• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Russia strikes not targeting Islamic State areas in Syria: U.S. official

Ganesh said:
They won? Won what?
Click to expand...

He means that a large-scale Soviet presence in the Mideast had largely ended following the 1973 Arab-Israeli War. Now, Russia has rebuilt a larger-scale presence in the region and it is unlikely that such a position can readily be reversed.
 
donsutherland1 said:
He means that a large-scale Soviet presence in the Mideast had largely ended following the 1973 Arab-Israeli War. Now, Russia has rebuilt a larger-scale presence in the region and it is unlikely that such a position can readily be reversed.
Click to expand...

Hmmm. They have rebuilt a presence in what can truly be described as a snake-pit, one that could twist any which way in the future, faster than a Republican candidate could exclaim his endorsement of the literal bible. One absolutely smaller than before (doesn't include Egypt anymore, the largest country in the region), and is tenuous if ever there was such a word.

Have they re-built their presence, or has Putin re-built his PR initiatives? He is hoping to retain some modest influence in the region, and possibly a port for Russian navy vessels (if they can go that far without disaster striking, in the form of explosions or sinkings). Russian presence is minimal, and I suspect of not too much value going forward.
 
Ganesh said:
Hmmm. They have rebuilt a presence in what can truly be described as a snake-pit, one that could twist any which way in the future, faster than a Republican candidate could exclaim his endorsement of the literal bible. One absolutely smaller than before (doesn't include Egypt anymore, the largest country in the region), and is tenuous if ever there was such a word.

Have they re-built their presence, or has Putin re-built his PR initiatives? He is hoping to retain some modest influence in the region, and possibly a port for Russian navy vessels (if they can go that far without disaster striking, in the form of explosions or sinkings). Russian presence is minimal, and I suspect of not too much value going forward.
Click to expand...

Today a Russian general went to the US embassy in Baghdad to tell us to keep our aircraft out of their way in Syria. Then the Russians bombed our Syrian rebel allies. They're back, and the countries of the ME notice.
 
Let's do a little bit of math here:
- the U.S. Is trying to stop Assad or isis in Syria?
If Assad, should be Bombing isis.
If isis, should be Bombing Assad.

We are supposed to be upset because Russia is helping Assad. So, does that mean we are helping isis? Or does it mean that we are pissed off because is doing a better job of helping assad?

Let's really think about who the friends are and who the enemies are.
 
Ganesh said:
Hmmm. They have rebuilt a presence in what can truly be described as a snake-pit, one that could twist any which way in the future, faster than a Republican candidate could exclaim his endorsement of the literal bible. One absolutely smaller than before (doesn't include Egypt anymore, the largest country in the region), and is tenuous if ever there was such a word.

Have they re-built their presence, or has Putin re-built his PR initiatives? He is hoping to retain some modest influence in the region, and possibly a port for Russian navy vessels (if they can go that far without disaster striking, in the form of explosions or sinkings). Russian presence is minimal, and I suspect of not too much value going forward.
Click to expand...
It's quite possible Putin is over-reaching,but Tartus is being expanded .
Syrian Civil War: Russian Navy Base Tartus In Syria Giving NATO Cause For Concern While Helping To Prop Up Assad Regime

That would make Russia more then minimal in the ME..Why do you exclude Egypt?
Russia is increasing ties. arms/nuke plants/strategic..just about any facet one can think of.

And it didn't have to happen -Obama's sanctions on el-Sissi because of the Morsi coup was Obamas unforced error.
By withholding tank parts/planes - el_Sisis ealized his best bet was to end the all but exclusive arrangement wit the US.

Obama basically drove el-Sissi into Putin's waiting arms

Syria keen on Russian expansion in Middle East - Al-Monitor: the Pulse of the Middle East
 
Last edited:
Ganesh said:
Hmmm. They have rebuilt a presence in what can truly be described as a snake-pit, one that could twist any which way in the future, faster than a Republican candidate could exclaim his endorsement of the literal bible. One absolutely smaller than before (doesn't include Egypt anymore, the largest country in the region), and is tenuous if ever there was such a word.

Have they re-built their presence, or has Putin re-built his PR initiatives? He is hoping to retain some modest influence in the region, and possibly a port for Russian navy vessels (if they can go that far without disaster striking, in the form of explosions or sinkings). Russian presence is minimal, and I suspect of not too much value going forward.
Click to expand...

The Mideast is geopolitically important. An enhanced Russian capability to project power in that region is not good for American interests nor the interests of the United States' partners (Mideastern and European). Russia has been very tenacious in holding onto its gains e.g., its annexation of Crimea, and almost certainly will seek to do the same after having waited decades to regain a major capability to project power in the Middle East.
 
annata said:
Russia's airstrikes in Syria so far do not appear to be targeting Islamic State-held territory, a U.S. official told Reuters on Wednesday, a crucial detail which could complicate any potential cooperation with the United States in the war.

The official, who spoke on condition of anonymity, said Russia was carrying out the strikes in the vicinity of Homs and perhaps other areas in Syria as well, noting that all U.S. information on Russian activity was still preliminary
Russia strikes not targeting Islamic State areas in Syria: U.S. official - Yahoo News

Western-backed Syrian rebel group says hit by Russian air strikes
Western-backed Syrian rebel group says hit by Russian air strikes - Yahoo News

Russian air strikes in northwest Syria which Moscow said targeted Islamic State fighters hit a rebel group supported by Western opponents of President Bashar al-Assad on Wednesday, wounding eight, the group's commander said.

He said the fighters were hit in the countryside of Hama province, where the group has a headquarters.

The Homs area is crucial to President Bashar al-Assad's control of western Syria. Insurgent control of that area would bisect the Assad-held west, separating Damascus from the coastal cities of Latakia and Tartous, where Russia operates a naval facility.
Click to expand...

Folks, what we are seeing here is another example of the Obama foreign policy failure. Failure after failure after failure. Now Putin has the upper hand--again. The USA can not afford to have Obama.
 
annata said:
excellent map MMC ..keep them coming as this thing gets even more convoluted...

Do you see any ISIS? near Homs??? I don't see any ISIS there?? *yooo hooo* Mr. salafi jihadi...are you there? :lol:
Click to expand...

Nope no ISIS.....AL Nusra and whatever the Free Syrian Rebels are calling themselves these days.
 
annata said:
excellent map MMC ..keep them coming as this thing gets even more convoluted...

Do you see any ISIS? near Homs??? I don't see any ISIS there?? *yooo hooo* Mr. salafi jihadi...are you there? :lol:
Click to expand...

Not ISIS, but if I remember correctly al-Rastan area was controlled by al-Nusra ... which is just above Homs (basically the yellowish part above Homs).
Yet for some reason there is no mention of them in that area on the map.

Fallen.
 
MMC said:
Nope no ISIS.....AL Nusra and whatever the Free Syrian Rebels are calling themselves these days.
Click to expand...

Given that the FSA has cooperated with al-Nusra (One U.S.-Backed Rebel Group Cooperates With Al-Qaeda in Syria - WSJ), political sentimentalities aside, whether or not the FSA is survives matters little for American interests in the larger scheme of things. I am far more concerned about reports of a Russian-aided offensive (Assad allies, including Iranians, prepare ground attack in Syria: sources | Reuters).

The fate of any of the various sectarian factions including but not limited to the FSA that have done little or nothing to benefit American interests and have frequently cooperated with extreme actors that are opposed to American interests matters little. The Kurds are the singular exception. The risks posed by an enlarged, permanent Russian capability to project power in the region are potentially significant. My worry is that if Russian arms, airstrikes, and other assistance are permitted to decisively alter the battlefield situation, that outcome will create fresh incentives for countries such as Syria, Iran and Iraq to deepen their cooperation with Russia. It could also dishearten American allies who perceive the outcome as evidence of a decline in American geopolitical influence. The result could be a de facto Russia-Shia vs. U.S.-Sunni rivalry (with some of the Sunni states having questions about U.S. commitments and capabilities) that would potentially further destabilize an already unstable region.
 
donsutherland1 said:
Given that the FSA has cooperated with al-Nusra (One U.S.-Backed Rebel Group Cooperates With Al-Qaeda in Syria - WSJ), political sentimentalities aside, whether or not the FSA is survives matters little for American interests in the larger scheme of things. I am far more concerned about reports of a Russian-aided offensive (Assad allies, including Iranians, prepare ground attack in Syria: sources | Reuters).

The fate of any of the various sectarian factions including but not limited to the FSA that have done little or nothing to benefit American interests and have frequently cooperated with extreme actors that are opposed to American interests matters little. The Kurds are the singular exception. The risks posed by an enlarged, permanent Russian capability to project power in the region are potentially significant. My worry is that if Russian arms, airstrikes, and other assistance are permitted to decisively alter the battlefield situation, that outcome will create fresh incentives for countries such as Syria, Iran and Iraq to deepen their cooperation with Russia. It could also dishearten American allies who perceive the outcome as evidence of a decline in American geopolitical influence. The result could be a de facto Russia-Shia vs. U.S.-Sunni rivalry (with some of the Sunni states having questions about U.S. commitments and capabilities) that would potentially further destabilize an already unstable region.
Click to expand...



Well I did mention that that Putins move is to help the Shia gain control of Iraq and Syria. Iran and Lebanon already in on that Association. Bringing under their control of that region and East Club Med. Their Business Endeavor. Oil.....which those in Club Med/East need.

Putins play is economic driven. The Sunni have no means to get around them. Moreover it gives Russia an entire region to manipulate. Then there is that new Alliance with Russia and Egypt. This is a definite blow to US interests. This is definitely affecting our image and not in a good way or anything close to it. We need to stabilize and should do so thru the Kurds.


Did you hear yesterday, about BO's shift in Afghanistan Policy? Also, the Sunni Coalition capturing an Iranian fishing boat with arms for the Shia in Yemen? Now.....how is BO's Iranian deal looking?
 
MMC said:
Well I did mention that that Putins move is to help the Shia gain control of Iraq and Syria. Iran and Lebanon already in on that Association. Bringing under their control of that region and East Club Med. Their Business Endeavor. Oil.....which those in Club Med/East need.

Putins play is economic driven. The Sunni have no means to get around them. Moreover it gives Russia an entire region to manipulate. Then there is that new Alliance with Russia and Egypt. This is a definite blow to US interests. This is definitely affecting our image and not in a good way or anything close to it. We need to stabilize and should do so thru the Kurds.


Did you hear yesterday, about BO's shift in Afghanistan Policy? Also, the Sunni Coalition capturing an Iranian fishing boat with arms for the Shia in Yemen? Now.....how is BO's Iranian deal looking?
Click to expand...

What is interesting to me is that Egypt is probably the only "friend" that Israel has in the region, since Israel did return land to Egypt that they took in the last war, as they said they would. I wonder how that might affect things now that Russia and Egypt have an alliance. Things sure are getting dicey, aren't they?
 
polgara said:
What is interesting to me is that Egypt is probably the only "friend" that Israel has in the region, since Israel did return land to Egypt that they took in the last war, as they said they would. I wonder how that might affect things now that Russia and Egypt have an alliance. Things sure are getting dicey, aren't they?
Click to expand...

I don't think it will affect their relationship with Israel. The Egyptians will take the Russian aid to counter the Shia and more importantly, Iran. Still working with the enemy of my enemy is my friend routine.
 
Serenity said:
I'd much rather the Russians were bombing empty warehouses in the middle of the night rather than killing civillians in the Homs and Hama provinces. All that Russia is interested in is shielding and protecting Assad and his regime. Nothing else.

Nato is stating there is very little co-ordination by Russia with US-led forces against IS. What could possibly go wrong?

Just beyond ridiculous.
Click to expand...

Yeah... about that. The places they are bombing do have ISIS fighters there. (No ISIS Where Russia Is Bombing?Except Last Week, When ISIS Was Killing Gay Men There? ? FAIR)
 
polgara said:
Greetings, Serenity. :2wave:

Good to talk with you again. :thumbs: :agree: 100% agree with your post! What bothers me is the large number of men in the 20 to 30 year old range that are seeking asylum in Europe. Refugee families I can understand, but I wonder how many rebels also saw the handwriting on the wall with the Russians protecting Assad and decided to leave to save their own skins. That's Europe's problem, but I sure don't understand why we need to allow thousands to also come here. Let Saudi Arabia figure out a solution to that problem, it's their fellow Arabs who are in trouble. We've got enough illegals coming from Mexico and Central America to keep us busy! :argue:
Click to expand...

Actually, the reason young men are seeking asylum is because they are better at navigating the process than entire families. Refugee families send the strong and able-bodied first as they can work and prepare a place for the rest of the family to live. That is why the men are so young.

Saudi Arabia is actively part of the problem. They are the ones funding the jihadists and actively working in concert with the US and their other Gulf allies in attempting to depose of Assad.

EDIT:

donsutherland1 said:
IMO, had the U.S. and world community agreed on a total arms embargo against all the warring factions, the sectarian conflict would not be where it is today. The death toll that has resulted from warring factions that show little regard for civilian welfare would be much lower. And, from a geopolitical perspective, Russia would not have an expanded presence in the Middle East, much less a deepening working relationship that includes Syria, Iran, and Iraq. Unfortunately, that's not what happened. Arms flowed liberally into Syria, which intensified the conflict. Eroding central authority created a vacuum that facilitated the rise and spread of ISIS. Now Russia entered. Even if the sectarian conflict is ended, it's difficult to envision Russia's departure.
Click to expand...

I honestly don't think that an arms embargo on all factions was ever on the table as the US was actively arming the rebels, first with non-lethal aid and then they stepped up to fully lethal aid. The US wants the chaos in Syria in order to destabilize the Assad government and the greater region.
 
MMC said:
Well I did mention that that Putins move is to help the Shia gain control of Iraq and Syria. Iran and Lebanon already in on that Association. Bringing under their control of that region and East Club Med. Their Business Endeavor. Oil.....which those in Club Med/East need.

Putins play is economic driven. The Sunni have no means to get around them. Moreover it gives Russia an entire region to manipulate. Then there is that new Alliance with Russia and Egypt. This is a definite blow to US interests. This is definitely affecting our image and not in a good way or anything close to it. We need to stabilize and should do so thru the Kurds.


Did you hear yesterday, about BO's shift in Afghanistan Policy? Also, the Sunni Coalition capturing an Iranian fishing boat with arms for the Shia in Yemen? Now.....how is BO's Iranian deal looking?
Click to expand...

One should keep in mind two thing about Russia:

1. Russia is very focused on what it perceives to be its national interest. It will seek to preserve those interests and seize opportunities to advance them.
2. Russia is a keen practitioner of realpolitik to the point that it can be heavy-handed. Power not "rules" or other substitutes for power determine constraints/freedom to act. The balance of power is vital.

The possibility of Russia's making a big return to the Middle East is an opportunity that Putin found irresistible. As he's shown a willingness to absorb high costs from his actions e.g., stiff sanctions that have damaged Russia's economy on account of Russian actions related to Ukraine, he doesn't find the potential costs of aiding the Assad dictatorship much of a barrier.

I thought the brief suspension of U.S. military assistance to Egypt and criticism were excessive given Egypt's important role and past policies that are conducive to American interests. While such short-sighted measures have been reversed, they did create an opening that Russia has also exploited to the extent that Egypt has a "Russian option" now. Egypt's preference is still the U.S., but it can now turn to Russia for at least some assistance.
 
donsutherland1 said:
One should keep in mind two thing about Russia:

1. Russia is very focused on what it perceives to be its national interest. It will seek to preserve those interests and seize opportunities to advance them.
2. Russia is a keen practitioner of realpolitik to the point that it can be heavy-handed. Power not "rules" or other substitutes for power determine constraints/freedom to act. The balance of power is vital.

The possibility of Russia's making a big return to the Middle East is an opportunity that Putin found irresistible. As he's shown a willingness to absorb high costs from his actions e.g., stiff sanctions that have damaged Russia's economy on account of Russian actions related to Ukraine, he doesn't find the potential costs of aiding the Assad dictatorship much of a barrier.

I thought the brief suspension of U.S. military assistance to Egypt and criticism were excessive given Egypt's important role and past policies that are conducive to American interests. While such short-sighted measures have been reversed, they did create an opening that Russia has also exploited to the extent that Egypt has a "Russian option" now. Egypt's preference is still the U.S., but it can now turn to Russia for at least some assistance.
Click to expand...


Egypt's preference is changing. Although, they will milk us for what they can get.


Russian President Vladimir Putin and Egyptian President Abdel-Fattah el-Sissi on Wednesday called for a coalition to combat terrorism in the Middle East. Opening a meeting with Putin in Moscow, el-Sissi said "the Egyptian people" are hoping for broader ties with Russia in all areas, particularly in fighting terrorism in the Middle East.

"(We) have underscored the vital importance of setting a counter-terrorism front to include key international players of the region including Syria," he said.

Putin and el-Sissi were also expected to hammer out the details of a joint project to build Egypt's first nuclear power station but Putin told reporters on Wednesday that experts from both countries are still working on it.....snip~

Egypt turns to Russia to combat terrorism - Yahoo News
 
Putin didn't mess around going after the Syrian Rebels. 50 planes for day 2.....I wonder how many returned without dropping their thunder.
 
Update. Russia has hit Daesh unlike the US media is reporting. Putin shows BO peep how it is done. Not only did he take out some Syrian Rebels and Daesh. But he also got some Al Nusra of the AQ blend.



The Russian Defense Ministry said its Sukhoi-34, Sukhoi-24M and Sukhoi-25 warplanes had flown 18 sorties, describing targets in western and northern Syria, including a command post and a communications center in the province of Aleppo, a militant field camp in Idlib and a command post in Hama.

The UK-based Syrian Observatory for Human Rights, which monitors the conflict with a network of sources on the ground, said Islamic State had no presence in the western and northern areas that were struck.

The Observatory's head, Rami Abdulrahman, said one of the targets hit in the latest Russian air strikes, the town of Dar Tazzah in northwestern Aleppo province, was controlled by a number of insurgent groups including the al Qaeda-linked Nusra Front.....snip~

Russia mainly bombing Syria insurgents, not Islamic State - Yahoo News
 
MMC said:
Update. Russia has hit Daesh unlike the US media is reporting. Putin shows BO peep how it is done. Not only did he take out some Syrian Rebels and Daesh. But he also got some Al Nusra of the AQ blend.



The Russian Defense Ministry said its Sukhoi-34, Sukhoi-24M and Sukhoi-25 warplanes had flown 18 sorties, describing targets in western and northern Syria, including a command post and a communications center in the province of Aleppo, a militant field camp in Idlib and a command post in Hama.

The UK-based Syrian Observatory for Human Rights, which monitors the conflict with a network of sources on the ground, said Islamic State had no presence in the western and northern areas that were struck.

The Observatory's head, Rami Abdulrahman, said one of the targets hit in the latest Russian air strikes, the town of Dar Tazzah in northwestern Aleppo province, was controlled by a number of insurgent groups including the al Qaeda-linked Nusra Front.....snip~

Russia mainly bombing Syria insurgents, not Islamic State - Yahoo News
Click to expand...
The UK-based Syrian Observatory for Human Rights, which monitors the conflict with a network of sources on the ground, said there was no Islamic State presence at any of those areas.

Russia has however also struck Islamic State areas in a small number of other attacks further east. The Observatory said 12 Islamic State fighters were killed near Raqqa on Thursday, and planes believed to be Russian had also struck the Islamic State-held city of Qarytayn.
Click to expand...
Syrian Observatory has always had reliable data -I'll go with them.

Russia hits a couple very small targets, and then says "we are going after ISIS" - is this any surprise?
 
annata said:
Syrian Observatory has always had reliable data -I'll go with them.

Russia hits a couple very small targets, and then says "we are going after ISIS" - is this any surprise?
Click to expand...

More like Russia hits some small Daesh Targets, and about 50 airstrikes on the Syrian Rebels. Russia also knows the Iranians and Shia from Iraq are in Syria and on the ground.
 
MMC said:
More like Russia hits some small Daesh Targets, and about 50 airstrikes on the Syrian Rebels. Russia also knows the Iranians and Shia from Iraq are in Syria and on the ground.
Click to expand...
ya. that's what I was saying if it wasn't clear. 50 strikes on 'rebels' and what -2 - on Daesh?
to my knowledge US/west strikes are only on Daesh
 
I don't care who they hit.

So long as it is not many hitting civilians (hitting a few is inevitable, unfortunately) or western forces...fine with me.

I think Assad is a (lousy) but better option for Syria then most of the alternatives.
 
Last edited:
AAS-Nusrah-FSA-Idlib1.jpg

Fighters from Ahrar al Sham, the Free Syrian Army, and Al Nusrah Front display their banners after a victory in Idlib province, Syria.

US counterterrorism efforts in Syria: A winning strategy? | The Long War Journal

1) Any strategy for truly defeating the Islamic State needs to incorporate plans for clearing and holding large areas currently under its control. Thus far, no ground forces have been capable of doing this in cities such as Raqqa and Mosul, which are key to the Islamic State’s “caliphate” claim.

2) Iran has escalated the conflict and Iranian influence is inherently destabilizing the entire region. Iran supports both Bashar al Assad’s regime and the Iraqi government, but it does so by sponsoring Shiite extremism, which is no bulwark against Sunni extremism.
Instead, the increasing role of Shiite extremists backed by Iran is driving more Sunnis into the jihadists’ arms. This is precisely the opposite of what any strategist should want. Iran’s proxies are not capable of clearing and holding territory from the Islamic State or al Qaeda. And even if they were, this would only further strengthen the hand of Iran’s virulent anti-American revolution.

3) Some have advocated working with Sunni jihadists in Syria, but this would play right into al Qaeda’s hands. Groups such as Al Nusrah Front and Ahrar al Sham have long been working to inculcate jihadism within the Syrian population.
 
Last edited:
Once again Putin is showing he's smarter than Obama.
After cleaning Syria from rebel groups, he will leave the world to choose between Assad and ISIS, unfortunately.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom