Iraqi occupation. Ten years later he oversaw the air war that toppled the Taliban regime in Afghanistan.

“With competent pilots and with an effective command and control process, the addition of these aircraft could prove very effective depending on the desired objectives for their use,” Deptula told the New York Times. Which begs the question, what are those objectives?

The Kremlin has couched its involvement in Syria in terms of a war against jihadi extremism. It also seeks to bring Assad out of the cold and into an international coalition against the so-called Islamic State. In other words, focusing attacks on the Islamic State seems like a given, at least initially, but there are reasons to look at other targets, too.

But where and how could Russia maximize the impact of its strikes? Let’s look at some possible scenarios for the early stages of a Russian aerial intervention.

Option One: the Islamic State in Aleppo

At the time of writing, unconfirmed reports are coming in about Russian strikes in support of a sudden regime offensive striking out from eastern Aleppo. However, until now no evidence has emerged and it is important to remember that Syrian activist media, on both sides, is full of rumors. The news about a government offensive seems to be true, however, and reports indicate that it might be intended to relieve the Kweiris Airport, a small government-held pocket of land east of Aleppo that has long been under siege by the Islamic State. When other government enclaves in Syria’s north and east have fallen to the Islamic State, the captured soldiers have been summarily murdered in grotesque video-taped massacres that have unsettled pro-Assad constituencies and provoked angry reactions within the ranks.

Saving the Kweiris defenders would therefore provide both a political and a military boost for Assad, and it would help him clean up his frontlines in a crucial area of Syria.

Interestingly, an attack on the Kweiris pocket could also knock the Islamic State off balance in the Aleppo area, just as rebels north of the city are struggling to keep open their supply lines to Turkey against an Islamic State offensive. Coincidence or not, if Russia is involved, it would be an interesting first example of the potential interplay between offensives by Russian-backed army forces and U.S.-backed rebels.

The reports of Russian strikes near Kweiris remain unconfirmed for now. If they turn out to be true, it is possible that this will be a first area of focus. The Assad-Putin alliance could then try to change the balance of power in Aleppo. If they stick to Islamic State targets, instead of straying into battle with other rebels, a main ambition would probably be to push the jihadi group away from the government supply line between Aleppo and Hama in the south. The Assad-held areas of Aleppo are currently supplied by way of a hard-to-guard desert road that runs down through Sfeira, Khanaser, and Ithriya past the Ismaili-populated Salamiyeh area east of Hama. In the Salamiyeh area itself, the Islamic State has been nibbling away at the government’s perimeter defenses, but the desert road up to Aleppo has been a relatively tranquil front. Still, for Assad, the Islamic State’s presence just next to his Aleppo artery is a lethal threat.

Option Two: The Islamic State East of Homs

Directly south of this region, there is another area where Assad is vulnerable to the Islamic State—the eastern Homs region. It is impossible to tell what Russian intentions are, but if we’re looking at likely places for Russian air support to Assad, the area between Homs and Palmyra must be close to the top of the list.

The fall of Palmyra in May this year opened up the desert fringes east of Homs to the Islamic State. This is a target-rich environment, to say the least, and Assad’s overstretched army must be distressed by the sudden emergence of a new and untenably long frontline.

The region also contains the Syrian government’s last remaining oil and gas fields, as well as the pipelines that come with them. The Syrian military air base known as T4, located in the middle of the desert west of Palmyra, has emerged as the anchoring point of government defensive positions shielding these fields against the Islamic State.

As Carnegie’s Yezid Sayigh wrote a few months ago, and as David C. Butter lays out in detail in this excellent Chatham House report, much of Syria’s power grid runs on natural gas. The state-run national electricity infrastructure still powers all Syrian government and some rebel and Islamic State territories, but 80 percent of the gas feeding its power stations comes from the fields east of Homs. If Assad lost these gas fields and installations, it would therefore have a double effect. It would be a devastating blow to the regime, which is already in a state of structural and financial disrepair, and it could seriously aggravate the economic and humanitarian crisis throughout Syria.

All this makes the Homs-Palmyra region a particularly appealing target for Russian intervention:

  • First, it helps Assad stave off Islamic State attacks and could even enable his forces to recapture Palmyra and shorten the eastern front.
  • Second, it would publicly align Russia—and by extension Assad—with the United States and Europe in a joint struggle against the Islamic State. That’s exactly where Putin and Assad want to end up.
  • Third, it would help keep Syrian state institutions running and prevent a deepening of the humanitarian disaster in Syria. That’s a goal widely shared among the opposition’s Western allies, even though many rebels tend to view Assad as a greater evil than the Islamic State. If an air campaign in Palmyra helps drive a wedge into the opposition camp or among its backers, so much the better from the point of view of Putin and Assad.

Could the Homs-Palmyra area be a place where Russia will focus its air support? Time will tell, but one thing is certain: no one is likely to object too loudly as long as Russian airstrikes are aimed only at the Islamic State and take place in this region. For all we know, the White House might even have quietly ushered the Russians towards Palmyra, fearing that it would otherwise have to fly those bombing runs on its own.

Option Three: al-Qaeda and Others in the Northwest

Eastern Homs isn’t the only place where Assad is in a slow and painful retreat. This spring, the Syrian president was forced out of the city of Idlib and he has been losing ground ever since. By seizing Jisr al-Shughur and other towns in the area, the rebels have now opened up two venues of attack that threaten core regime areas. To the southwest lie the Alawite-populated mountains of the Latakia Governorate, from which much of the military elite hails. Due south of Jisr al-Shughur lie the Ghab Plains, a religiously mixed agricultural flatland that functions as the “soft underbelly” of Hama. So far, the Ghab seems to be where the rebels are concentrating most of their firepower.

The groups digging their way down the Ghab are not aligned with the Islamic State. To the contrary, they are hostile to it. The centerpiece of the anti-Assad insurgency in this region is the Jaish al-Fatah (“Army of Conquest”), a coalition of Islamist groups. Its single biggest member faction is likely to be Ahrar al-Sham, a hardline group backed by Turkey and Qatar. Many of its leaders hail from villages in the Ghab Plains, giving them even more reason to prioritize that battle.

However, the other big group in the Jaish al-Fatah coalition is the Nusra Front, which is al-Qaeda’s branch in Syria. That makes the Syrian northwest another very tempting target for the Russians, for both political and military reasons. Unlike the Islamic State, the Nusra Front is well embedded in the wider Sunni Islamist landscape, meaning that Russian strikes would cause rebel outrage and a political stir among opposition backers. Yet, the U.S. has been bombing select Nusra Front targets for a year now and every country on earth considers al-Qaeda to be fair game.

The alliance between the terrorist-listed Nusra Front and other rebels, which are backed by the Gulf States, Turkey, and the West, creates an opportunity for Putin to conduct strikes that would undoubtedly help Assad while also moving the target away from the Islamic State and toward more mainstream sections of the insurgency. If criticized, his enemies will be in the unenviable position of having to explain why the Russian government shouldn’t attack al-Qaeda. It is not the kind of argument that can be won in the West, at least not outside a very narrow circle of Syria wonks.

Blowing Up Your Narrative

If at some point Putin decides to target other groups than the Islamic State, he’s not likely to stop at the Nusra Front. Whether right off the bat or after a while, he could easily widen the circle of attacks from al-Qaeda and start blasting away at every rebel group in Idlib, Hama, and Latakia under the pretext that they are either “terrorists” or “terrorist allies.” On the ground, things are obviously a bit more complex and, just as obviously, Putin knows that—but he has nothing to gain from acknowledging it.

To the contrary, the Kremlin has every reason to continue blurring the already indistinct dividing line between “extremist” and “moderate” rebels upon which Western states insist. Even though this neatly black and white categorization of Syria’s murky insurgency is at least partly fiction, it remains a politically indispensable formula for Western states that wish to arm anti-Assad forces. Which is precisely why erasing this distinction by extending airstrikes against all manners of rebels as part of an ostensibly anti-jihadi intervention, may turn out to be Putin’s long-term plan.

Blanket attacks on Syrian rebels on the pretext that they are all “al-Qaeda” would lead to much outraged commentary in the Western and Arab press. But to the Russian president it doesn’t matter if you think he’s Mad Vlad or Prudent Putin. He isn’t trying to win hearts and minds, least of all those of the Syrian rebels or their backers. Rather, he is trying to change the balance of power on the ground while firing missile after missile into the West’s political narrative.

Whatever one thinks of that, it is a big and bold idea of the sort that sometimes end up working.
 

pmaitra

Senior Member
Joined
Mar 10, 2009
Messages
33,262
Likes
19,600
http://www.military.com/daily-news/...et-up-military-coordination-cell-baghdad.html

Russia,Syria and Iran set up military coordination cell in Baghdad
There is an interesting but of information in that article:
Meanwhile, a U.S. official described to Fox News how, over the weekend, the Russians were able to move 24 attack jets into Syria undetected.

The Russian military flew 12 Sukhoi Su-25 "Frogfoot" and a dozen Sukhoi Su-24 "Fencer" attack aircraft in "tight formations" under the "steady stream" of the large Russian An-124 cargo planes that have been ferrying supplies from bases in Russia through Iran before traveling on to Syria, the official said.

The large cargo planes appeared as "a big blip" on radar, but flying beneath them were "tight formations" of the smaller Russian fighter jets that used jamming pods and switched off their IFF, which would identify the aircraft to radar.

The large Russian cargo planes have the capability to fly directly from Russia to Syria, but the smaller attack aircraft do not.

"The Russian jets did not have the legs to make it directly from Russia to Syria, and needed a base to refuel," said the official, who spoke to Fox News under the condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to disclose sensitive information.

According to the Aviationist, the Russian cargo planes and fighter jets landed at an airbase in Hamadan, Iran, roughly halfway between Baghdad and Tehran on Sept 18-19.
 

Latest Replies

Global Defence

New threads

Articles

Top