The Russian/Syrian connection thread

[deccie]

The Vietnam war is the poster child and the model sought by the present terrorists that proves my points. The US was stabbing at molasses the whole time, stuck in their "rules" about what war is and isn't, their stubborness at respecting some sort of territorial idea that they had in their head that somehow south-vietnam was a standing-on-its-own country... it wasn't except on a map. The ennemy could not be contained by those imaginary lines.

There could not have been an actual face-off between 2 standing armies in Vietnam because the balance of strenght was too loopsided. So refer to objectives 1 to 4 and you will see why the USA lost that one.

They could go back into their history a bit further. Yugoslavia was the perfect example of a guerilla war. The partisans hitting hard and then running for the hills. Hitting supply lines and targeted killings.

[deccie]

Now, if you're suggesting western militaries engage targets without regard for non-combatants or minimizing collateral damage? You'd be wrong.

You make this comment as though western militaries are some cohesive whole. They aren't. They are made up of individuals and those individuals have different opinions and indeed sometimes different legal interpretations on how they will conduct operations.

This is what the peeing on corpses incident, Mai Lai, Abu Ghraib and other incidents like them illustrate. The response by politicians and senior ranks has in many case been to attempt to cover up these incidents and war crimes.

There are some incredibly good and brave people in the defence forces. Some of the recent  stories of the VC winners in the Australian Army out of Afghanistan are just incredible in what those guys have done. But, there are also rapists and murderers in the Australian Army too. The same thing applies to the senior ranks as well. There are those who want to see wrong doing exposed and dealt with and there are those who would rather it be covered up and forgotten about. Sometimes they encourage it.

These various humanitarian organizations and aid groups have their purpose in post conflict countries and areas suffering from natural disasters. So your comment has some merit in that treating the indigenous sick and injured is a worthwhile endeavor...However, not at the expense of our service personnel's lives.

Brass

There is also the POV that if you enlist in the military you are knowingly taking a risk. A civilian is not afforded that choice.

[deccie]

The US has blundered in this for sure. We should have never tried to take out the leaders
of Libya, Egypt or Syria. Egypt was Sunni and Libya and Syria were Shiite. So team
Obama/Clinton/Kerry has blundered with all sides.

Europe is paying a high price for the mistake in Libya right now.

[deccie]

Is that what the Kremlin's telling the Russian people now...The vaunted Russian military has giant laser shooting robots?

Brass

One of the idiots here said the army needed more geeks from the "World of Tanks" game to enlist...

[deccie]

 

When was the last time Russia had any significant involvement in the Middle East?  1972. 

Did Russia exist in 1972?

[deccie]

Yep, and the housing collapse, and climate change, and the gun violence in America, and the invasion of Ukraine, and Burkina Faso, and my neighbors bad odor, etc. all Obama's fault.


Feel free to add more. 

No, the housing collapse is on every single President after and including Clinton. The securitisation of mortgages and removing the need of those giving mortgages to ensure those getting them could actually pay them was the biggest single cause of the collapse. No one wanted the bubble to burst on their watch - until it did.

[deccie]

None of this seems to have phased the Russians as it pertains to their willingness to not yield to Western intervention in Syria.


Fathertime!

I'd say the average Russian outside the major cities of Moscow and St Petersburg  is largely too busy trying to work  out how he can pay his bills as his salary keeps getting cut... Until the airliner came down I don't think most Russians cared diddly squat about the entire ME.

[2tallbill]

I don't get the point of this, unless maybe to placate morons like team Obama.
What could a new constitution do to help Syria or Syrians? The one they have
now₁ isn't worth the paper that it's printed on.

Russia calls for a new Syrian constitution in 18 months
Associated Press By EDITH M. LEDERER


http://news.yahoo.com/russia-calls-syrian-constitution-18-months-054322827.html;_ylt=AwrC0CNtdkNWkgkA3JzQtDMD;_ylu=X3oDMTBydWNmY2MwBGNvbG8DYmYxBHBvcwM0BHZ0aWQDBHNlYwNzcg--


1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syrian_constitutional_referendum,_2012

[2tallbill]

Putin Says 20 Terrorist Plots Foiled in Russia This Year
MOSCOW (AP) -- Intelligence agents have foiled 20 terrorist plots in Russia this year,
President Vladimir Putin said on Tuesday, and asked officials to increase their efforts to
prevent terrorist attacks.

Russia began carrying out air strikes on Islamic State militants in Syria last month to support
government forces there. The Kremlin has cited curbing terrorism internationally and making
sure Russian nationals in the IS ranks don't come back home as the main reasons behind the
Russian air strikes.

There's more read all about it here
http://www.kolotv.com/home/headlines/Putin-Says-20-Terrorist-Plots-Foiled-in-Russia-This-Year-334601261.html

[deccie]

You might want to take a look at these figures, Billy...

As Mendy alludes to, China's playing their own game with Putin. Putin will figure it out about the same time Russia goes bankrupt.

Brass

China has cut a lot of their imports this year including Australian iron ore and coal. Their economic growth levels are topping out. So it would make sense oil imports would be cut as well no?

[deccie]

Billy, when Russia has the population, and the economic might, to replace the USA then China might care. Right now, they simply keeping their commitment to BRICS alive, but the USA is a far bigger trading power than Russia.

China also owns a lot of US bonds...

[deccie]

..."The facts compiled in this review confirm our initial observations: the MSF trauma centre was fully functioning as a hospital with 105 patients admitted and surgeries ongoing at the time of the US airstrikes; the MSF rules in the hospital were implemented and respected, including the ‘no weapons’ policy; MSF was in full control of the hospital before and at the time of the airstrikes; there were no armed combatants within the hospital compound and there was no fighting from or in the direct vicinity of the trauma centre before the airstrikes.

What we know is that we were running a hospital treating patients, including wounded combatants from both sides – this was not a ‘Taliban base.’"...

The above includes no detail on the actual medical state of the Taliban in the hospital.
So, you don't even know if they were conscious or not do you or even if they could hold a firearm??
 

My comments neither mention, refer or allude to Abu Ghraib or US Forces pissing on corpses.

I don't believe you could reasonably come to your conclusion based on anything I've written in this topic (or any other topic I suspect).

Brass

Your comments imply that US and other Western power forces never commit attrocities. That they never breach the rules of war and never try to hide facts. Abu Ghraib and the peeing incident show that to be false. The Tillman death is another example. There were those in the military who tried to hide that his death was a friendly fire incident. Had they been successful we would never have known about it. Thankfully there were people around who did not accept that and investigated further.

[deccie]

That's the second time you've brought this up in relation to my comments. The acts of two individual soldiers who were court martialed for their misdeed do not represent the actions of the entire western military or even their unit. It's not really relevant

Militaries are made up of individuals. The actions of those individuals vary.

Were they brought before a court before the photos became public?  Answer - no. Was an investigation completed before the photos became public? Answer - no. Therefore the action that determined this final result was the making of the photos public.

What about incidents where photos and video either do not exist or have not been made public because they have been suppressed? Based on the above you would have to conclude those individuals will never face justice.

No crime by the US Air Force has been established. The investigations will determine if culpability is to be assigned.

Brass

That does not mean that the investigation will be truthful or correct.

[deccie]

So is this Memo from Sir Harris to the Air Ministry ...

I ... assume that the view under consideration is something like this: no doubt in the past we were justified in attacking German cities. But to do so was always repugnant and now that the Germans are beaten anyway we can properly abstain from proceeding with these attacks. This is a doctrine to which I could never subscribe. Attacks on cities like any other act of war are intolerable unless they are strategically justified. But they are strategically justified in so far as they tend to shorten the war and preserve the lives of Allied soldiers. To my mind we have absolutely no right to give them up unless it is certain that they will not have this effect. I do not personally regard the whole of the remaining cities of Germany as worth the bones of one British Grenadier.
The feeling, such as there is, over Dresden, could be easily explained by any psychiatrist. It is connected with German bands and Dresden shepherdesses. Actually Dresden was a mass of munitions works, an intact government centre, and a key transportation point to the East. It is now none of these things"...

Neither his quote or memo changes the fact that you're trying to compare apples and oranges.

Collateral damage had nothing to do with strategic bombing initiative policy during WW2. Both the Axis and Allied Air Forces were intentionally targeting cities. Not accidently targeting them.

There were two After Action justification inquiries conducted...

..."Marshall inquiry

An inquiry conducted at the behest of U.S. Army Chief of Staff, General George C. Marshall, stated the raid was justified by the available intelligence. The inquiry declared the elimination of the German ability to reinforce a counter-attack against Marshal Konev's extended line or, alternatively, to retreat and regroup using Dresden as a base of operations, were important military objectives. As Dresden had been largely untouched during the war due to its location, it was one of the few remaining functional rail and communications centres. A secondary objective was to disrupt the industrial use of Dresden for munitions manufacture, which American intelligence believed was the case. The shock to military planners and to the Allied civilian populations of the German counterattack known as the Battle of the Bulge had ended speculation that the war was almost over, and may have contributed to the decision to continue with the aerial bombardment of German cities.[126]

The inquiry concluded that by the presence of active German military units nearby, and the presence of fighters and anti-aircraft within an effective range, Dresden qualified as "defended".[7] By this stage in the war both the British and the Germans had integrated air defences at the national level. The German national air-defence system could be used to argue—as the tribunal did—that no German city was "undefended".

Marshall's tribunal declared that no extraordinary decision was made to single out Dresden (e.g. to take advantage of the large number of refugees, or purposely terrorize the German populace). It was argued that the intent of area bombing was to disrupt communications and destroy industrial production. The American inquiry established that' the Soviets, pursuant to allied agreements for the United States and the United Kingdom to provide air support for the Soviet offensive toward Berlin, had requested area bombing of Dresden to prevent a counterattack through Dresden, or the use of Dresden as a regrouping point after a strategic retreat."...

..."U.S. Air Force Historical Division report

A report by the U.S. Air Force Historical Division (USAFHD) analyzed the circumstances of the raid and concluded that it was militarily necessary and justified, based on the following points:[7]
1.The raid had legitimate military ends, brought about by exigent military circumstances.
2.Military units and anti-aircraft defences were sufficiently close that it was not valid to consider the city "undefended."
3.The raid did not use extraordinary means but was comparable to other raids used against comparable targets.
4.The raid was carried out through the normal chain of command, pursuant to directives and agreements then in force.
5.The raid achieved the military objective, without excessive loss of civilian life."...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombing_of_Dresden_in_World_War_II

So, we have two investigations on the Allied side - investigating the Allied side. Why or how would they have formed an alternate view to that which would have been the prevailing view at the time? Who defines excessive? Obviously they get to do it. Of course they formed those views.  How could they have reasonably done otherwise?

Good luck. I hope you catch your man.

Brass

Looks like he may have been caught. We will know for  sure soon.

[deccie]

It's not the US doing the accusing, it's the doctors working in Syria. Russia admits to bombing in the areas of the hospitals and even accused some of the hospitals to be fake. Between the doctors and Russia, somebody is lying.


http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/202340


http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/oct/22/three-syrian-hospitals-bombed-since-russian-airstrikes-began-doctors-say

Who are the doctors working for?

[deccie]

One of the reasons for today's modern wars which are long and drawn out, is the lack of civilian causalities. Previous generations understood (correctly) that to defeat an enemy you had to demoralize his citizenry as well as kill his army.

Both the Blitz as well as the Seige of Leningrad show this is not so easy. I'd say the object was more to kill the citizenry not to demoralise them.

Our smart bombs and high tech toys often do a good job at destroying buildings, but little to convince a determined enemy to capitulate. I applaud the result of bombing German towns and villages, just as I applaud the nukes dropped on Japan. Those actions helped to shorten the wars on both fronts. Yes, people were killed, but more innocent lives were spared by forcing the losers to surrender.

It is hard to quantify the effect of the German bombing on reducing the duration of the war. The Germans became very inventive to keep production levels going right up until the end of the war. Albert Speer was very good at that job. The Japanese nukes even more so since Japan was already trying to surrender using the Soviets as intermediaries (until the Soviet Union attacked them). So what was being argued about at the time was essentially the terms of surrender. I suspect Truman also wanted to show Stalin that he had the bombs and would use them.

[deccie]

War crimes/atrocities/massacres/murder have happened throughout history. Western nations are not immune to the phenomenon. However, the difference is it's not endemic or institutionalized in our militaries.

I would agree with this in general with the expressed concern that it may be becoming more tolerated in certain circumstances. Especially when lawyers get involved. The argument of water boarding not being torture being one example.

The Americans are perhaps the example of the "system working" to a large extent. From My Lai forward acts of this nature have become intolerable to  American society and intense scrutiny is given by media, public and government to events within a military action that even hint of wrong doing.

They only investigate if it becomes public knowledge. It is gets suppressed I doubt the system works at all as you describe.

For instance, the accusations of the Australian army's massacre at Binh Ma during the Vietnam war have never been investigated as a war crime in spite of numerous first person eyewitness accounts (both Vietnamese and Australian soldier accounts) reporting to government and media that civilians were machine gunned and grenaded. It could be argued the Australian government/military of the time covered that incident up as well.

Does not surprise me at all. We have a history of covering up incidents. The real depth of exposure of our own guys to harmful chemicals during the F-111 de-seal/re-seal fiasco is still emerging. That and the extent of sexual abuse prevalant against female members of the ADF.  Certainly I would not encourage any of my own kids to join the ADF simply because I would not trust those above them to exercise duty of care.

I don't think the sun shines out of any nations ass in this Brass.. 

Canada is not immune either.  In more recent times The Somalia Affair rocked our nation.

Unfortunately, in todays modern society there will be those that are never satisfied with the evidence/conclusions, regardless of the outcome. If the investigation shows there were mitigating circumstances (Kunduz) there will be immediate howls of cover up coming from several quarters, I'm sure.

Of course - but sometimes those howls ARE justified. For example we now know of CIA involvement in Chile in the overthrow of the Allende government. We know that the US government tried to suppress the release of the Abu Ghraib photos. We know they did nothing to change policy UNTIL the photos were published. We know the Bush government argued that the Geneva conventions did not apply in some circumstances. But they never told the public this...

Nope. You were (I assume now) intentionally trying to blur the line between collateral damage and war crime. You still are.

I have no doubt that unintended deaths occur. But I also have no doubt that deaths that were fully intended are also portrayed as collateral damage in some circumstances. I also believe that some incidents that would qualify as war crimes if the full facts were known have also been portrayed as either collateral damage or simply as "insurgent deaths".

I doubt you'll find that any of these past or present policies/incidents you're peppering your posts with are relevant to what happened at Kunduz. An example being this...

No, but it does go to YOUR portrayal of the incident at Kunduz and the potential veracity of any US investigation of that incident. I can summarise our differences. You have confidence in the investigation - I don't. BTW, do you share the same confidence in the US investigation of the USS Liberty incident?

If you want to start a topic on Gitmo or SIGINT as it relates to metadata or post on one of the numerous topics criticizing American policies, go ahead. I'll contribute if I can.

I would like to but I do not have the time right now. Both my wife and I are very busy right now and we don't get enough time together as it is. My hobbies have all but stopped completely for now so while I do enjoy the forum there are other things I would rather be doing.

However, it's just not relevant as it relates to Kunduz. Which, after all, is what we're discussing.

In a thread about Syria... 

[Gator]

Did Russia exist in 1972?

You got me.  So it was the CCCP, not RF.  Yet I imagine most of the Soviets assigned to Egypt were Russian. 

[Gator]

I'm not quite so sure corruption has been eliminated and still today there are people trying to leave the country.

You have been a busy boy today!

I had the rare pleasure of meeting on a train  a German journalist who witnessed the fall of Saigon. We spoke for hours. 

He went to the US Embassy to observe the evacuation, and rushed to the top floor.  The building was empty because all the Vietnamese remaining had skedaddled when the last helicopter left. At the top floor he recalls seeing  a cigarette still burning in an ash tray.  One could imagine an Army Colonel exclaiming, "Fuck it, we are out of here!" as he climbed into the last  helicopter to take the one remaining place. 

Returning to the city center, he noticed all ARVN had thrown away their uniforms.  They looked just like normal Vietnamese civilians, standing in a doorway wearing boxer shirts and sleeveless undershirt, wondering what was about to happen.  Then the NVA tanks came roaring down the streets, announcing "We come as liberators to unite with our brothers."  It soon became a celebration. 

Saigon was for years and years filled with corrupt Black Marketers selling illicit goods.  The next day after the NVA arrived, those who continued to work a Black Market were gathered up.  They disappeared. 

Fast forward 40 years.  I returned to Saigon, now Ho Chi Minh City.  It is bustling and active with modern construction in many places such as flashy malls.    I saw no signs of corruption, although I am sure some palms were greased by the new commercial ventures.   There was nothing sleazy like one would see in Thailand. 

I traveled around the country.  The little villages had services such as electricity.  At one point we drove close to a base where I was stationed for six months in 1966.  It is now a Vietnamese military base.  I had the taxi driver take me to the gate, and I asked him  to give the guard $20 to let us through.  He adamantly refused, and when I got out of the taxi he grabbed me and pleaded that I returned to the taxi.  Between this and the look of alarm on the guard's face, I retreated to the taxi.  The street smart RW with me was also alarmed.

Two years later I  went to Laos.  I thought I had returned to Graham Greene's time.  The only thing missing was the jungle, now deforested for commercial agriculture.

[mendeleyev]

Is Russia waging "Hybrid Warfare" in Syria as it has in Ukraine?

One group claims that Russia is deeper into that mess than the government will admit. Are they correct?

http://www.valuewalk.com/2015/11/russia-hybrid-war/

[Brasscasing]

You make this comment as though western militaries are some cohesive whole. They aren't. They are made up of individuals and those individuals have different opinions and indeed sometimes different legal interpretations on how they will conduct operations.

Western nations are all party to the Geneva Conventions and Protocols. Further, most are party to and abide by the earlier Hague Convention, which is mostly superseded by the Geneva Conventions, but is still active and in force.

The individual countries and organizations they belong to (NATO, UN, NORAD, EU, Commonwealth Countries, etc.) base their military Regulations, Orders, Codes of Service Discipline and Rules of Engagement and how they conduct themselves as nations at war on these conventions/protocols.

In this regard Western Nations are a cohesive whole.

This is what the peeing on corpses incident, Mai Lai, Abu Ghraib and other incidents like them illustrate. The response by politicians and senior ranks has in many case been to attempt to cover up these incidents and war crimes.

No, it doesn't. You cannot point to several isolated incidents over the course of two wars and 40 years and declare it's endemic or institutionalized.

If there is a cover up then those individuals who commit the crime are accessory after the fact they'll also be prosecuted if it unravels. Civilized nations don't make a distinction between the two. It's still part of the crime.

There are some incredibly good and brave people in the defence forces. Some of the recent  stories of the VC winners in the Australian Army out of Afghanistan are just incredible in what those guys have done. But, there are also rapists and murderers in the Australian Army too. The same thing applies to the senior ranks as well. There are those who want to see wrong doing exposed and dealt with and there are those who would rather it be covered up and forgotten about. Sometimes they encourage it.

Indeed. This is exactly my point. Human nature is human nature. It's how we as civilized nations minimize and met out punishment to these individuals who break the laws and fall outside the acceptable conduct of war (just as we do when a citizen breaks civil/criminal law) when it happens that determines whether we as individual nations are civilized or not.

There is also the POV that if you enlist in the military you are knowingly taking a risk. A civilian is not afforded that choice.

These Aid organizations are fully aware of the risk they're taking. They have a legal departments that ensures all the staff sign papers specifying they are (whether paid or not) volunteers and in no way may hold the specific Aid/Humanitarian responsible.

As I mentioned earlier I've worked alongside a number of these organizations. They are within themselves a business as any other. They just happen to be in the business of providing aid/humanitarian services.

Brass

[2tallbill]

Putin: Free Syrian Army shares intel on ISIS targets
US reluctant to cooperate[/b]

Russia has been cooperating with the Free Syrian Army (FSA), which shared
their intelligence on Islamic State (IS, formerly ISIS) positions targeted by
Russian airstrikes, said President Vladimir Putin in an interview on Friday.

In an interview with the Interfax and Anadolu news agencies published on Friday,
Putin said Russia has been considering any “reliable” information on the terrorists’
location in Syria.

“We have even worked together with the Free Syrian Army (FSA),” he said. “Russian
aviation has conducted several strikes on targets identified by the FSA. We excluded
areas, which had been indicated by FSA commanders as being under their control.”

He stressed this “proves once again that we are not bombing the so-called moderate
opposition or the civilian population.”

There's more read all about it here
http://www.rt.com/news/321820-putin-interview-syria-g20/

[2tallbill]

Essay: Russia’s Military Role in Syria
By: Daniel Trombly USNI

The deployment of a major Russian expeditionary force to Syria in late September
resulted in a flurry of public attention and heated rumors.

Pro-Syrian regime sources spoke of a massive offensive against the Islamic State
in Iraq and Syria (ISIS or ISIL) that would put the long-frustrated U.S. and
coalition effort to shame. Many worried that Russia would flood Syria with new
interceptors, such as the Mikoyan MiG-31, or the latest generation of surface-to-air
missile systems (Syria’s long-rumored order of MiG-31s remains unfilled, and the
Buk and Pantsir surface-to-air missiles defending Russia’s base do not do much more
than Syria’s own Buk and Pantsir systems to improve the regime’s air defense capabilities).

Even rumors involving Russia’s sole Typhoon-class ballistic-missile submarine and
aircraft carrier entered the mix.

There is a lot more read all about it here
http://news.usni.org/2015/11/13/essay-russias-military-role-in-syria

[2tallbill]

The state of play in the Syria talks (round 58692)
By Marco Vicenzino Reuters

RUSSIA: The recent diplomatic surge to forge a settlement to the conflict in Syria
was intentionally driven by Russia to complement its military intervention in the
country. Moscow’s air campaign will likely intensify if jihadists prove to be responsible
for the recent downing of a Russian commercial airliner over Egypt, which killed all
224 people on board. It could also, however, add fuel to the diplomatic effort and
underscore the need for a negotiated solution.

President Vladimir Putin seeks to change the balance of power on the ground in Syria
to ensure the Assad regime’s survival and tilt the scales at the negotiating table. He
aims to restore Russian influence in the Middle East, which diminished after the fall
of the Soviet Union. He wants to use his new-found leverage to reconfigure the
region’s broader geopolitical landscape.

There is a lot more read all about it here
http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2015/11/13/the-state-of-play-in-the-syria-talks-round-58692/

[2tallbill]

Note: This is an opinion piece and doesn't necessarily reflect my opinions.

Syria peace talks: Russia's leaked plan shows some flexibility
but war will not end as long as Assad stays in power
The Independent

The second round of peace talks over the fate of Syria begins this weekend.
Few are optimistic. The world powers meeting in Vienna fall into three distinct
camps:

those who back a future for Bashar al-Assad, whose number includes Russia and Iran.
Those who believe the President must go, led by Saudi Arabia and Turkey.
And those who appear caught between the two poles, a group dominated by the
US and UK.

It will take quite some diplomatic contortions to agree upon a plan for peace that
suits all parties. And as only Russia and Iran have committed significant military
resources to the fight on the ground, they have gained the upper hand.

There is a lot more read all about it here
http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/syria-peace-talks-russias-leaked-plan-shows-some-flexibility-but-war-will-not-end-as-long-as-assad-a6730971.html