Russia moving tac air troops to Syria

Read the forum code of contact

Member for

8 years 11 months

Posts: 572

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/09/12/obama-warns-russia-against-aiding-assad-regime/

Personally, I DON'T see why Putin is so anxious to be involved in these foreign entanglements.

1. Should or will the coalition cooperate?
2. Should the coalition stand down and let Putins nose be bloodied.
3. If months of airstrikes could not dislodge ISiS, why does Putin think his tacair will matter.

I don't see the Russians end game here short of Chechnya style destruction. Discuss

Original post

Member for

11 years 8 months

Posts: 272

If Russia starts bombing campaign in Syria it's more likely against rebels who are closer to Tartus & Latakia than ISIS.

Member for

15 years 3 months

Posts: 6,441

I totaly agree Broc@.

But People here fail to see the bigger Picture.

Putin is only interested in keeping Assad's head above the water, nothing more nothing less.

Putin is a happy man if NATO and US can do the dirty work against ISIS.
The move into Syria, is a smoke screen for other more flameble region.. Ukraine problem is still present and isn't going away.
And its starting to give Putin a headache..

It might had given him initial support at home, but as time drags on, and more Russian soldiers dies and more funding keep draning Russian defence sector and other sectors like Food and relief.
Then it backfires, and the Kreml advicers are out of options to manuvere..

Member for

13 years 5 months

Posts: 9,579

Still no serious difference from the Syrian Express that has been running for years now.

Just a higher tempo + more active deliveries to Assad.

Member for

12 years 7 months

Posts: 4,731

I totaly agree Broc@.

But People here fail to see the bigger Picture.


so you even understand bigger picture.
Germany was the biggest force in west to lift sanctions on Iran after Crimea take over. now its Germany again. Military success is always profitable and respected.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/09/12/us-mideast-crisis-syria-germany-idUSKCN0RC0LM20150912
Germany's Merkel sees need to cooperate with Russia on Syria


Putin is only interested in keeping Assad's head above the water, nothing more nothing less.

He is interested in imposing Assad based solution on Arab world and Turkey.

Putin is a happy man if NATO and US can do the dirty work against ISIS.
The move into Syria, is a smoke screen for other more flameble region.. Ukraine problem is still present and isn't going away.
And its starting to give Putin a headache..

Nato is not doing the same thing. Ukraine will die down natural death.


It might had given him initial support at home, but as time drags on, and more Russian soldiers dies and more funding keep draning Russian defence sector and other sectors like Food and relief.
Then it backfires, and the Kreml advicers are out of options to manuvere..

There is not a chance of any thing as such happening. Initially they may use Ukranian approach of luring rebels closer and hit them once they assemble in one area but later it will expand alot. There are naval exercises with live firing coming up and airdefence network.

Member for

8 years 11 months

Posts: 572

If isis moves in and attacks Russian positions, this could be an embarrassment.

Member for

18 years 10 months

Posts: 4,472

I'm very glad Russia gets involved.

It will prevent Israel, the US & their puppets to bomb indiscriminately ISIS & the Syrian regime. You've got to be naive (scratch naive, dumb) to believe that they are only bombing ISIS.

Nic

Member for

11 years 2 months

Posts: 1,059

I'm very glad Russia gets involved.

It will prevent Israel, the US & their puppets to bomb indiscriminately ISIS & the Syrian regime. You've got to be naive (scratch naive, dumb) to believe that they are only bombing ISIS.

Nic

You have to be moronically ignorant of the news in the U.S. if you think their bombing of ISIS amounts to more than political bs much less militarily amounting to much.

Member for

8 years 11 months

Posts: 572

Do you think Russia with all of there might could pacify Syria? I would like to see them try.

Member for

16 years 5 months

Posts: 312

Do you think Russia with all of there might could pacify Syria? I would like to see them try.

Why are people jumping to the conclusion that these flight and build up at Latakia airport mean that Russian forces are going to launch a land offensive in Syria. No body knows including American intelligences what Russia intentions really are. All reports at this time show that all assists are being deployed defensively around the airport.

The US and Russia should really start working together on the IS problem because the outcome that is looking most likely at the moment is that Assad government falls and Western moderate rebel experiment continues to fail and IS is going to take all of Syria and leading to a bigger crisis then exists already.

These air strikes that are being lead by the US which are the equivalent of throwing money down a sink hole. It been one year and what have they achieved against IS? Nothing. They still holding on to the territory they captured in Iraq and Syria.

IS is not going to be defeated without boots on the ground the problem is no one is willing to commit.

Member for

12 years 7 months

Posts: 4,731

Intervention is already a success as rest of world is moving towards russian view point.
with Nordstream 2 and all those Oil/Gas coming out from Iran/Iraq. It will give Russia much free hand to destroy the rest without damaging world economic.


https://www.middleeastmonitor.com/news/europe/21039-russian-intervention-in-syria-pushes-europe-towards-assad
Russian intervention in Syria pushes Europe towards Assad


http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/australia-would-consult-iran-over-syria-air-strikes-julie-bishop-20150826-gj8hx1.html
Australia would consult with Iran over possible plans to expand RAAF air strikes to Syria, underscoring Foreign Affairs Minister Julie Bishop's push for more co-ordination with the Shiite regional power in the fight against Islamic State

Member for

18 years 10 months

Posts: 4,472

The US and Russia should really start working together on the IS problem because the outcome that is looking most likely at the moment is that Assad government falls and Western moderate rebel experiment continues to fail and IS is going to take all of Syria and leading to a bigger crisis then exists already.

Well what you describe here is actually the US plan: fall of the Assad government & take over by radical Islam. Israel & the US want a war in the region. Some years back I warned about Libya & Syria being next after Iraq, and every other retard laughed at me. I didn't read it into a crystal ball, but Gen Wesley Clarke warned us all.

These air strikes that are being lead by the US which are the equivalent of throwing money down a sink hole. It been one year and what have they achieved against IS? Nothing. They still holding on to the territory they captured in Iraq and Syria.

Makes you wonder if they actually do bomb ISIS or if they are bombing someone else ;)

IS is not going to be defeated without boots on the ground the problem is no one is willing to commit.

Oh israel is very much willing to when the time is right.

Member for

9 years 9 months

Posts: 1,765

IMHO Russia is more worried about latest Turkey moves than willing to directly confront with the international coalition.
After three years of loyalist's successes the tide seems to be turned another time and Russia blame Turkey for it.

It seems to be exceptionally worried about their proposed introduction of a No flight zone, allegedly for fighting ISIS but in the reality aimed at Assad downfall.
Above all Russia was close to strike a deal between the regime and almost a part of the opposition and see those moves as a direct interference with this goal.
Until now, they were conditioned by the Iran nuclear deal, but s soon as it passed, Iran gave them free air corridors toward Syria over its own territory (a strategical success of capital importance on its own) so they immediately ran into.
How far will they go? I would say between a minumum aimed at prevent foreign direct intervention, i.e. a very consistent one in any way, but still centered on air forces assets to one aimed at closing definitively the games, escalating in such a way to definitively overcome western efforts trough deploying boots or better said telnyashke on the ground.
More probable one is however to act together with Iran and the whole resistance axis in those regard, in both Syria than Iraq: Russia give its own cover and they fills up the rank and file.

Member for

9 years 9 months

Posts: 1,765

Well what you describe here is actually the US plan: fall of the Assad government & take over by radical Islam. Israel & the US want a war in the region. Some years back I warned about Libya & Syria being next after Iraq, and every other retard laughed at me. I didn't read it into a crystal ball, but Gen Wesley Clarke warned us all.

Makes you wonder if they actually do bomb ISIS or if they are bombing someone else ;)

Oh israel is very much willing to when the time is right.

Well, if you are referring to the coalition as a whole I would list it as unfounded assumption, about Turkey and Sunni states...the right contrary.

Member for

14 years 1 month

Posts: 2,163

Its hard to take a story from faux news seriously... particularly when they say things like:

days after a secret Moscow meeting in late July between Iran's Quds Force commander -- their chief exporter of terror

Does the re|ard who wrote the article not realise that the "main exporter of terror" is actually good ol Saudi Arabia and Sunni Islam? [Same Sunni Islam as ISIS?]

Meanwhile, Iran are 90-95% Shi'a, and are seen as half-way to unbelievers by extremist Sunnis?

Once again, strike up another bull€hit story to Faux.

Member for

17 years 7 months

Posts: 4,951

Well, you won't go to news from Fox, CNN, or the AP to get news on Syria. American news brands have all been penetrated by foreign NGO influence. Al Jazeera is blatantly telling people what's going on with a smooth overtone to give the whole politics a facade. Russia is heavily dependent on Shia influence peddling. Russia is not very keen on Turkey moves lately and if nobody has figured out Turkey's civilian influence heavily subsidized IS.

Syria is strategically an asset to Russia and the fall of Assad is destabilizing. The US should have never left a unified Iraq the way Shia have absolutely destroyed all balance with repeated assassinations targeting non-Shia influence in the region, even outside Iraq. You've got unrestrained murder rampaging through the region. Turkey, Saudi Arabia and the Gulf States would like nothing more than to restore social order in Iraq that contains Iran's Shia movements. The US is more or less ambiguous in its goals here. It's pretty apparent on the surface that Obama isn't taking sides, but isn't doing much to freeze anything in place. So the question is, what does the U.S. gain with a strong Iran. Right now it's driven oil prices through the floor, which is bad for Russia and the counterparts alike. I just hope Russia doesn't get frustrated and decides to accelerate their Ukraine involvement as a counter move. The Big picture isn't looking like roses.

Russia needs major tactical assets injected into the region. They know IS is a big picture problem, so they will be secondary. Immediately you'll see Russia take out frustrations on small players, whom may turn against IS in a deal. Russia needs influence. Tactical assets alone cure nothing. They are going to build a coalition with the smaller players, not excluding the Kurds.

How do people think they will move to get this done? I'm thinking heavy airlift followed by a sealift. Build up a foothold for airlifters to move in spetnaz and engineers. Flood the area with regulars in the guise of humanitarian aid. You need air cover to do it. MiGs or Sukhois? Helicopters brought in on airlift. Armor will begin with light units until the sealift. You're only beginning to see movements here.

Member for

12 years 7 months

Posts: 4,731

So the question is, what does the U.S. gain with a strong Iran.

US does not gain anything from strong Iran. strong Iran means more Oil and Gas into the market. that will kill Oil industry of Norway/Canada/US/Brazil and prices will go down for extended period of time that it lead to internal collapse of Saudi unable to fight wars with expensive western weopons.


Right now it's driven oil prices through the floor, which is bad for Russia and the counterparts alike. I just hope Russia doesn't get frustrated and decides to accelerate their Ukraine involvement as a counter move. The Big picture isn't looking like roses.

Ukraine will be sidelined untill Nordstream-2 is completed and after that Russia will punch it again when Ukraine is much weaker in population and have no pipeline.

Member for

13 years 5 months

Posts: 9,579

Stratfor with its typical amazing "analysis" skills, but interesting nonetheless:

http://static4.businessinsider.com/image/55fa9b59bd86ef18008bb041-1240-2054/syria-latakia-airbase-first-panel.jpg

What I am curious is how Russia develops its relationship with Iraq in the wake of increased Syrian activity.

Member for

12 years 3 months

Posts: 5,905

On reuters / same subject and source

The prime minister of Israel [...] is due in Russia next week for talks with President Vladimir Putin on the expanding Russian military presence.
[...]
U.S. officials said on Wednesday the United States had identified a small number of Russian helicopters at a Syrian airfield.

Member for

9 years 10 months

Posts: 612

The US and Russia should really start working together on the IS problem because the outcome that is looking most likely at the moment is that Assad government falls and Western moderate rebel experiment continues to fail and IS is going to take all of Syria and leading to a bigger crisis then exists already.
These air strikes that are being lead by the US which are the equivalent of throwing money down a sink hole. It been one year and what have they achieved against IS? Nothing. They still holding on to the territory they captured in Iraq and Syria. IS is not going to be defeated without boots on the ground the problem is no one is willing to commit.

The US bombing campaign has somewhat contained the IS advance. They can't really do more than that currently unless getting directly involved on the side of the Assad regime which is the one thing they are trying to avoid. And even if they somehow turn their policy by 180 degrees by e.g. sending special forces to coordinate the air support with the regime forces, the latter don't seem to have the troops capable of going on the offensive and the numbers needed to garrison that vast (albeit mostly empty) area.

Unfortunately, there are no good options on the table and no easy solutions to this mess. Some political compromise certainly needs to be found which would give most of the Syrians something to rally around (including the Sunni tribes in the IS controlled area), but the Iraqi experience makes it seem unlikely to succeed in the long term (e.g. politicians bringing their sectarianism to the fore to consolidate their power).

Back to the topic, given the rebel advances in the area, Russian troops seem bound to get directly involved in defensive operations if they want to keep their Syrian port options. I'd expect helicopter gunships to get involved soon enough.

Member for

17 years 7 months

Posts: 4,951

For not getting involved they've already stocked a considerable amount of weight on the paved areas. I think they are going to be very involved.