And next, Syria?

[frogwoman]

Russia complains of 'strange hysteria' over its presence in Syria

Foreign ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova said that “Russia has never made a secret of its military-technical cooperation with Syria” and confirmed that “Russian military specialists are in Syria to help them master the weapons being supplied”. She said there was nothing out of the ordinary about their presence.

Yea nothing unusual here. Just 'hysteria'

 

[DotCommunist]

Russia complains of 'strange hysteria' over its presence in Syria



Yea nothing unusual here. Just 'hysteria'

tbf russia is entitled to support a historic ally if it wants to surely? right or wrong its a bit rich for people to start freaking cos uncle vlad has moved a few chess pieces given the forces of europe and US are all over the region. I mean none of its good, but there is a certain hypocrisy there. Like its fine when its nato or whatever but if the russkies get involved suddenly its the cold war or something

 

[laptop]

Syria's despair: why the US-led military campaign is failing

Some interesting speculation:

"We are seeing the very early beginning of the process where the Saudis, the Iranians, the Russians, the Americans and the Gulf states are finding the broad parameters of a political solution for Syria," says Bob Bowker, another former Australian ambassador to Syria.

The broad plan, Bowker says, is for Assad to be removed but for his political loyalists to remain in power. Assad's government draws support from one-third of the population, at most, so a coalition will need to be formed with some of the less odious Sunni Arab leaders.

The problem is that moderate Sunni Arab leaders are hard to find...

But I hate headlines that promise "why" over an article that scratches the surface of "how".

 

[J Ed]

No 10 plans limited Syria strikes and push for transition of power

Downing Street is drawing up a new strategy for Syria that would involve limited military strikes against the “controlling brains” of the Islamic State and a renewed diplomatic push that could see Bashar al-Assad remain president for a transitional period of six months.

In a sign of No 10’s determination to avoid another Commons defeat on Syria, ministers are arguing that military action would be narrowly defined to remove a terrorist threat with the added benefit of strengthening Iraq’s democratically elected government.

David Cameron highlighted the government’s belief that the time is fast approaching for Britain to extend its air strikes against Isis targets from Iraq into Syria when he said “hard military force” would be necessary.

The prime minister said he would seek parliamentary approval before escalating Britain’s involvement. He told MPs: “We have to be part of the international alliance that says we need an approach in Syria which will mean we have a government that can look after its people. Assad has to go, Isil has to go. Some of that will require not just spending money, not just aid, not just diplomacy but it will on occasion require hard military force.”

The government has faced intense scrutiny over its strategy in Syria after Cameron announced to MPs on Monday that an RAF Reaper drone had killed two British Isis jihadis last month. Reyaad Khan and Ruhul Amin were killed on 21 August near Raqqa. Junaid Hussain, another Briton, was killed in a US airstrike on 24 August as part of a joint operation.

Downing Street said the strikes were designed to foil terror plots planned by Khan and Hussain and did not mark wider British involvement in coalition airstrikes against Isis targets in Syria, which would require parliamentary approval. Cameron said he was free to act without a vote in parliament in the event of such an emergency.

Philip Hammond, the foreign secretary, made clear on Wednesday that the government would like to widen its involvement in the air strikes over Syria. But the government is making clear that it has three clear goals designed to win support in a possible parliamentary vote, which will become more challenging if Jeremy Corbyn is elected Labour leader on Saturday.

The three goals are:

Military – the defeat of Islamic State.
Political – strengthening the Iraqi government.
Diplomatic – helping to lead a new initiative in Syria, with the blessing of Russia and China, that would see the installation of a government of national unity. As a way of getting Assad’s two great patrons, Russia and Iran, on board, Britain and other western powers would agree to a transitional period of up to six months in which Assad would remain in office. But his security apparatus would be shut down.
Hammond repeatedly stressed to MPs on the Commons foreign affairs select committee that any planned British involvement in military action in Syria would be limited to disrupting Isis command and control in Raqqa. The aim would not be to change the balance of power in the deadlocked four-year civil war, the government’s purpose when it last asked parliament to endorse military action.

Of course, a useful side benefit of this for Cameron is that either way it will make things very difficult for Corbyn. If Corbyn votes against it then it's further evidence of his Britain hating terrorist loving ways and if he votes for it then he alienates some of his supporters.

 

[agricola]

Of course, a useful side benefit of this for Cameron is that either way it will make things very difficult for Corbyn. If Corbyn votes against it then it's further evidence of his Britain hating terrorist loving ways and if he votes for it then he alienates some of his supporters.

Not sure it is - if that is what the plan is (which is basically to join Assad, Putin, Obama and the rest to get rid of IS and then act surprised when Assad doesn't tootle off in six months) then Cameron will be in the position of having to explain why he got into the position in the first place. Corbyn on the other hand can just point to the innate sense in conducting actual diplomacy with states that the Tories and New Labour have been trying to start wars with for the past twenty years.

 

[J Ed]

Not sure it is - if that is what the plan is (which is basically to join Assad, Putin, Obama and the rest to get rid of IS and then act surprised when Assad doesn't tootle off in six months) then Cameron will be in the position of having to explain why he got into the position in the first place. Corbyn on the other hand can just point to the innate sense in conducting actual diplomacy with states that the Tories and New Labour have been trying to start wars with for the past twenty years.

Nah, he doesn't get to set the terms of the debate. Cameron does and they will be 'there is an imminent threat to Britain which can only be removed by military force, you're either with us or ISIS'

 

[agricola]

Nah, he doesn't get to set the terms of the debate. Cameron does and they will be 'there is an imminent threat to Britain which can only be removed by military force, you're either with us or ISIS'

The problem with that is that it is the sixth or seventh time that argument has been used recently, he cannot just use it again without people starting to question it, especially given that we were going to bomb the other side a couple of years ago - and even if he does win the argument, it is a bit much to expect people not to wonder why this imminent threat is being dealt with by exactly the same forces they have in theater already.

 

[Casually Red]

Putin has specifically said that Russia is not interested in participating militarily in the Syrian conflict, at least not outside of an international effort.



That the usual shifty-eyed elements in the western press have "psst- hey buddy, wanna buy a story?"-ied the idea that Russia is engaged in a military build-up in Syria should itself warrant a high degree of scepticism if you ask me. Take this piece of well-engineered flim-flam from notorious propaganda bullhorn The Guardian:



Possibly the idea is to discredit any Russian effort to promote an international effort against the Daesh. People may well be seeing equipment shipped through the Bos but I'd hesitate to draw conclusions at this point. In my own humble opinion it really doesn't make sense politically for Russia to do this sort of thing (intervene militarily in a civil war), if it did they're far more likely to have intervened overtly in the Ukrainian civil war by now where there'd have been far more support for it politically and capability wise (well, obvious bear-trap is obvious not withstanding). It would be as if the Russians had never visited a little place called Afghanistan (obvious bear-trap was obvious) before deciding to pack up/abandon the Soviet empire and go home.

eta: well, to be fair- the Guardian was quoting a statement made by the State Department.

I'd respectfully disagree with your first point . Iirc he said a while back talk of such moves would be " premature ", which in vlad speak could mean any number of things . To me it means " youll know about it when you see it, because it will be unmissable ". And sending those transports up the Bosphorous in broad daylight with their decks brimming with equipment strikes me as very deliberate, a political challenge as well as a military operation . They could keep that hidden if they wanted to . Looks to me like it's being advertised .

And in the context of an international effort I believe that's we're the most important political considerations for the move lie .
First of all a military coalition involving Russia , Iran and most importantly Syria will be an alternative co alition to the one currently in operation, which solely involves the states which have backed the terrorists to the hilt from day one , and who aren't operating in Syria with the consent of or at the invitation of the Syrian people . Or under any UN framework . They're blatantly violating its sovereignty ...and killing its citizens too it has to be said . It's primarily a political alternative to this exceptionalism and unilateralism .
Because no matter what one may say about the Russian military, ignoring them when they dont want to be ignored isn't really an option . They'll be a political fact on the ground as well as military one . As , crucially, will be any coalition they're a part of .

Putin will be able to present his alternative to the world stage . A coalition that's there at the invitation of the Syrian government , in which the Syrian government participates fully and speaks on behalf of, and in full accordance with international law . One who's hands aren't dirtied by arming hordes of Islamist terrorists to the teeth while simultaneously claiming to be combatting Islamic extremists . The western powers will be asked to participate within this framework..to acknowledge international law basically , as opposed to violating it . And with that will be the tacit de facto acknowledgement of the Syrian governments legitimacy and the Syrian nations sovereignty .

The western powers et al may well of course refuse to participate in it . But no matter, they won't be able to ignore it . They'll have to deal with it as a political and military reality . And in dealing with it they'll have no option but to engage with the de facto legitimacy of the Syrian government . And that will be key to the entire thing . And it will also be a coalition that doesn't distinguish between any of the takfiri loons...that doesn't believe in good al Qaeda and bad Al Qaeda and seek to rehabilitate them for western consumption as future partners . That will put Cameron and Obamas little outfit on a rather sticky wicket . Because they'll be blowing the shite out of them while they're complaining about it and wittering on about moderate Islamist terrorists .

I don't believe this can be compared to the Ukraine scenario because Russia will be there at the express invitation of the Syrian government . Also Russia was able to secure its immediate objectives in Ukraine without going full Neeson . I think it's role will be confined to air power and artillery direction/co ordination..both badly needed.., signals intelligence, aerial surveillance , training and the like . Not full on infantry combat . And it will have substantial local allies . No bear trap .

 

[Casually Red]

tbf russia is entitled to support a historic ally if it wants to surely? right or wrong its a bit rich for people to start freaking cos uncle vlad has moved a few chess pieces given the forces of europe and US are all over the region. I mean none of its good, but there is a certain hypocrisy there. Like its fine when its nato or whatever but if the russkies get involved suddenly its the cold war or something

It's the usual NATO exceptionalism , as if the entire world needs their permission and approval . They only need the approval of the Syrian government . Which the other wankers certainly don't have and arrogantly never sought . The hysteria is to cover up their own lack of legitimacy , by speaking as if they alone are the sole source of international legitimacy . When they have absolutely none in this instance . They're squealing because they see themselves potentially on the spot .

 

[taffboy gwyrdd]

Does this 2013 story tell us why the Sun has such a lust for war?

Israel Grants First Golan Heights Oil Drilling License To Dick Cheney-Linked Company

 

[camouflage]

I'd respectfully disagree with your first point . Iirc he said a while back talk of such moves would be " premature ", which in vlad speak could mean any number of things . To me it means " youll know about it when you see it, because it will be unmissable ". And sending those transports up the Bosphorous in broad daylight with their decks brimming with equipment strikes me as very deliberate, a political challenge as well as a military operation . They could keep that hidden if they wanted to . Looks to me like it's being advertised .

And in the context of an international effort I believe that's we're the most important political considerations for the move lie .
First of all a military coalition involving Russia , Iran and most importantly Syria will be an alternative co alition to the one currently in operation, which solely involves the states which have backed the terrorists to the hilt from day one , and who aren't operating in Syria with the consent of or at the invitation of the Syrian people . Or under any UN framework . They're blatantly violating its sovereignty ...and killing its citizens too it has to be said . It's primarily a political alternative to this exceptionalism and unilateralism .
Because no matter what one may say about the Russian military, ignoring them when they dont want to be ignored isn't really an option . They'll be a political fact on the ground as well as military one . As , crucially, will be any coalition they're a part of .

Putin will be able to present his alternative to the world stage . A coalition that's there at the invitation of the Syrian government , in which the Syrian government participates fully and speaks on behalf of, and in full accordance with international law . One who's hands aren't dirtied by arming hordes of Islamist terrorists to the teeth while simultaneously claiming to be combatting Islamic extremists . The western powers will be asked to participate within this framework..to acknowledge international law basically , as opposed to violating it . And with that will be the tacit de facto acknowledgement of the Syrian governments legitimacy and the Syrian nations sovereignty .

The western powers et al may well of course refuse to participate in it . But no matter, they won't be able to ignore it . They'll have to deal with it as a political and military reality . And in dealing with it they'll have no option but to engage with the de facto legitimacy of the Syrian government . And that will be key to the entire thing . And it will also be a coalition that doesn't distinguish between any of the takfiri loons...that doesn't believe in good al Qaeda and bad Al Qaeda and seek to rehabilitate them for western consumption as future partners . That will put Cameron and Obamas little outfit on a rather sticky wicket . Because they'll be blowing the shite out of them while they're complaining about it and wittering on about moderate Islamist terrorists .

I don't believe this can be compared to the Ukraine scenario because Russia will be there at the express invitation of the Syrian government . Also Russia was able to secure its immediate objectives in Ukraine without going full Neeson . I think it's role will be confined to air power and artillery direction/co ordination..both badly needed.., signals intelligence, aerial surveillance , training and the like . Not full on infantry combat . And it will have substantial local allies . No bear trap .

When viewed in that light I think you could be on to something, especially as Putin did say Russian actions on this would be carried out in plain sight, good points there. It's important not to get into the habit of applying auto-not to everything the echo-chamber sez is happening I guess. Still surprised that the Russians would want to do this, but as we see with the massive refugee-crisis at the moment as the Daesh making significant gains in Syria, there is a lot at stake. If you're right, perhaps the Russians think they simply can't stand by anymore. The EU is facing the big messy blowback of their own mendacity in the Middle East and North Africa and still spout delusional bollocks in response, perhaps the Russians figured there's simply no point waiting for the likes of David Cameron to see sense... the Russians don't make threats do they, they just act.

The Exceptionalists and their goons are contemptuous of international law and clearly endorse the primacy of force over any peace process (surrender or be destroyed- no negotiations till the very last Syrian), but I'm concerned that going "full Neeson" against the islamist proxies could simply create an even more bloody and intense conflict in Syria (if that is at all possible). The Exceptionalists are bound to consider this an opportunity to engage in the proxy war they've wanted so badly in Ukraine all this time, fuck knows they've been fantasizing about it enough. I hope Putin knows what he's doing.

 

[Casually Red]

When viewed in that light I think you could be on to something, especially as Putin did say Russian actions on this would be carried out in plain sight, good points there. It's important not to get into the habit of applying auto-not to everything the echo-chamber sez is happening I guess. Still surprised that the Russians would want to do this, but as we see with the massive refugee-crisis at the moment as the Daesh making significant gains in Syria, there is a lot at stake. If you're right, perhaps the Russians think they simply can't stand by anymore. The EU is facing the big messy blowback of their own mendacity in the Middle East and North Africa and still spout delusional bollocks in response, perhaps the Russians figured there's simply no point waiting for the likes of David Cameron to see sense... the Russians don't make threats do they, they just act.

The Exceptionalists and their goons are contemptuous of international law and clearly endorse the primacy of force over any peace process (surrender or be destroyed- no negotiations till the very last Syrian), but I'm concerned that going "full Neeson" against the islamist proxies and the petro-monarchs could simply create an even more bloody and intense conflict in Syria (if that is at all possible). The Exceptionalists are bound to consider this an opportunity to engage in the proxy war they've wanted so badly in Ukraine all this time, fuck knows they've been fantasizing about it enough. I hope Putin knows what he's doing.

My belief is that the entire western carry on in Syria makes Putins blood boil . The arrogant violation of its sovereignty , the empowering and aiding of terrorists...the complete massive fucking disaster . The whole arrogant, blundering business as usual crusade .And not just against anyone but against an historical Russian ally .

And there's also the very pertinent fact that unlike with the western countries, who might face little more than the odd terrorist outrage from returning jihadists, Russia will literally be facing armies of the bastards on its own and near turf . The jihadists ranks are chock full of Chechens , Tajiks, Uzbeks . It's in Russia's immediate interests to wipe as many of those bastards out as possible, as soon as possible . And not to have them returning home as triumphant heroes with a freindly base back in syria .There's already Chechens turning up in the ranks of Ukraines fascist militias directly from the Syrian battlefield albeit in small numbers .That problem will get a lot worse unless Russia acts decisively . And as we have seen in Syria and elsewhere the western powers would be only too happy to use them as proxies . This time against him and his local allies . He can fight them in Syria or fight them in Russia , basically . Better Syria today than Russia tomorrow .

Plus I believe with this move he can truly checkmate the western powers . Look at the reactions already, they're shitting it . Russia will be forcing them to the negotiating table on a different set of terms , exposing the contradictions in their positions, their hypocrisy , blowing the shite out of their proxies while inviting them to join in . Asking them ...sarcastically..why they aren't willing to drop bombs on the very people they're eyeing up as prospective Syrian partners . Forcing them to recognise Assad...making the bastards squirm . Well and truly .

It's a vlad move . It's got vlad all over it .


Btw I'd give this taxi driver a hefty tip if I ever met him

 

[elbows]

What does the slogan say, 'we really wanna see those fingers'?

 

[frogwoman]

Syria rejects British proposal for Assad to lead transitional government

What a fuckin surprise ...

 

[frogwoman]

tbf russia is entitled to support a historic ally if it wants to surely? right or wrong its a bit rich for people to start freaking cos uncle vlad has moved a few chess pieces given the forces of europe and US are all over the region. I mean none of its good, but there is a certain hypocrisy there. Like its fine when its nato or whatever but if the russkies get involved suddenly its the cold war or something

I agree. It's just depressing that all these countries with seemingly little to do with anything, are rushing to get in on the act. I can't see it ending well. Then again I don't really get the predictions that it's going to lead to 'another chechnya' just because russia's involved (afaik they havent officially made any air strikes yet?) I mean havent all the various factions and countries involved made it quite a lot worse than that already?

 

[elbows]

I agree. It's just depressing that all these countries with seemingly little to do with anything, are rushing to get in on the act.

But a big part of the point is surely that Russia doesn't belong on that list of countries. It didn't rush to get in on the act, its been in on the Syria act in a big way for more decades than I've been alive.

 

[frogwoman]

But a big part of the point is surely that Russia doesn't belong on that list of countries. It didn't rush to get in on the act, its been in on the Syria act in a big way for more decades than I've been alive.

Oh sure but i mean in terms of military action.

 

[frogwoman]

But a big part of the point is surely that Russia doesn't belong on that list of countries. It didn't rush to get in on the act, its been in on the Syria act in a big way for more decades than I've been alive.

The western reaction to russia being involved is another concerning thing too though. Not just the idea of russian involvement itself.

 

[elbows]

The western reaction to russia being involved is another concerning thing too though. Not just the idea of russian involvement itself.

The reason I'm not overly alarmed (yet) is because we don't know much about how far military stuff is likely to go.

And also because the number of times Russia has set itself directly against what the US etc want in Syria since 2011 is already rather high and dramatic in places.

eg:

Russia's role in the Syrian Civil War - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Patteran]

My belief is that the entire western carry on in Syria makes Putins blood boil . The arrogant violation of its sovereignty , the empowering and aiding of terrorists...the complete massive fucking disaster . The whole arrogant, blundering business as usual crusade .And not just against anyone but against an historical Russian ally .

And there's also the very pertinent fact that unlike with the western countries, who might face little more than the odd terrorist outrage from returning jihadists, Russia will literally be facing armies of the bastards on its own and near turf . The jihadists ranks are chock full of Chechens , Tajiks, Uzbeks . It's in Russia's immediate interests to wipe as many of those bastards out as possible, as soon as possible . And not to have them returning home as triumphant heroes with a freindly base back in syria .There's already Chechens turning up in the ranks of Ukraines fascist militias directly from the Syrian battlefield albeit in small numbers .That problem will get a lot worse unless Russia acts decisively . And as we have seen in Syria and elsewhere the western powers would be only too happy to use them as proxies . This time against him and his local allies . He can fight them in Syria or fight them in Russia , basically . Better Syria today than Russia tomorrow .

Plus I believe with this move he can truly checkmate the western powers . Look at the reactions already, they're shitting it . Russia will be forcing them to the negotiating table on a different set of terms , exposing the contradictions in their positions, their hypocrisy , blowing the shite out of their proxies while inviting them to join in . Asking them ...sarcastically..why they aren't willing to drop bombs on the very people they're eyeing up as prospective Syrian partners . Forcing them to recognise Assad...making the bastards squirm . Well and truly .

It's a vlad move . It's got vlad all over it .


Btw I'd give this taxi driver a hefty tip if I ever met him

Relevant they're all doing the jihadi finger (oi)?

Any idea if the Russian involvement is effective militarily? Is there a pattern emerging of a better equipped SAA making gains against IS, or is it yet to happen?

 

[agricola]

The western reaction to russia being involved is another concerning thing too though. Not just the idea of russian involvement itself.

There were always going to be some verbal reaction to it, but as said elsewhere I would be amazed if this move hasn't all been agreed beforehand.

 

[agricola]

What does the slogan say, 'we really wanna see those fingers'?

something followed by "and Syria", I think. Sadly my arabic is terrible.

 

[laptop]

Relevant they're all doing the jihadi finger (oi)?

'Scuse me, but who's the geezer on the right of the picture?

 

[bendeus]

'Scuse me, but who's the geezer on the right of the picture?

Nasrallah? Leader of Hizbollah

 

[teqniq]

UN to hold inquiry on Syria chemical attacks after Russia lifts objections, say diplomats

 

[Patteran]

Nasrallah? Leader of Hizbollah

Yep, general secretary of Hizbollah.

 

[Sirena]

Modern Syria then and now

 

[taffboy gwyrdd]

Though long, this is a fascinating and detailed alternative to mainstream disinfo.

 

[camouflage]

The very excellent SyrianGirlpartisan...



As usual, a deluge of spot-on.

 

[Casually Red]

Relevant they're all doing the jihadi finger (oi)?

Any idea if the Russian involvement is effective militarily? Is there a pattern emerging of a better equipped SAA making gains against IS, or is it yet to happen?

This blogger keeps a pretty close eye on modern Russian weapons in Syria

Oryx Blog: From Russia with Love

I've read that IS just took some pretty major losses in recent days, yet again, in yet another failed offensive in DeirEzzor . Around 100 dead . Although that probably has as much to do with the competent leadership of Major General Zahreddine of the republican guard (pictured in that blog firing a grenade launcher) and the support of local Sunni militia tribesmen as the nifty bits of kit .

The Syrian army also retook that oilfield IS seized at the start of the week . But really it's yet to happen . They need proper air support with guided munitions , a new fleet of attack helicopters ,more effective tactics and co ordination.