Russian involvement in Syrian crisis
- Thread starter LETHALFORCE
- Start date
pmaitra
Senior Member
- Joined
- Mar 10, 2009
- Messages
- 33,262
- Likes
- 19,595
Treasonous Jimmy Carter Defies Obama, Gives Russia Maps of Terrorist Positions in Syria
Providing Russia with intel on ISIS positions — probably treason, in America….
Rudy Panko | Russia Insider
TRAITOR!
Former U.S. President Jimmy Carter is a certified turncoat. Instead of lounging on the “Lolita Express” with Bill Clinton and Alan Dershowitz (who is not a former president, but is certainly a monster — so he’s absolutely, definitely, presidential material), Carter has devoted his life to treasonous activities such as “advocating for not killing Palestinian children” and “helping Russia locate terrorists.” The second offense is clearly the most heinous. Via our favorite organ of outrageous news:
Let’s see how Fox News spins this into “naive, senile old man helps evil Russia”:
Jimmy! Putin doesn’t care about fly fishing! He is only interested in killing our beloved rainbow sprinkle moderate rebels fighting for freedom (i.e. fly fishing! among other things) in Syria. You demented old man! Off to Gitmo with you!
This is America, in 2015. Yikes.
Providing Russia with intel on ISIS positions — probably treason, in America….
Rudy Panko | Russia Insider
TRAITOR!
Former U.S. President Jimmy Carter is a certified turncoat. Instead of lounging on the “Lolita Express” with Bill Clinton and Alan Dershowitz (who is not a former president, but is certainly a monster — so he’s absolutely, definitely, presidential material), Carter has devoted his life to treasonous activities such as “advocating for not killing Palestinian children” and “helping Russia locate terrorists.” The second offense is clearly the most heinous. Via our favorite organ of outrageous news:
Former President Jimmy Carter said recently that he provided maps of Islamic State positions in Syria to the Russian embassy in Washington, a move apparently at odds with the Obama administration’s official policy of not cooperating with Russia in the Syrian war.
Let’s see how Fox News spins this into “naive, senile old man helps evil Russia”:
Carter said on Sunday in Georgia that he knows Russian President Vladimir Putin “fairly well” because they “have a common interest in fly fishing.” When he met with Putin in April along with other global leaders to discuss the crises in Syria and Ukraine, the Russian president gave him an email address so the two could discuss his “fly fishing experiences, particularly in Russia,” Carter said.
Jimmy! Putin doesn’t care about fly fishing! He is only interested in killing our beloved rainbow sprinkle moderate rebels fighting for freedom (i.e. fly fishing! among other things) in Syria. You demented old man! Off to Gitmo with you!
This is America, in 2015. Yikes.
pmaitra
Senior Member
- Joined
- Mar 10, 2009
- Messages
- 33,262
- Likes
- 19,595
Tide Turns Against US in Syria
US contemplates failure in the Middle East as Russia rises - it helps when you know what you’re doing
Charis Chang | (News Online Australia) | Russia Insider
Originally appeared at News.com.au
RUSSIA’S power play in Syria appears to be paying off with the superpower making inroads against Islamic State and other extremist groups, leaving its American rivals looking ineffective and highlighting US failures in the region.
When Russia decided to involve itself in the war in Syria, American officials accused it of “pouring gasoline on the fire” in Syria and being “unprofessional” for only giving the US an hour’s notice of its intention to launch air strikes.
But just weeks later, Russia’s provocative move seems to be paying off.
Professor Clive Williams of Macquarie University’s Centre for Policing, Intelligence and Counter Terrorism told news.com.au that Russia’s support had helped Syrian armed forces make advances in some contested areas and “clearly it has made a difference for them.”
Earlier this year, commentators were writing off the Syrian army and suggesting that the government’s days were numbered.
With Russian air support, Syrians have been able to hit back against Islamic State in central and north-western regions, in a war that has stretched out for four years under the US’s watch.
The US is opposed to the Syrian regime headed by brutal President Bashar al-Assad and has so far refused to help its troops, but Prof Williams said it was better for the Assad regime to be in power, than for the likely alternative of jihadist groups Islamic State and Jabhat al-Nusra to prevail.
“We know what Islamic State is capable of, they are obviously ruthless and clearly have an agenda to dominate other opposition groups,” he said.
He said Russia’s success highlighted the US’s lack of strategy.
“America doesn’t really have a strategy but Russia’s is clear cut,” he said, adding that Russia aimed to support Assad’s regime and its own strategic interests.
While the US’s aim was to support Iraq and counter Islamic State, Prof Williams said what it was doing “was not really making much of a difference on the ground.”
This was partly because the US did not want to put American boots on the ground and was limited in what it could achieve through air strikes.
Iraqi forces backed by the US had corrupt leaders and were poorly motivated, and seemed to be militarily incapable of making advances against Islamic State.
“They rely mainly on the Kurds to do the ground fighting and they are really only interested in establishing their own state,” Prof Williams said.
HAS AMERICA FAILED?
Earlier this month, US President Barack Obama admitted that his efforts to help resolve the Syria crisis had so far failed, but defended his strategy and dismissed assertions that Russian President Vladimir Putin was now the dominant world leader.
“I didn’t say it was going to be done in a year,” Obama said in a US 60 Minutesinterview. “Syria has been a difficult problem for the entire world community. What we have not been able to do so far — and I’m the first to acknowledge this — is to change the dynamic inside of Syria.”
But this week former US secretary of state Henry Kissinger argued in The Wall Street Journal that Russia’s military action was the latest symptom of the “disintegration of the American role in stabilising the Middle East order.”
He said the geopolitical alliances in the region were now in “shambles” and that four countries — Libya, Yemen, Syria and Iraq — had ceased to function.
“American policy has sought to straddle the motivations of all parties and is therefore on the verge of losing the ability to shape events,” Kissinger wrote.
“The US is now opposed to, or at odds in some way or another with, all parties in the region: with Egypt on human rights, with Saudi Arabia over Yemen, with each of the Syrian parties over different objectives.”
He said the US wanted to remove Assad but had been unwilling to generate effective political or military leverage to achieve that aim, or to put forward an alternative political structure to replace him. This had allowed Russia, Iran, Islamic State and other terrorist organisations to move into the vacuum.
When asked whether America had failed, Prof Williams said: “I don’t think its strategy in the Middle East is very effective.”
“It has involved itself in the war between Shia and Sunni Islam without understanding the dynamics of the situation.
“In the longer term whatever America does isn’t going to be very effective.”
He said the US needed to rethink its approach more generally in the Middle East, including its relationship with Israel and Saudi Arabia, and whether there was a more effective way to counter Islamic State, by supporting Iranian and Shia militia forces in Iraq, for example.
Overall if you looked at American involvement in the Middle East since the 1990s, Prof Williams said: “it has all been pretty disastrous in terms of long term outcomes.”
Rather than having a clear objective, he said America seemed to “jump in” to conflicts in the Middle East and South Asia before pulling out after a few years.
“I’m not sure whether Western involvement in the Middle East against Islamic State is really the answer,” Prof Williams said.
“The situation in the Middle East is complicated and I think we need to step back and think about what sort of strategic outcomes we want and how best to achieve them.”
He said that America’s best move to combat Islamic State could actually be to withdraw from the conflict and let regional countries sort out what is essentially a regional problem.
“If we weren’t involved, Islamic State would also be less of a problem in Australia. They are attacking us at the moment because we are involved in attacking them,” he said.
“We could pull out and let the Saudis and Iranians get on with it. The Saudis are fighting through proxies and so is Iran. Maybe there’s not much to be gained by us from being involved in that situation.”
IS RUSSIA THE REAL WINNER?
Last month Russia announced an intelligence-sharing agreement with Syria, Iran, and Iraq in their fight against Islamic State, a move The New York Times says caught US officials completely off guard.
“It was another sign,” Michael Gordon wrote, that Russia “was moving ahead with a sharply different tack from that of the Obama administration in battling the Islamic State … by assembling a rival coalition that includes Iran and the Syrian government.”
On Monday, US Secretary of State John Kerry said the US would meet with Russian, Saudi and Turkish leaders to seek an end to the conflict in Syria.
Allowing Syria to become a haven for terrorist operations would not benefit any of the nations, including Russia, which would be concerned that the influence of the extremist groups could reach into Muslim regions along its southern border.
When asked whether Russia would be the winner in Syria, Prof Williams said it was in a much better position to be there in the longer term than the US.
He said Russia had been accessing a naval base in Syria since the 1970s and was there at the invitation of the Syrian regime. The naval facility in Tartus has been in use since 1971, and it was Russia’s only spot in the Mediterranean where warships could stop for repairs and replenishment. This year Russia also established a forward air base nearby, in Latakia.
“It’s not like they suddenly appeared on the scene to make life difficult for the Americans,” Prof Williams said, adding that Russia had an enduring strategic interest in Syria.
“If it wants to be seen as a world player it needs access to foreign bases, access to the port in Syria is very important in that context.”
Ultimately, he said Russia would probably be more effective against Islamic State because it had a clear mission to protect its military assets and support the Assad regime.
US contemplates failure in the Middle East as Russia rises - it helps when you know what you’re doing
Charis Chang | (News Online Australia) | Russia Insider
Originally appeared at News.com.au
RUSSIA’S power play in Syria appears to be paying off with the superpower making inroads against Islamic State and other extremist groups, leaving its American rivals looking ineffective and highlighting US failures in the region.
When Russia decided to involve itself in the war in Syria, American officials accused it of “pouring gasoline on the fire” in Syria and being “unprofessional” for only giving the US an hour’s notice of its intention to launch air strikes.
But just weeks later, Russia’s provocative move seems to be paying off.
Professor Clive Williams of Macquarie University’s Centre for Policing, Intelligence and Counter Terrorism told news.com.au that Russia’s support had helped Syrian armed forces make advances in some contested areas and “clearly it has made a difference for them.”
Earlier this year, commentators were writing off the Syrian army and suggesting that the government’s days were numbered.
With Russian air support, Syrians have been able to hit back against Islamic State in central and north-western regions, in a war that has stretched out for four years under the US’s watch.
The US is opposed to the Syrian regime headed by brutal President Bashar al-Assad and has so far refused to help its troops, but Prof Williams said it was better for the Assad regime to be in power, than for the likely alternative of jihadist groups Islamic State and Jabhat al-Nusra to prevail.
“We know what Islamic State is capable of, they are obviously ruthless and clearly have an agenda to dominate other opposition groups,” he said.
He said Russia’s success highlighted the US’s lack of strategy.
“America doesn’t really have a strategy but Russia’s is clear cut,” he said, adding that Russia aimed to support Assad’s regime and its own strategic interests.
While the US’s aim was to support Iraq and counter Islamic State, Prof Williams said what it was doing “was not really making much of a difference on the ground.”
This was partly because the US did not want to put American boots on the ground and was limited in what it could achieve through air strikes.
Iraqi forces backed by the US had corrupt leaders and were poorly motivated, and seemed to be militarily incapable of making advances against Islamic State.
“They rely mainly on the Kurds to do the ground fighting and they are really only interested in establishing their own state,” Prof Williams said.
HAS AMERICA FAILED?
Earlier this month, US President Barack Obama admitted that his efforts to help resolve the Syria crisis had so far failed, but defended his strategy and dismissed assertions that Russian President Vladimir Putin was now the dominant world leader.
“I didn’t say it was going to be done in a year,” Obama said in a US 60 Minutesinterview. “Syria has been a difficult problem for the entire world community. What we have not been able to do so far — and I’m the first to acknowledge this — is to change the dynamic inside of Syria.”
But this week former US secretary of state Henry Kissinger argued in The Wall Street Journal that Russia’s military action was the latest symptom of the “disintegration of the American role in stabilising the Middle East order.”
He said the geopolitical alliances in the region were now in “shambles” and that four countries — Libya, Yemen, Syria and Iraq — had ceased to function.
“American policy has sought to straddle the motivations of all parties and is therefore on the verge of losing the ability to shape events,” Kissinger wrote.
“The US is now opposed to, or at odds in some way or another with, all parties in the region: with Egypt on human rights, with Saudi Arabia over Yemen, with each of the Syrian parties over different objectives.”
He said the US wanted to remove Assad but had been unwilling to generate effective political or military leverage to achieve that aim, or to put forward an alternative political structure to replace him. This had allowed Russia, Iran, Islamic State and other terrorist organisations to move into the vacuum.
When asked whether America had failed, Prof Williams said: “I don’t think its strategy in the Middle East is very effective.”
“It has involved itself in the war between Shia and Sunni Islam without understanding the dynamics of the situation.
“In the longer term whatever America does isn’t going to be very effective.”
He said the US needed to rethink its approach more generally in the Middle East, including its relationship with Israel and Saudi Arabia, and whether there was a more effective way to counter Islamic State, by supporting Iranian and Shia militia forces in Iraq, for example.
Overall if you looked at American involvement in the Middle East since the 1990s, Prof Williams said: “it has all been pretty disastrous in terms of long term outcomes.”
Rather than having a clear objective, he said America seemed to “jump in” to conflicts in the Middle East and South Asia before pulling out after a few years.
“I’m not sure whether Western involvement in the Middle East against Islamic State is really the answer,” Prof Williams said.
“The situation in the Middle East is complicated and I think we need to step back and think about what sort of strategic outcomes we want and how best to achieve them.”
He said that America’s best move to combat Islamic State could actually be to withdraw from the conflict and let regional countries sort out what is essentially a regional problem.
“If we weren’t involved, Islamic State would also be less of a problem in Australia. They are attacking us at the moment because we are involved in attacking them,” he said.
“We could pull out and let the Saudis and Iranians get on with it. The Saudis are fighting through proxies and so is Iran. Maybe there’s not much to be gained by us from being involved in that situation.”
IS RUSSIA THE REAL WINNER?
Last month Russia announced an intelligence-sharing agreement with Syria, Iran, and Iraq in their fight against Islamic State, a move The New York Times says caught US officials completely off guard.
“It was another sign,” Michael Gordon wrote, that Russia “was moving ahead with a sharply different tack from that of the Obama administration in battling the Islamic State … by assembling a rival coalition that includes Iran and the Syrian government.”
On Monday, US Secretary of State John Kerry said the US would meet with Russian, Saudi and Turkish leaders to seek an end to the conflict in Syria.
Allowing Syria to become a haven for terrorist operations would not benefit any of the nations, including Russia, which would be concerned that the influence of the extremist groups could reach into Muslim regions along its southern border.
When asked whether Russia would be the winner in Syria, Prof Williams said it was in a much better position to be there in the longer term than the US.
He said Russia had been accessing a naval base in Syria since the 1970s and was there at the invitation of the Syrian regime. The naval facility in Tartus has been in use since 1971, and it was Russia’s only spot in the Mediterranean where warships could stop for repairs and replenishment. This year Russia also established a forward air base nearby, in Latakia.
“It’s not like they suddenly appeared on the scene to make life difficult for the Americans,” Prof Williams said, adding that Russia had an enduring strategic interest in Syria.
“If it wants to be seen as a world player it needs access to foreign bases, access to the port in Syria is very important in that context.”
Ultimately, he said Russia would probably be more effective against Islamic State because it had a clear mission to protect its military assets and support the Assad regime.
pmaitra
Senior Member
- Joined
- Mar 10, 2009
- Messages
- 33,262
- Likes
- 19,595
US Plans for Middle East Transformation Bump Into Russian Area Denial
Realization the Middle East is effectively under a Russian cruise missile umbrella is a rude awakening for the US
Pepe Escobar | (RT) | Russia Insider
Originally appeared at RT
The whole Global South is now informed about how the Russian campaign in Syria has swiftly smashed all of ‘Exceptionalistan’s’ elaborate plans for a “Greater Middle East.”
These plans span everything from the Wolfowitz Doctrine to Dr. Zbig “Grand Chessboard” Brzezinski’s categorical imperative of preventing the emergence of a strategic competitor across Eurasia.
But the subtext is even more intriguing: The Pentagon never saw it coming. And they are absolutely terrified of the inevitable consequences.
The panic was palpable, as relayed by Dr. Strangelove, sorry, NATO’s top commander Gen. Philip Breedlove, a.k.a. Breedlove/hate, the man who announces every week Russia is invading Ukraine.
Although proverbially handicapped in his geopolitical analysis – Russia wants to hinder US and “coalition” operations in the region - Breedlove/hate is clearly puzzled by the new, unforeseen, intricate layers of Russia’s defense network.
In his own words: “We’re a little worried about another A2/AD bubble being created in the eastern Mediterranean.”
In Pentagonese, A2/AD means anti-access/area denial.
Translation: a mix of surface-to-air missiles and anti-ship missiles that can be deployed to prevent any player from entering or crossing a certain area.
Breedlove/hate goes as far as to admit this is Russia’s “third denial zone” around Europe. The first is in the Baltics – via the Kaliningrad base. The second – based in Crimea – covers the Black Sea. In his own words: “Their cruise missiles range the entire Black Sea, and their air defense missiles range about 40 to 50 percent of the Black Sea.”
He is convinced the deployment of these “very sophisticated air defense capabilities” is not about purging Syria from the Salafi-jihadi constellation. It’s about “something else.”
And the point about “something else” is that the Pentagon knows it, but cannot possibly admit it publicly. Neocons and neoliberalcons at best can transform their apoplexy into vociferous demands for a mega-upgraded Pentagon budget, or to force Obama into keeping troops in Afghanistan indefinitely – as if any informed observer would doubt there would never be an exit.
Here is just a sample of how the battlefield has been completely redrawn.
But the real game-changer, once again, has been the show-stopping performance of the 26 Kalibr-NK cruise missiles launched by the Russian Caspian fleet against 11 Salafi-jihadi targets 1,500 km away, destroying them all.
Breedlove/hate cannot possibly admit the Caspian cruise “message” was directed at NATO. The Kalibr-NK flew over both Iran and Iraq, at a maximum altitude of 100 meters – not to mention speeding by a US drone.
Translation: this spells out the absolute irrelevance of all – multibillion - elaborate plans for missile defense deployed in Eastern Europe. Remember, those US missiles which would be deployed against the “Iranian threat.”
NATO is also terrified that all its state-of-the-art C4i software – command, control, communications, computer, intelligence – has been totally jammed by Russian technology, all across Syria and southern Turkey. Essentially, reduced to sitting ducks. Imagine a similar, much amplified scenario in a hypothetic war on European soil over Ukraine which neocons never cease to itch for.
We have A2/AD too
No wonder these military breakthroughs translate, in terms of public opinion, into fabulous PR for Russia. Just check Putin the Hajji in Iraq. Incidentally, if one really wants to know how ‘Exceptionalistan’ destroyed Iraq in the first place – creating the conditions for the rise of Al-Qaeda in Iraq and then ISIS/ISIL/Daesh – might as well ditch Claire Danes in Homeland and check out: Iraq Year Zero, by Abbas Fahdel, which hits the screen in France next year.
As for the non-stop uproar in US corporate media, if this is the best American ‘Putinologists’ can come up with it, the Kremlin certainly does not need enemies.
Meanwhile, in the economic front, Russian domestic oil demand is growing. What this means is Russia is slowly but surely shifting from an import economy to a manufacturing center, replacing US and EU imports, moving towards self-sufficiency and focusing on domestic credit expansion for productive investments. The military breakthroughs are a “don’t mess with us” message inbuilt in a complex economic transformation process.
In addition, Chinese oil imports grew 8 percent for January through September year over year – especially in the petrochemical and transport sectors, outweighing any apparent slowdown in the use of industrial oil. Next week comes the crucial announcement of the next Chinese five-year plan. No, China is not crashing, as much as the China-Russia strategic partnership keeps expanding.
Beijing is following in close detail the “messages” sent by Russia in Syria. And don't forget that in the A2/AD department, China has its own set of messages, including the bunker-busting DF15B, the DF-16 with a 1,000 kilometer range, and the DF-21D “carrier killer” - 2,500 kilometer range and capable of carrying a nuclear warhead.
Expect many a naked lunch between Dr. Strangelove and his masters in the Beltway.
The statements, views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of RT.
Realization the Middle East is effectively under a Russian cruise missile umbrella is a rude awakening for the US
Pepe Escobar | (RT) | Russia Insider
Originally appeared at RT
The whole Global South is now informed about how the Russian campaign in Syria has swiftly smashed all of ‘Exceptionalistan’s’ elaborate plans for a “Greater Middle East.”
These plans span everything from the Wolfowitz Doctrine to Dr. Zbig “Grand Chessboard” Brzezinski’s categorical imperative of preventing the emergence of a strategic competitor across Eurasia.
But the subtext is even more intriguing: The Pentagon never saw it coming. And they are absolutely terrified of the inevitable consequences.
The panic was palpable, as relayed by Dr. Strangelove, sorry, NATO’s top commander Gen. Philip Breedlove, a.k.a. Breedlove/hate, the man who announces every week Russia is invading Ukraine.
Although proverbially handicapped in his geopolitical analysis – Russia wants to hinder US and “coalition” operations in the region - Breedlove/hate is clearly puzzled by the new, unforeseen, intricate layers of Russia’s defense network.
In his own words: “We’re a little worried about another A2/AD bubble being created in the eastern Mediterranean.”
In Pentagonese, A2/AD means anti-access/area denial.
Translation: a mix of surface-to-air missiles and anti-ship missiles that can be deployed to prevent any player from entering or crossing a certain area.
Breedlove/hate goes as far as to admit this is Russia’s “third denial zone” around Europe. The first is in the Baltics – via the Kaliningrad base. The second – based in Crimea – covers the Black Sea. In his own words: “Their cruise missiles range the entire Black Sea, and their air defense missiles range about 40 to 50 percent of the Black Sea.”
He is convinced the deployment of these “very sophisticated air defense capabilities” is not about purging Syria from the Salafi-jihadi constellation. It’s about “something else.”
And the point about “something else” is that the Pentagon knows it, but cannot possibly admit it publicly. Neocons and neoliberalcons at best can transform their apoplexy into vociferous demands for a mega-upgraded Pentagon budget, or to force Obama into keeping troops in Afghanistan indefinitely – as if any informed observer would doubt there would never be an exit.
Here is just a sample of how the battlefield has been completely redrawn.
But the real game-changer, once again, has been the show-stopping performance of the 26 Kalibr-NK cruise missiles launched by the Russian Caspian fleet against 11 Salafi-jihadi targets 1,500 km away, destroying them all.
Breedlove/hate cannot possibly admit the Caspian cruise “message” was directed at NATO. The Kalibr-NK flew over both Iran and Iraq, at a maximum altitude of 100 meters – not to mention speeding by a US drone.
Translation: this spells out the absolute irrelevance of all – multibillion - elaborate plans for missile defense deployed in Eastern Europe. Remember, those US missiles which would be deployed against the “Iranian threat.”
NATO is also terrified that all its state-of-the-art C4i software – command, control, communications, computer, intelligence – has been totally jammed by Russian technology, all across Syria and southern Turkey. Essentially, reduced to sitting ducks. Imagine a similar, much amplified scenario in a hypothetic war on European soil over Ukraine which neocons never cease to itch for.
We have A2/AD too
No wonder these military breakthroughs translate, in terms of public opinion, into fabulous PR for Russia. Just check Putin the Hajji in Iraq. Incidentally, if one really wants to know how ‘Exceptionalistan’ destroyed Iraq in the first place – creating the conditions for the rise of Al-Qaeda in Iraq and then ISIS/ISIL/Daesh – might as well ditch Claire Danes in Homeland and check out: Iraq Year Zero, by Abbas Fahdel, which hits the screen in France next year.
As for the non-stop uproar in US corporate media, if this is the best American ‘Putinologists’ can come up with it, the Kremlin certainly does not need enemies.
Meanwhile, in the economic front, Russian domestic oil demand is growing. What this means is Russia is slowly but surely shifting from an import economy to a manufacturing center, replacing US and EU imports, moving towards self-sufficiency and focusing on domestic credit expansion for productive investments. The military breakthroughs are a “don’t mess with us” message inbuilt in a complex economic transformation process.
In addition, Chinese oil imports grew 8 percent for January through September year over year – especially in the petrochemical and transport sectors, outweighing any apparent slowdown in the use of industrial oil. Next week comes the crucial announcement of the next Chinese five-year plan. No, China is not crashing, as much as the China-Russia strategic partnership keeps expanding.
Beijing is following in close detail the “messages” sent by Russia in Syria. And don't forget that in the A2/AD department, China has its own set of messages, including the bunker-busting DF15B, the DF-16 with a 1,000 kilometer range, and the DF-21D “carrier killer” - 2,500 kilometer range and capable of carrying a nuclear warhead.
Expect many a naked lunch between Dr. Strangelove and his masters in the Beltway.
The statements, views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of RT.
pmaitra
Senior Member
- Joined
- Mar 10, 2009
- Messages
- 33,262
- Likes
- 19,595
ATTACK WAR RUSSIA SYRIA ISIS - Syrian Mi 8 Air Tank Shrugs Off Direct Hit
(MUST SEE. Old video. Not from recent months. However, this is from Syria. Mi-8 or Mi-17 takes a direct hit. There is an explosion. The helicopter keeps flying. Don't miss the smileys are the end of the video. First 12 seconds can be skipped.)
(MUST SEE. Old video. Not from recent months. However, this is from Syria. Mi-8 or Mi-17 takes a direct hit. There is an explosion. The helicopter keeps flying. Don't miss the smileys are the end of the video. First 12 seconds can be skipped.)
Last edited:
pmaitra
Senior Member
- Joined
- Mar 10, 2009
- Messages
- 33,262
- Likes
- 19,595
Syrian war Military report 20 Oktober 2015 General FrontLine information
(Slow but steady progress)
It is alleged that ISIS chief al-Baghdadi was injured in Iraq.
It is alleged that he is in Turkey, undergoing treatment.
It is alleged that Turkey and CIA assisted him in his evacuation to Turkey.
Nothing is confirmed.
(Slow but steady progress)
It is alleged that ISIS chief al-Baghdadi was injured in Iraq.
It is alleged that he is in Turkey, undergoing treatment.
It is alleged that Turkey and CIA assisted him in his evacuation to Turkey.
Nothing is confirmed.
Last edited:
China is going to send her troops and military advisers to Syria to take on ISIS. This will bring retaliation from the group. Let us see how this woks out for Russia and China.
There are few others probabilities connected with the involvement of China in this conflict. It will only motivate the separatist movement in China and create more problem for them.
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct...t-ISIS&usg=AFQjCNGTtu8stXMj7AUYQTzbHXzQf56JwQ
There are few others probabilities connected with the involvement of China in this conflict. It will only motivate the separatist movement in China and create more problem for them.
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct...t-ISIS&usg=AFQjCNGTtu8stXMj7AUYQTzbHXzQf56JwQ
pmaitra
Senior Member
- Joined
- Mar 10, 2009
- Messages
- 33,262
- Likes
- 19,595
US Tells Iraq to Choose Between It and Russia in ISIS War
(CBS News) | Russia Insider
Originally appeared at CBS News
The U.S. has told Iraq’s leaders they must choose between ongoing American support in the battle against militants of the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) and asking the Russians to intervene instead.
Marine Gen. Joseph Dunford, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said Tuesday that the Iraqis had promised they would not request any Russian airstrikes or support for the fight against ISIS.
Shortly after leaving Baghdad, Dunford told reporters traveling with him that he had laid out a choice when he met with Iraqi Prime Minister Haider al-Abadi and Defense Minister Khaled al-Obeidi earlier Tuesday.
“I said it would make it very difficult for us to be able to provide the kind of support you need if the Russians were here conducting operations as well,” Dunford said. “We can’t conduct operations if the Russians were operating in Iraq right now.”
He said there was “angst” in the U.S. when reports surfaced that al-Abadi had said he would welcome Russian airstrikes in Iraq. The U.S., Dunford said, “can’t have a relationship right now with Russia in the context of Iraq.”
In Syria, President Vladimir Putin has essentially rescued his close ally, President Bashar Assad, from opposition forces that had been inching closer to his seat of power prior to the beginning of Russian airstrikes at the end of September. The ultimatum to Iraq comes as the U.S. grapples with Russia’s dramatically increased role in the war in Syria, just to the west of Iraq.
Russia’s intervention was not telegraphed beforehand to the U.S., and while Moscow first insisted its primary target was ISIS in Syria, it became apparent immediately that the Russian planes were targeting other opposition groups more in a clear effort to shore up Assad’s beleaguered forces.
As CBS News correspondent Mark Phillips reports, the visit was a clear sign of who’s now running the show on the government side of the Syrian conflict, and it was a lot more than a simply courtesy call paid by Assad as Putin’s jets have effectively become the Syrian air force. Photos of the meeting show the Syrian leader smiling as he hasn’t smiled in years. Assad visited Moscow Tuesday in his first known trip abroad since the war broke out in Syria in 2011 to meet Putin and personally thank him for intervening.
The choice given to Abadi in Iraq by Dunford on Tuesday is a clear indication that the U.S. is not willing to compete with Russia for airspace over two neighboring countries deeply intertwined in the same convoluted war.
The U.S. and Russia put into practice new rules on Tuesday designed to minimize the risk of air collisions between military aircraft over Syria.
Reuters reports that the U.S. ultimatum to Iraq puts Abadi in a difficult position, as his own country’s ruling political alliance and some powerful Shiite groups have been pushing him to request Russian air support.
The news agency said a proposal to request Russian strikes had been put to Abadi last week, but that he was yet to respond.
“Abadi told the meeting parties that it wasn’t the right time to include the Russians in the fight because that would only complicate the situation with the Americans and could have undesired consequences even on long-term future relations with America,” Reuters quoted a senior Shiite politician close to Abadi as saying.
Meanwhile, Russia’s ambassador in London, who has a history of snarky jabs at U.S. policy on Twitter, took to the social media platform to suggest “terrorists must be rejoicing” at the news that Russia appeared unlikely to get a request for help from the Iraqis.
____________________________________________
Commentary: The US is using pressure tactics to prevent Iraq from sliding away from the clutches of the US. When Saddam Hussain was removed, the US unilaterally had Iraq’s contracts with Russia annulled. Now, the big bully is worried that Iraq might not be bully-able any more, and might fall into Russia’s lap. Iraq is somewhat of a low hanging fruit for Russia. Of course, if Iraq decides to grow a spine, it must get rid of the US military base in Iraq. As long as they are there, Iraq will have fair concerns about ISIS version 2.0.
(CBS News) | Russia Insider
Originally appeared at CBS News
The U.S. has told Iraq’s leaders they must choose between ongoing American support in the battle against militants of the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) and asking the Russians to intervene instead.
Marine Gen. Joseph Dunford, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said Tuesday that the Iraqis had promised they would not request any Russian airstrikes or support for the fight against ISIS.
Shortly after leaving Baghdad, Dunford told reporters traveling with him that he had laid out a choice when he met with Iraqi Prime Minister Haider al-Abadi and Defense Minister Khaled al-Obeidi earlier Tuesday.
“I said it would make it very difficult for us to be able to provide the kind of support you need if the Russians were here conducting operations as well,” Dunford said. “We can’t conduct operations if the Russians were operating in Iraq right now.”
He said there was “angst” in the U.S. when reports surfaced that al-Abadi had said he would welcome Russian airstrikes in Iraq. The U.S., Dunford said, “can’t have a relationship right now with Russia in the context of Iraq.”
In Syria, President Vladimir Putin has essentially rescued his close ally, President Bashar Assad, from opposition forces that had been inching closer to his seat of power prior to the beginning of Russian airstrikes at the end of September. The ultimatum to Iraq comes as the U.S. grapples with Russia’s dramatically increased role in the war in Syria, just to the west of Iraq.
Russia’s intervention was not telegraphed beforehand to the U.S., and while Moscow first insisted its primary target was ISIS in Syria, it became apparent immediately that the Russian planes were targeting other opposition groups more in a clear effort to shore up Assad’s beleaguered forces.
As CBS News correspondent Mark Phillips reports, the visit was a clear sign of who’s now running the show on the government side of the Syrian conflict, and it was a lot more than a simply courtesy call paid by Assad as Putin’s jets have effectively become the Syrian air force. Photos of the meeting show the Syrian leader smiling as he hasn’t smiled in years. Assad visited Moscow Tuesday in his first known trip abroad since the war broke out in Syria in 2011 to meet Putin and personally thank him for intervening.
The choice given to Abadi in Iraq by Dunford on Tuesday is a clear indication that the U.S. is not willing to compete with Russia for airspace over two neighboring countries deeply intertwined in the same convoluted war.
The U.S. and Russia put into practice new rules on Tuesday designed to minimize the risk of air collisions between military aircraft over Syria.
Reuters reports that the U.S. ultimatum to Iraq puts Abadi in a difficult position, as his own country’s ruling political alliance and some powerful Shiite groups have been pushing him to request Russian air support.
The news agency said a proposal to request Russian strikes had been put to Abadi last week, but that he was yet to respond.
“Abadi told the meeting parties that it wasn’t the right time to include the Russians in the fight because that would only complicate the situation with the Americans and could have undesired consequences even on long-term future relations with America,” Reuters quoted a senior Shiite politician close to Abadi as saying.
Meanwhile, Russia’s ambassador in London, who has a history of snarky jabs at U.S. policy on Twitter, took to the social media platform to suggest “terrorists must be rejoicing” at the news that Russia appeared unlikely to get a request for help from the Iraqis.
____________________________________________
Commentary: The US is using pressure tactics to prevent Iraq from sliding away from the clutches of the US. When Saddam Hussain was removed, the US unilaterally had Iraq’s contracts with Russia annulled. Now, the big bully is worried that Iraq might not be bully-able any more, and might fall into Russia’s lap. Iraq is somewhat of a low hanging fruit for Russia. Of course, if Iraq decides to grow a spine, it must get rid of the US military base in Iraq. As long as they are there, Iraq will have fair concerns about ISIS version 2.0.
pmaitra
Senior Member
- Joined
- Mar 10, 2009
- Messages
- 33,262
- Likes
- 19,595
Proxy War No More: Qatar Threatens Military Intervention in Syria Alongside ‘Saudi, Turkish Brothers’
These guys really hate Iran and anyone who is on its side
(Zero Hedge) | Russia Insider
Originally appeared at Moon of Alabama
Earlier this week, Saudi foreign minister Adel al-Jubeir had the following message for Tehran:
In short, Riyadh and its allies in Doha and the UAE are uneasy about the fact that the P5+1 nuclear deal is set to effectively remove Iran from the pariah state list just as Tehran is expanding its regional influence via its Shiite militias in Iraq, the ground operation in Syria, and through the Houthis in Yemen.
Thanks to the fact that Tehran has more of an arm’s length relationship with the Houthis than it does with Hezbollah and its proxy armies in Iraq, the Saudis have been able to effectively counter anti-Hadi forces in Yemen without risking a direct conflict with Iran, but make no mistake, Sana’a is not the prize here. Yemen is a side show. The real fight is for the political future of Syria and for control of Iraq once the US finally packs up and leaves for good. Iran is winning on both of those fronts.
Over the last several weeks, we and others have suggested that one should not simply expect Washington, Riyadh, Ankara, and Doha to go gently into that good night in Syria after years of providing support for the various Sunni extremist groups fighting to destabilize the regime. There’s just too much at stake.
As noted on Tuesday, Assad’s ouster would have removed a key Iranian ally and cut off Tehran from Hezbollah. Not only would that outcome pave the way for deals like the Qatar-Turkey natural gas line, it would also cement Sunni control over the region on the way to dissuading Tehran at a time when the lifting of crippling economic sanctions is set to allow the Iranians to shed the pariah state label and return to the international stage not only in terms of energy exports, but in terms of diplomacy as well. Just about the last thing Riyadh wants to see ahead of Iran's resurgence, is a powergrab on the doorstep of the Arabian peninsula.
Thanks to Washington’s schizophrenic foreign policy, there’s no effective way to counter Iran in Iraq but as Mustafa Alani, the Dubai-based director of National Security and Terrorism Studies at the Gulf Research Center told Bloomberg earlier this week, “The regional powers can give the Russians limited time to see if their intervention can lead to a political settlement – if not, there is going to be a proxy war.”
That’s not entirely accurate. There’s already a proxy war and the dangerous thing about it is that thanks to the fact that Iran is now overtly orchestrating the ground operation, one side of the “SAA vs. rebels” proxy label has been removed. Now it’s “Iran-Russia vs. rebels” which means we’re just one degree of separation away from a direct confrontation between NATO’s regional allies in Riyadh and Doha and the Russia-Iran “nexus.” Here’s Bloomberg with more on the Saudi’s predicament:
And let’s not kid ourselves, there are no “wrong hands” as far as Riyadh and Doha are concerned. Sure, they’d rather not have ISIS running around inside their borders blowing up mosques but then again, those bombings simply provide more political cover for justifying an air campaign in Syria. Back to Bloomberg:
And while some still see that outcome as far fetched not only because the Saudis are stretched thin thanks to falling crude prices and the war in Yemen, but because it would be an extraordinarily dangerous escalation, it looks as though Qatar is leaning in a similar direction. Here’s Sputnik:
Let’s just be clear. If Saudi Arabia and Qatar start bombing Iranian forces from the airspace near Russia’s base at Latakia, this will spiral out of control.
Iran simply wouldn’t stand for it and if you think for a second that Moscow is going to let Saudi Arabia fly around in Western Syria and bomb the Iranians, you’ll be in for a big surprise. Of course the first time a Russian jet shoots down a Saudi warplane over Syria, Washington will have no choice but to go to war.
Finally, we’d be remiss if we didn’t point out the absurdity in what’s being suggested here. Qatar and Saudi Arabia are essentially saying that they may be willing to go to war with Russia and Iran on behalf of al-Qaeda if it means facilitating Assad’s ouster. The Western world’s conception of “good guys”/ “bad guys” has officially been turned on its head.
And meanwhile:
Commentary: The statement “Assad’s ouster would have removed a key Iranian ally and cut off Tehran from Hezbollah,” perhaps explains why Israel has been doing things that have helped ISIS.
These guys really hate Iran and anyone who is on its side
(Zero Hedge) | Russia Insider
Originally appeared at Moon of Alabama
Earlier this week, Saudi foreign minister Adel al-Jubeir had the following message for Tehran:
“We wish that Iran would change its policies and stop meddling in the affairs of other countries in the region, in Lebanon, Syria, Iraq and Yemen. We will make sure that we confront Iran’s actions and shall use all our political, economic and military powers to defend our territory and people.”
In short, Riyadh and its allies in Doha and the UAE are uneasy about the fact that the P5+1 nuclear deal is set to effectively remove Iran from the pariah state list just as Tehran is expanding its regional influence via its Shiite militias in Iraq, the ground operation in Syria, and through the Houthis in Yemen.
Thanks to the fact that Tehran has more of an arm’s length relationship with the Houthis than it does with Hezbollah and its proxy armies in Iraq, the Saudis have been able to effectively counter anti-Hadi forces in Yemen without risking a direct conflict with Iran, but make no mistake, Sana’a is not the prize here. Yemen is a side show. The real fight is for the political future of Syria and for control of Iraq once the US finally packs up and leaves for good. Iran is winning on both of those fronts.
Over the last several weeks, we and others have suggested that one should not simply expect Washington, Riyadh, Ankara, and Doha to go gently into that good night in Syria after years of providing support for the various Sunni extremist groups fighting to destabilize the regime. There’s just too much at stake.
As noted on Tuesday, Assad’s ouster would have removed a key Iranian ally and cut off Tehran from Hezbollah. Not only would that outcome pave the way for deals like the Qatar-Turkey natural gas line, it would also cement Sunni control over the region on the way to dissuading Tehran at a time when the lifting of crippling economic sanctions is set to allow the Iranians to shed the pariah state label and return to the international stage not only in terms of energy exports, but in terms of diplomacy as well. Just about the last thing Riyadh wants to see ahead of Iran's resurgence, is a powergrab on the doorstep of the Arabian peninsula.
Thanks to Washington’s schizophrenic foreign policy, there’s no effective way to counter Iran in Iraq but as Mustafa Alani, the Dubai-based director of National Security and Terrorism Studies at the Gulf Research Center told Bloomberg earlier this week, “The regional powers can give the Russians limited time to see if their intervention can lead to a political settlement – if not, there is going to be a proxy war.”
That’s not entirely accurate. There’s already a proxy war and the dangerous thing about it is that thanks to the fact that Iran is now overtly orchestrating the ground operation, one side of the “SAA vs. rebels” proxy label has been removed. Now it’s “Iran-Russia vs. rebels” which means we’re just one degree of separation away from a direct confrontation between NATO’s regional allies in Riyadh and Doha and the Russia-Iran “nexus.” Here’s Bloomberg with more on the Saudi’s predicament:
Powerful Saudi clerics are calling for a response to the Russian move, even though the kingdom is already bogged down in another war in Yemen. Analysts say the Saudi government will probably speed up the flow of cash and weapons to its allies in the opposition fighting to topple President Bashar al-Assad, who’s also supported by Saudi Arabia’s main rival, Iran.
While the Saudis may seek to direct their aid to “moderate forces” in Syria, “the definition of this word is subject to much debate,” said Theodore Karasik, a Dubai-based political analyst. Sending arms “is dangerous in the medium term because of how easily weapons can fall into the wrong hands,” he said.
While the Saudis may seek to direct their aid to “moderate forces” in Syria, “the definition of this word is subject to much debate,” said Theodore Karasik, a Dubai-based political analyst. Sending arms “is dangerous in the medium term because of how easily weapons can fall into the wrong hands,” he said.
And let’s not kid ourselves, there are no “wrong hands” as far as Riyadh and Doha are concerned. Sure, they’d rather not have ISIS running around inside their borders blowing up mosques but then again, those bombings simply provide more political cover for justifying an air campaign in Syria. Back to Bloomberg:
Extremist groups already hold sway over large parts of the country. The Saudis joined U.S.-led operations against Islamic State last year, and since then jihadist attacks in the kingdom have increased, many of them targeting minority Shiite Muslims in the oil-rich eastern province. Meanwhile, Assad accuses the Saudis and other Gulf states of arming rebel groups with ties to al-Qaeda.
Some Saudi thinkers advocate direct military engagement in Syria, just as the kingdom has done in Yemen. Nawaf Obaid, a visiting fellow at Harvard University’s Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs, is one of them.
“The Saudis are going to be forced to lead a coalition of nations in an air campaign against the remnants of Syrian forces, Hezbollah and Iranian fighters to facilitate the collapse of the Assad regime and assist the entry of rebel forces into Damascus,” Obaid wrote in an opinion piece published by CNN on Oct. 4.
Some Saudi thinkers advocate direct military engagement in Syria, just as the kingdom has done in Yemen. Nawaf Obaid, a visiting fellow at Harvard University’s Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs, is one of them.
“The Saudis are going to be forced to lead a coalition of nations in an air campaign against the remnants of Syrian forces, Hezbollah and Iranian fighters to facilitate the collapse of the Assad regime and assist the entry of rebel forces into Damascus,” Obaid wrote in an opinion piece published by CNN on Oct. 4.
And while some still see that outcome as far fetched not only because the Saudis are stretched thin thanks to falling crude prices and the war in Yemen, but because it would be an extraordinarily dangerous escalation, it looks as though Qatar is leaning in a similar direction. Here’s Sputnik:
Qatar who has been a major sponsor of jihadist groups fighting in Syria for years, now is actively considering a direct military intervention in the country, according to its officials.
Throughout Syria’s bloody civil war, the government of Qatar has been an active supporter of anti-government militants, providing arms and financial backing to so called “rebels.” Many of these, like the al-Nusra Front, were directly linked to al-Qaeda. That strategy has, of course, done little to put a dent in terrorist organizations in the region.
But as Russia enters its fourth week of anti-terror airstrikes, Qatar has indicated that it may launch a military campaign of its own.
“Anything that protects the Syrian people and Syria from partition, we will not spare any effort to carry it out with our Saudi and Turkish brothers, no matter what this is,” Qatar’s Foreign Minister Khalid al-Attiyah told CNN on Wednesday, when asked if he supported Saudi Arabia’s position of not ruling out a military option.
“If a military intervention will protect the Syrian people from the brutality of the regime, we will do it,” he added, according to Qatar’s state news agency QNA.
Syrian Deputy Foreign Minister Faisal Mekdad was fast to warn the Middle Eastern monarchy that such a move would be a disastrous mistake with serious consequences.
“If Qatar carries out its threat to militarily intervene in Syria, then we will consider this a direct aggression,” he said, according to al-Mayadeen television. “Our response will be very harsh.”
Throughout Syria’s bloody civil war, the government of Qatar has been an active supporter of anti-government militants, providing arms and financial backing to so called “rebels.” Many of these, like the al-Nusra Front, were directly linked to al-Qaeda. That strategy has, of course, done little to put a dent in terrorist organizations in the region.
But as Russia enters its fourth week of anti-terror airstrikes, Qatar has indicated that it may launch a military campaign of its own.
“Anything that protects the Syrian people and Syria from partition, we will not spare any effort to carry it out with our Saudi and Turkish brothers, no matter what this is,” Qatar’s Foreign Minister Khalid al-Attiyah told CNN on Wednesday, when asked if he supported Saudi Arabia’s position of not ruling out a military option.
“If a military intervention will protect the Syrian people from the brutality of the regime, we will do it,” he added, according to Qatar’s state news agency QNA.
Syrian Deputy Foreign Minister Faisal Mekdad was fast to warn the Middle Eastern monarchy that such a move would be a disastrous mistake with serious consequences.
“If Qatar carries out its threat to militarily intervene in Syria, then we will consider this a direct aggression,” he said, according to al-Mayadeen television. “Our response will be very harsh.”
Let’s just be clear. If Saudi Arabia and Qatar start bombing Iranian forces from the airspace near Russia’s base at Latakia, this will spiral out of control.
Iran simply wouldn’t stand for it and if you think for a second that Moscow is going to let Saudi Arabia fly around in Western Syria and bomb the Iranians, you’ll be in for a big surprise. Of course the first time a Russian jet shoots down a Saudi warplane over Syria, Washington will have no choice but to go to war.
Finally, we’d be remiss if we didn’t point out the absurdity in what’s being suggested here. Qatar and Saudi Arabia are essentially saying that they may be willing to go to war with Russia and Iran on behalf of al-Qaeda if it means facilitating Assad’s ouster. The Western world’s conception of “good guys”/ “bad guys” has officially been turned on its head.
And meanwhile:
Russian President Vladimir Putin’s public approval rating has reached a record 89.9 percent since he ordered his military to begin air strikes in support of Syrian leader Bashar al-Assad, according to a state-run polling center.
_______________________________________________________Commentary: The statement “Assad’s ouster would have removed a key Iranian ally and cut off Tehran from Hezbollah,” perhaps explains why Israel has been doing things that have helped ISIS.
Bheeshma
Regular Member
- Joined
- Aug 22, 2012
- Messages
- 916
- Likes
- 384
Anyone that thinks that americans will go to war with Russia or any credible nuclear over for these sand ******s is kidding themselves. This is empty bluster as they see their plans of supplying qatars gas to EU permanently hitting a road block.
gadeshi
Senior Member
- Joined
- Jun 19, 2013
- Messages
- 9,223
- Likes
- 6,636
gadeshi
Senior Member
- Joined
- Jun 19, 2013
- Messages
- 9,223
- Likes
- 6,636
It seems the Caliber message has not reach the recepient
It's OK, Russians can resend it with more precise address
Отправлено с моего XT1080 через Tapatalk
This conflict has all the signs of turning into Afghanistan 2.0. The article does not mention China's pending involvement. I read in one of the Internet site that they are going to send their troops as well.
https://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&rct=...-cover&usg=AFQjCNHRV2LBFWfXrSo-rmTyGl5QxITAeg
I have previously written on this forum that USA alliance would like to see direct confrontation between Iran and KSA which looks like is taking shape. USA accomplishes its goal through the proxies instead of getting involved directly. It is time for other nations to take care of their issues without USA.
nirranj
Regular Member
- Joined
- Jun 21, 2013
- Messages
- 939
- Likes
- 827
I sincerely hope a proxy war erupts between NATO and its allies and China-Russia+Iran coalition. This will lead to a complete economic crippling of the middle East especially those oil sheiks!!! With tight and airproof surveillance in our borders we can sit and enjoy the bloody show.
This will take the shape of Afghanistan of 1980's. It will bleed Russia's,China"s and Iranian economy a slow death. The Sheikh's will recruit fighting force from other Muslim countries in the name of saving their religion as they did during USSR's invasion of Afghanistan. Let us see if I am right or wrong.
gadeshi
Senior Member
- Joined
- Jun 19, 2013
- Messages
- 9,223
- Likes
- 6,636
No way
All the land tasks will be done by Syrian and Iranian armies with Russian air support and Russian/Chinese military suplies and reconaisence data.
This situation will be Vietnam 2.0 (where USSR and Warsow Pact have supplied and consulted Vietnam army but not enter their troops into it) for NATO and ISIS.
