ISIS Thread

LooseCannon said:
Russia helping out
Click to expand...

They won't be 'helping out'. They're there to act on their own (assisting Assad government), regardless of what others will do. They will operate in north, focal points should be Idlib and Latakia. Both are well inside mission radius of aircraft deployed from Tartus, without using in-flight refuelling. Currently Syrian Air Force is unable to deploy assets there because of Turkish border proximity. Communicating air strike details to the Turks would only ensure that ISIS/other rebels also get the details. Not communicating that data and Turks would try to shoot down Syrian AF aircraft near their borders. They will not do that to Russians. VVS has deployed Su-24 and Su-25 to Syria, a tactical fighter-bomber and a CAS mudmover, analogies would be F-111 and A-10. Vintage but capable aircraft, Su-24 is also in Syrian AF inventory. This hi-lo mix can deal any 'terrorists' a punch, what's missing, for Syrians, is defense of said assets. That's where Russian Air Force Su-30SM's come in. It's by all means an equal to latest block of F-15C, and a plus, being a two seater it can easily transform into mini-AWACS, interdirection role. Super 30 guarding those Soviet-vintage ground strike aircraft means they will be defended against anything short of MANPADs.
 
Russia is in charge now. They make military deals with Iraq, and Iran and who knows what else. Putin has the cards.
 
Let's see what happens. Seems to me that Western powers are sick and tired of Middle East (especially EU after these migration waves), and aren't so dissatisfied of a solution in form of somebody other stopping the war down there. The handling of this situation is going to give or take Russians international cred, and that directly reflects to Ukrainian situation, which has taken a background spot against new Syrian developments.
 
Zare said:
Let's see what happens. Seems to me that Western powers are sick and tired of Middle East (especially EU after these migration waves), and aren't so dissatisfied of a solution in form of somebody other stopping the war down there. The handling of this situation is going to give or take Russians international cred, and that directly reflects to Ukrainian situation, which has taken a background spot against new Syrian developments.
Click to expand...

This I could believe, yes. Assorted Western powers don't particularly get along well with anyone involved in this conflict, and letting someone else step in and take responsibility sidesteps a few issues.
 
Last edited:
The West have had to bite the bullet and have acquiesced to Putin.
The US, UK and France have made a mess of their foreign policy in the Middle East and have realised they can't beat ISIL without Russia's assistance. i.e. Russia's provision of arms and intelligence to Assad's regime.
Cameron and Obama must be furious that they have had to accept Assad will have to stay in power.
The whole situation is messed up.
 
I was just going to say: It does not sidestep the issue of Putin wanting to keep Assad and Obama wanting to get rid of Assad.
And Obama won't be amused with learning about the deals Putin made with these nations, after they were done.
 
What do you guys think of this?

Putin called for the creation of a "broad anti-terror coalition" to fight IS, comparing it to the international forces that fought against Nazi Germany in World War Two.

It can be a blunt statement, but yes, I have felt about this for a long time. I did not dare to make an outright comparison, but yes: we do understand the attack on Nazi Germany with a coalition, then why don't we understand attacking IS with a coalition?

"Then what happens afterwards"?

The humanitarian issue should be separated from structural solutions. Of course, long term policy is important (keep working on it politicians), but should it block the humanitarian issue? No fucking way.
 
The problem only is that Obama became irrelevant in this matter when he said Assad had crossed a red line when gassing his people and did nothing afterwards.
 
Forostar said:
I was just going to say: It does not sidestep the issue of Putin wanting to keep Assad and Obama wanting to get rid of Assad.
And Obama won't be amused with learning about the deals Putin made with these nations, after they were done.
Click to expand...

It sidesteps internal issues, in Cameron's case. The Government were building up to being actively hostile towards Assad before it became clear what was going on with IS. They risk going back on their previous stance, something they really don't like to do. And while some of the population are in favour of a war against IS, there's a climate of isolationism too.
 
Forostar said:
The humanitarian issue should be separated from structural solutions. Of course, long term policy is important (keep working on it politicians), but should it block the humanitarian issue? No fucking way.
Click to expand...

That attitude is a follow-up crisis in the making, as I have elaborated before.
 
If Putin is as committed to rebuilding Syria as Stalin was to rebuilding Eastern Europe, then we should think long and hard about this. It's a power play, for sure. Even the most ardent defenders of Vladimir Putin will admit that he does things based on how he can gain an advantage.

Perun said:
The problem only is that Obama became irrelevant in this matter when he said Assad had crossed a red line when gassing his people and did nothing afterwards.
Click to expand...
At that point the Obama administration lost their entire credibility in Syria. It was a disappointing moment.
 
This is sixth Putin. If something happens, we just clone a new one.
 
Barack-Obama-Valim_3456385b.jpg

image.jpg

490440102-president-barack-obama-united-nations-gettyimages.jpg
 
Perun said:
The problem only is that Obama became irrelevant in this matter when he said Assad had crossed a red line when gassing his people and did nothing afterwards.
Click to expand...


I recall saying this at the time, the red line comment was stupid as hell if he had no intention on following up on hit. Hollow threats are worse than saying nothing at all.
 
Former DIA head said, three days ago, that problem with U.S. policy towards Syria is that no opposition group contains real political structure. Without it, stable government can't exist. We'd get a Libyan scenario 102% certain if an external power removed Assad from the throne and installed anyone else.

I also believe that after 4 years of brutal war a lot of 'moderates' are either dead or fled the country.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top