Syria - civil war incoming?

$iljanus · Post by **$iljanus** » Fri Sep 09, 2016 9:44 pm

Hmmm, it's probably far fetched to think about this joint operations center mysteriously exploding and the blame placed on the rebel opposition. I mean it sounds like something from the imagination of a retired spy...

Kraken · Post by **Kraken** » Fri Sep 09, 2016 9:48 pm

Any ray of hope in Syria is welcome news. I gather that the "Assad must go" thing is gone? Or at least tabled for now?

Rip · Post by **Rip** » Fri Sep 09, 2016 10:27 pm

At this point I think they would do anything to come out would something that can at least look like a positive for Hillary and the admin as I am sure the race is WAY closer than they expected.

The panic is real.

Kraken · Post by **Kraken** » Sat Sep 10, 2016 2:25 am

Right, because ending the war in Syria is all about our election.

Rip · Post by **Rip** » Sat Sep 10, 2016 6:02 am

Kraken wrote:Right, because ending the war in Syria is all about our election.

Yea, the war is totally over.

hepcat · Post by **hepcat** » Sun Sep 11, 2016 3:53 pm

You're just annoyed Obama is doing something the conservatives couldn't.

Rip · Post by **Rip** » Sun Sep 11, 2016 4:58 pm

hepcat wrote:You're just annoyed Obama is doing something the conservatives couldn't.

Capitulating.

True.

hepcat · Post by **hepcat** » Sun Sep 11, 2016 5:50 pm

Damn straight! Now bow before your new Muslim masters, toadie!

Wait,...was I not supposed to reveal the ultimate plan yet?

$iljanus · Post by **$iljanus** » Mon Sep 19, 2016 7:31 pm

No worries. We're back to the status quo of barrel bombs and aid convoys being bombed as Syria declares end to cease fire.

Sigh...

Alefroth · Post by **Alefroth** » Mon Sep 19, 2016 8:04 pm

$iljanus wrote:No worries. We're back to the status quo of barrel bombs and aid convoys being bombed as Syria declares end to cease fire.

Sigh...

Fuckin' hell.

Max Peck · Post by **Max Peck** » Wed Sep 21, 2016 12:25 am

Russian aircraft believed to hit Syria convoy, U.S. officials say

The United States believes two Russian aircraft attacked an aid convoy near Aleppo in a strike that shattered a one-week truce, U.S. officials said on Tuesday, but Russia denied involvement.

Despite the military blame game over Monday's deadly attack, diplomats struggled to save the U.S.-Russian ceasefire agreement that took effect on Sept. 12.

The incident, in which 18 trucks from a 31-vehicle convoy were destroyed, looked likely to deal a death blow to diplomatic efforts to halt a civil war now in its sixth year.

Two Russian Sukhoi SU-24 warplanes were in the skies above the aid convoy at the exact time it was struck late on Monday, two U.S. officials told Reuters, citing U.S. intelligence that led them to conclude Russia was to blame.

Russia's foreign ministry spokeswoman denied the assertion, telling reporters at the United Nations the U.S. administration "has no facts" to support the claim, adding: "We have nothing to do with this situation."

Anonymous Bosch · Post by **Anonymous Bosch** » Fri Oct 07, 2016 3:14 pm

Don’t Intervene in Syria:

NYT wrote:The cease-fire in Syria that the United States and Russia tortuously negotiated has, like the one before it, fallen apart.

The trouble began when an errant American airstrike killed some 60 Syrian government soldiers. Then, Russia resumed its disingenuous grandstanding and the Syrian government, with Russia’s support, went back to indiscriminately bombing rebel-held areas of Aleppo. On Monday, less than a month after the agreement went into effect, Secretary of State John Kerry announced that the United States would break off talks with Russia on trying to revive it.

This failure, accompanied by images of suffering in Aleppo, has inspired renewed calls for a tougher American policy in Syria from liberal hawks and traditional conservatives alike. At the vice-presidential debate on Tuesday, both the Democrat, Senator Tim Kaine of Virginia, and the Republican, Gov. Mike Pence of Indiana, advocated more aggressive American action.

But the truth is that it is too late for the United States to wade deeper into the Syrian conflict without risking a major war, or, at best, looking feckless by failing to fully commit to confronting Russia and President Bashar al-Assad of Syria and then backing down. The goal now should be reducing harm, saving lives and keeping prospects for a political deal alive. Cease-fire talks between the United States and Russia, tormented though they may be, remain the best way to achieve this.

Although Russia has denied it, it is clear that Moscow considers Mr. Assad’s survival crucial to protecting its interests in Syria, which include combating jihadism, preserving intelligence and military assets, and asserting that Russia is a geopolitical player in the Middle East. Russia has unflinchingly protected the Assad government both militarily and at the United Nations Security Council.

Indeed, Mr. Assad seems to enjoy practically unlimited leverage over Russia. Despite narrowly escaping American punishment for using chemical weapons by surrendering his stockpile of deadly nerve gas and other poisons in 2013, Mr. Assad has felt free to continue using toxic commercial chlorine gas. Even though Russia moved toward political compromise when it provisionally withdrew from Syria in March, Mr. Assad was not inclined to give peace talks a serious chance. In both cases, Russia fell back in line with Mr. Assad’s defiant brutality.

There are probably limits to Moscow’s deference to Mr. Assad’s blood lust, but it is unclear what they are. This is what makes an American escalation in Syria so dangerous.

American supporters of intervention, including the vice-presidential candidates, often say that the United States should create a no-fly zone in Syria to protect civilians from Mr. Assad and Russia’s bombs. But imagine how this might work: An American warplane enforcing a no-fly zone would risk fire from a Russian-made antiaircraft battery or fighter. (Just this week Russia shipped new antiaircraft systems to Syria.)

This risk clearly worries advocates for the use of force within the Obama administration. They are said to favor increased air support for the Syrian rebels that would avoid direct confrontation with the Russians. But small-scale, targeted bombing is unlikely to change Syrian behavior, so to be effective the strikes would have to escalate. (Alternatively, ineffective strikes could be ended, but this would make the United States look incompetent.) This would ultimately lead to a violent response, which would compel the United States to retaliate against Russian and Syrian government ground targets.

As conflict spiraled and casualties increased, so would international pressure for another costly, protracted and thankless American-led ground intervention to enforce peace, which domestic opinion in the United States would not support. While Russia’s real appetite for a political solution in the Syria conflict is unclear, it is wiser to test unknown political limits than unknown military ones.

Rip · Post by **Rip** » Thu Oct 20, 2016 9:23 am

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/10 ... -the-cold/

Russia has begun its biggest surface deployment since the end of the Cold War as it aims to effectively end the war in Syria on the eve of the US election, Nato officials warned last night.

The Kremlin is sending the full might of its Northern Fleet and part of the Baltic Fleet to reinforce a final assault on the city of Aleppo in a fortnight, according to Western intelligence.

The final bombardment is designed to shore up the Assad regime by wiping out rebels – paving the way for a Russian exit from the civil war.

A senior Nato diplomat said the deployment from the Northern Fleet’s base near Murmansk would herald a renewed attack in Aleppo.

“They are deploying all of the Northern Fleet and much of the Baltic Fleet in the largest surface deployment since the end of the Cold War,” the diplomat said.

“This is not a friendly port call. In two weeks, we will see a crescendo of air attacks on Aleppo as part of Russia’s strategy to declare victory there.”

The additional military firepower is designed to drive out or destroy the 8,000 rebels in Aleppo, the only large city still in opposition hands, and to allow Vladimir Putin, the Russian president, to start a withdrawal.

hepcat · Post by **hepcat** » Thu Oct 20, 2016 9:26 am

I'm never sure if you're applauding Russia or condemning them.

Rip · Post by **Rip** » Thu Oct 20, 2016 9:32 am

hepcat wrote:I'm never sure if you're applauding Russia or condemning them.

Neither, just observing them.

hepcat · Post by **hepcat** » Thu Oct 20, 2016 9:51 am

Okay Uatu.

...God I'm a nerd.

El Guapo · Post by **El Guapo** » Thu Oct 20, 2016 9:54 am

Rip wrote: The Kremlin is sending the full might of its Northern Fleet and part of the Baltic Fleet to reinforce a final assault on the city of Aleppo in a fortnight, according to Western intelligence.

Now is the time to seize St. Petersburg!

hepcat · Post by **hepcat** » Thu Oct 20, 2016 9:58 am

El Guapo wrote:
Rip wrote: The Kremlin is sending the full might of its Northern Fleet and part of the Baltic Fleet to reinforce a final assault on the city of Aleppo in a fortnight, according to Western intelligence.
Now is the time to seize St. Petersburg!

LEEEERRRROOOOYYYYY JEEEEENKINS!

GreenGoo · Post by **GreenGoo** » Thu Oct 20, 2016 10:58 am

Yeah, the Brits were shadowing them as they moved past Britain.

I'm just amazed they can afford to operate that many resources at once. I hope they saved something for them to eat, come winter.

Max Peck · Post by **Max Peck** » Thu Oct 20, 2016 11:22 am

Rip wrote:http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/10 ... -the-cold/

Russia has begun its biggest surface deployment since the end of the Cold War as it aims to effectively end the war in Syria on the eve of the US election, Nato officials warned last night.

The Kremlin is sending the full might of its Northern Fleet and part of the Baltic Fleet to reinforce a final assault on the city of Aleppo in a fortnight, according to Western intelligence.

The final bombardment is designed to shore up the Assad regime by wiping out rebels – paving the way for a Russian exit from the civil war.

A senior Nato diplomat said the deployment from the Northern Fleet’s base near Murmansk would herald a renewed attack in Aleppo.

“They are deploying all of the Northern Fleet and much of the Baltic Fleet in the largest surface deployment since the end of the Cold War,” the diplomat said.

“This is not a friendly port call. In two weeks, we will see a crescendo of air attacks on Aleppo as part of Russia’s strategy to declare victory there.”

The additional military firepower is designed to drive out or destroy the 8,000 rebels in Aleppo, the only large city still in opposition hands, and to allow Vladimir Putin, the Russian president, to start a withdrawal.

The problem (for the Russians) is that their aerial bombardment strategy is great for slaughtering civilians in places like Aleppo, but is proving to be very ineffective at actually killing combatants in built-up urban areas, which is why the rebel-held portion of Aleppo has yet to fall (Trump's insightful analysis not withstanding). Aerial attacks are much more effective against targets in the open.

Has anyone seen actual data on Admiral Kuznetsov's ability to stage effective air-to-ground operations against Aleppo? From what I've read, she's not exactly optimal for the role (use of a bow-ramp instead of catapults to launch her aircraft reportedly imposes severe limits on fuel and munitions payloads).

Isgrimnur · Post by **Isgrimnur** » Fri Oct 21, 2016 12:57 pm

South Africa pulls out of ICC:

South Africa has decided to withdraw from the International Criminal Court, after previously ignoring an ICC arrest warrant for Sudanese President Omar al-Bashir.

Reuters and The Associated Press both say they have seen a document, signed by South Africa's foreign minister, declaring the country's intent to withdraw. The AP reports that legislation to finalize the move has to pass South Africa's parliament, but notes that passage of such a bill is likely.

Just days ago, Burundi became the first country ever to withdraw from the ICC. The country's parliament overwhelmingly approved the proposal, and the president signed it into law on Tuesday.

That's two ground-breaking moves to depart from the war crimes court in just one week. The AP notes there are concerns that more African countries will opt to leave the court given longstanding objections to the ICC's focus on the continent — every person tried by the ICC has been African. (Other trials for war crimes and genocide have been carried out by ad hoc tribunals pulled together for a specific conflict, such as those created for Yugoslavia and Cambodia.)
...
Both Burundi and South Africa have objections to the court that extend beyond its regional focus. Earlier this year, the ICC launched an investigation into killings, sexual assault and torture in Burundi, humanitarian news agency IRIN reports. Burundian officials accused the court of being an "instrument" to destabilize low-income countries.

South Africa's departure, meanwhile, is prompted by the country's objections to a warrant for the arrest of Bashir, who was indicted by the ICC in 2009 on charges of war crimes and genocide in Darfur.
...
Last year, Bashir flew to South Africa for a summit. The South African government declined to arrest him, saying they had granted immunity to all heads of state at the summit.

A South African court ruled that the country was obligated to arrest Bashir, but he left the country without an arrest.

Explaining the country's withdrawal from the court, a South African minister says the government does not want to carry out ICC arrest warrants which amount to "regime change," the BBC reports.

Max Peck · Post by **Max Peck** » Fri Oct 21, 2016 1:00 pm

Isgrimnur wrote:South Africa pulls out of ICC

And the Syrian connection is...?

Isgrimnur · Post by **Isgrimnur** » Fri Oct 21, 2016 1:05 pm

Sudan, Syria, what's the difference?

Freyland · Post by **Freyland** » Fri Oct 21, 2016 2:45 pm

Sudanyria!

Really rolls off the tongue (and cheek)

Max Peck · Post by **Max Peck** » Sat Oct 22, 2016 1:17 am

Meanwhile, in the English Channel (enroute to Syria!)...

Grifman · Post by **Grifman** » Sat Oct 22, 2016 11:58 am

Did the fleet include a tug for the Kuznetsov?

Max Peck · Post by **Max Peck** » Sat Oct 22, 2016 12:46 pm

Hopefully, but I haven't seen any mention of it. Maybe they already have one in the Med? It would be embarrassing if they have to ask the USN for a tow or a jump.

Rip · Post by **Rip** » Sat Oct 22, 2016 12:56 pm

Unfortunately the USN has become quite familiar with ships breaking down themselves.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/08/31/politics/ ... breakdown/

Kurth · Post by **Kurth** » Sat Oct 22, 2016 1:04 pm

Rip wrote:Unfortunately the USN has become quite familiar with ships breaking down themselves.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/08/31/politics/ ... breakdown/

Do you work for Pravda?

Max Peck · Post by **Max Peck** » Sat Oct 22, 2016 1:05 pm

But the USN is still far better off than the Russians, no matter what Trumputin says.

And here, I'll save you trouble of pointing out the deficiencies of the RCN.

Isgrimnur · Post by **Isgrimnur** » Sat Oct 22, 2016 2:05 pm

The LCS stuff is well documented in the Military Tech thread, and these are brand new ships undergoing sea trials, not decades-old carriers.

Grifman · Post by **Grifman** » Sat Oct 22, 2016 2:36 pm

Kurth wrote:
Rip wrote:Unfortunately the USN has become quite familiar with ships breaking down themselves.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/08/31/politics/ ... breakdown/
Do you work for Pravda?

Russia Today. I'm beginning to believe that the only sub force Rip served in was that of the Russian navy.

Rip · Post by **Rip** » Sat Oct 22, 2016 4:45 pm

If ignorant both of your enemy and yourself, you are certain to be in peril.

Grifman · Post by **Grifman** » Sun Oct 23, 2016 8:47 pm

Rip wrote:If ignorant both of your enemy and yourself, you are certain to be in peril.

Not mentioning something is not the same as being ignorant of it.

Defiant · Post by **Defiant** » Wed Nov 23, 2016 2:30 am

Rip · Post by **Rip** » Wed Nov 23, 2016 11:33 am

Grifman wrote:
Rip wrote:If ignorant both of your enemy and yourself, you are certain to be in peril.
Not mentioning something is not the same as being ignorant of it.

Huh? What are you going on about?

I post a quote to mock the snide remark about my service and you are going to debate it?

Sun Tzu is not amused.

Unagi · Post by **Unagi** » Thu Nov 24, 2016 12:39 am

Rip, a silly joke was made against Russia. You felt the need to defend them by showing the USN to maybe also need towing.

See how you come across as perhaps a little unpatriotic there?

Rip · Post by **Rip** » Thu Nov 24, 2016 1:20 am

Unagi wrote:Rip, a silly joke was made against Russia. You felt the need to defend them by showing the USN to maybe also need towing.

See how you come across as perhaps a little unpatriotic there?

Not at all. No one in the navy spends any time laughing at the russian navy. They are no joke and it isn't unpatriotic at all to point that fact out.

https://news.usni.org/2016/06/03/admira ... e-atlantic

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-37704028

An added naval presence also serves to counter those in the West who have argued that a "no bomb" zone could be enforced by missiles fired from western warships in the Mediterranean. Russia is pre-emptively upping the naval stakes.

But the mighty presence of warships like the Admiral Kuznetsov and the Peter the Great is deceptive. These are rare outings for Russia's big ships. Indeed, this will be the aircraft carrier's first ever combat deployment. Both vessels have been plagued by problems. The 26-year-old Kuznetsov rarely goes anywhere without a naval tug just in case it breaks down.

It will also be the first combat test for its MIG-29K warplanes. Russian carrier-borne aircraft are launched not by catapult, as in the US Navy, but with a sort of ski ramp. This means they can carry less fuel and weaponry so it is likely that the Kuznetsov will have to cruise relatively close to the Syrian coast to mount air operations.

Any cynicism, though, should be muted. The fact that the Kuznetsov flotilla is on its way at all demonstrates that Russia is one of the few countries in the world that can deploy this kind of sea power.

When Russia entered the Syrian conflict there was a lot of speculation from Western experts that it would fall flat on its face, and that it simply did not have the capability to conduct this kind of expeditionary warfare.

Well, the Russians have proved those experts wrong.
They have shown that they are both innovative and capable. They have demonstrated their ability to strike with tactical aviation - long-range bombers, cruise missile-firing warships in the Caspian Sea and the Mediterranean - and to sustain a reasonable level of ground operations in support of the Syrian government forces too.

Their targeting policy and methods have provoked much criticism. But in terms of pure military capability, Russia's Syrian adventure has so far proved a success.

My comment(quote) was intended explicitly to question the wisdom of not taking the Russians seriously. Only a fool would fail to realize the are one of the most capable militaries in the world. I can assure you the EU isn't spending many nights laughing about them.

malchior · Post by **malchior** » Thu Nov 24, 2016 8:23 am

Wait you are going to claim that no one in the US Navy laughs at the Russian Navy? Really? The US Navy that has the 11-carrier fleet (sorta) and 18 or 19 carriers if we counted them like other nations do. Versus 1 carrier that runs on diesel and breaks down constantly? Sure they have a capability - but that capability would be eliminated quite quickly in a real fight. Not without losses but this wouldn't be anything approaching the risk of say US vs. Japan in WW2. More like Britain and the US vs. Germany. In Syria, Russia is throwing a decent amount of their capability at it to maintain hegemony over one country. And they are sorta succeeding - maybe - hardly anything to worry about in the grand scheme of things.

Rip · Post by **Rip** » Thu Nov 24, 2016 8:40 am

malchior wrote:Wait you are going to claim that no one in the US Navy laughs at the Russian Navy? Really? The US Navy that has the 11-carrier fleet (sorta) and 18 or 19 carriers if we counted them like other nations do. Versus 1 carrier that runs on diesel and breaks down constantly? Sure they have a capability - but that capability would be eliminated quite quickly in a real fight. Not without losses but this wouldn't be anything approaching the risk of say US vs. Japan in WW2. More like Britain and the US vs. Germany. In Syria, Russia is throwing a decent amount of their capability at it to maintain hegemony over one country. And they are sorta succeeding - maybe - hardly anything to worry about in the grand scheme of things.

I guess I should remind you that The US and UK would have struggled mightily against Germany if they could have beaten them at all without Russia. We didn't ally with Russia for love of vodka, we did it because we needed to in order to defeat a greater threat. Had Russia allied with Germany we would have lost.

Is Russia on par with the US, of course not but history is full of countries falling to less capable enemies. The reality is they could kill 10s of millions of Americans with just SSBN missiles in an hour or so. So yes, I am saying no one in the USN that laughs when they consider facing off with the Russians, only fools who wouldn't be in the battle are delusional enough to do that.