The Syrian Conflict Thread

I believe Assad has said he could step down.

And the Russians had in the past worked out such a deal:
http://www.haaretz.com/world-news/1.676007

The West basically told them to f-off.

Maybe he will but i would be surprised, still far too many ifs and too many external hands at play. I don't foresee peace any time soon but i suppose stranger things have happened.
 
Maybe he will but i would be surprised, still far too many ifs and too many external hands at play. I don't foresee peace any time soon but i suppose stranger things have happened.

Thing is that Russia has strong influence over Assad. The West has influence over the nice Islamists.

A deal is possible. What's preventing it? Turkey? Saudi Arabia? ???
 
Thing is that Russia has strong influence over Assad. The West has influence over the nice Islamists.

A deal is possible. What's preventing it? Turkey? Saudi Arabia? ???

Assad wants to stay in power and isn't actually interested in democracy otherwise he would have stepped down a long time ago. Russia also would prefer Assad to stay in power he's their puppet, why would they want to risk losing their power over Syria after investing so much there? Israel, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, the US, they all have a hand in this and all want different things. The rebels (not referring to the terrorist groups) are fractioned and also have their own ideas and beliefs. There are like 100 things preventing this, making a deal incredibly difficult.
 
U.S., Saudi Arabia to bolster support for moderate Syrian opposition

Kerry meets Saudi King on Middle East diplomatic tour

CAIRO*(Reuters) - The United States and Saudi Arabia agreed to increase support to Syria's moderate opposition while seeking a political resolution of the four-year conflict, the U.S. State Department said after Secretary of State John Kerry met King Salman on Saturday.

Http://mobile.reuters.com/article/idUSKCN0SJ06720151025?feedType=RSS&feedName=topNews
 
Harsh conditions are foiling Russian jets in Syria

Russian warplanes sent to Syria to back the regime of Bashar Assad are breaking down at a rapid rate that appears to be affecting their ability to strike targets, according to a senior Defense official.

Nearly one-third of Russian attack planes and half of its transport aircraft are grounded at any time as the harsh, desert conditions take a toll on equipment and crews, said the official who was not authorized to speak publicly about sensitive intelligence matters.

The Russians appear to be having difficulty adapting to the dusty conditions, and the number of airstrikes they have conducted seems to have dipped slightly.
"For deployed forces, that's a hideous rate," said Richard Aboulafia, an aviation analyst at the Teal Group, an aerospace consulting firm.

Russian President Vladimir Putin deployed warplanes, including Russia's advanced Fullback ground-attack jet, helicopters and troops to a base near Latakia, Syria, in September. In addition, at least a dozen transport planes have been stationed there.
"They could have bad operating procedures, inadequate supplies of spare parts and support crews," Aboulafia said.

Russia's inexperience deploying forces at some distance, unlike their military actions in bordering countries such as Ukraine and Georgia, could also account for problems keeping planes in the air, he said.
"An awful lot of expeditionary warfare revolves around logistics," Aboulafia said. "A lot of it comes down to experience. They don't have that much of it."

For U.S. warplanes, readiness rates of less than 80% would attract attention from top brass, said a senior Air Force commander with multiple combat deployments in the Middle East. The officer was not authorized to speak publicly about the matter. However, the officer noted that planes break, especially in austere, deployed conditions. He characterized mission-readiness rates of less than 80% as a matter of concern, not alarm.

David Deptula, a retired three-star Air Force general who led planning for the air war in Operation Desert Storm, said the rates for American fighters in combat zones has been above 90%. The readiness rate of 70% for Russian fighters isn't surprising, he said, because they lack experience being deployed and have been flying their jets hard. He called their rates for cargo planes, "pretty low."
"If those rates are accurate, it indicates that their deployed logistics function requires some attention," Deptula said.

U.S. pilots and aircraft have flown combat missions in the Middle East almost continuously since the first Gulf War. They struck Saddam Hussein's forces to push them from Kuwait, patrolled no-fly zones in Iraq for more than a decade, and fought wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Last year, they returned to strike Islamic State militants on the ground in Iraq and Syria.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...sia-vladimir-putin-ash-carter-syria/74586002/
 
FSA rebels reject Russia military help

Western-backed rebels of the Free Syrian Army (FSA) have rejected an offer of military support from Russia.

An FSA spokesman told the BBC that Moscow could not be trusted and that its help was not needed.

Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said on Saturday that Russia was ready to help the rebels if they attacked militants from the Islamic State (IS) group.
Russia, a key ally of the Syrian government, has carried out air strikes in the country since last month.
Moscow says the strikes have mainly targeted IS, but Western powers say most have hit the FSA and other factions backed by the West and Gulf states.
In his offer to the FSA, Mr Lavrov said the Russian air force could support the FSA provided the US shared information about rebel positions.

But on Sunday, an FSA spokesman told the BBC that Russia had no role in Syria.
"[Russian President] Vladimir Putin, is assisting a regime that indiscriminately kills their own people," Issam al-Reis said.
"How could we trust the Russians' help?"

Mr Issam said the FSA would continue fighting President Bashar al-Assad, who "was not part of the solution" to ending Syria's civil war.
"If the Syrians stood with Assad he would not ask for invaders to come to Syria," he said.
Saudi Arabia's foreign minister has also insisted that President Assad should have no role in Syria's "future".
Russian air support has allowed President Assad's forces to launch ground operations in several provinces in recent weeks.
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-34632483
 
Last edited:
Russia has said it can find no moderate armed opposition to support in Syria, a day after President Bashar al-Assad reportedly told his Russian counterpart that he would talk to any that could be found.

In a statement on Friday, Vladimir Putin's spokesman said: "From the very beginning of the Syria operation, President Putin and other representatives of Russia have spoken of our readiness to cooperate with the so-called moderate opposition.

"We have been unable to single out the so-called moderate opposition. There is not a single central force which one could cooperate with.

"All the difficulties arise from this. Neither our American nor our European colleagues, nor others are so far able to help us with identifying them."

- See more at: http://www.middleeasteye.net/news/russia-no-moderate-rebels-syria-546790757#sthash.BHhNjzJv.dpuf
 
Well that's just the thing. Hussein was deposed very quickly. ISIS was still doing well till the Russians came.

And of course the Russians have little experience. They have not been striking targets tens of thousands of km from their country since ....? Vietnam?? Korea??

I had a feeling there was a big question mark over their sustainability, made a post about it when they started the bombing - http://mybroadband.co.za/vb/showthr...ict-Thread?p=16247358&viewfull=1#post16247358

Could all be propaganda from Usatoday though.
 

But on Sunday, an FSA spokesman told the BBC that Russia had no role in Syria.
"[Russian President] Vladimir Putin, is assisting a regime that indiscriminately kills their own people," Issam al-Reis said.
"How could we trust the Russians' help?"

Obviously priority to help the women and children of Syria is not there. Since these women and children are flooding Europe, it's the fault of European politicians in not making it clear to the US and this guy that Europe strongly encourages these people to stop fighting and sit down whether they like it or not.

Something is really not right here.
 
Oh the Russian operation is pretty small. How many planes are they fielding and how many are US? And do Americans reveal how many of their planes have been damaged by the dust? Maybe they do.

Im not sure about the number of planes but the Americans air force is much larger than the Russians so one would think they have more planes involved. The USA is also operating off aircraft carriers, i should imagine that could reduce the dust problem when you can just travel down the coast before heading in land?
 
How would I know? What I question is that when anyone post videos, information, news and pictures from any source in the western media then it's a 9/11 type suspect source yet RT and Al Jazeera are heiled by the same apologists.
You don't just question it, you claim to know the answer. Only your answers are always wrong as was your claim that a hospital has definitely been bombed when finally 3 days later you finally, finally admit that you couldn't prove your argument in the first place yet again.

Seriously, no one can take you seriously anymore.

Edit: http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-10-25/paul-craig-roberts-slams-western-press-titution Perhaps you will take the lesson to heart when it comes from a 3rd party...

By that same token you would think RT, Sputnik and Zerohedge are reliable, the amount they get displayed about on this forum.
RT is a reliable souce in terms of finding information the Russian government wants westerners to know. CNN, BBC et. al. are reliable in this way too. If you wonder what the US government wants you to believe, watch CNN. No doubt their agenda will reveal itself sooner or later.

Zerohedge is a site whose resistance to the status-quo/orthodoxy is reliable. From that perspective it is useful in looking for facts that Russia or CNN or the BBC don't want you to know. The point is not to take any one of those sites and to believe they're reliable in general, the point is to take all the sites together and look for where they tell the same story and where they tell different stories. Then you try to put a picture together of how everyone sees things and compare that to what's really going on and what's politically likely etc. etc.

To assume any publication is anything approaching objective, especially when it comes to international politics, is naive.

Sure but there are so many ifs and its all incredibly complicated at this stage, nowhere near as easy as you seem to imply. I imagine one of the first demands the rebels have will be that Assad cant run if there are to be elections.
http://mybroadband.co.za/vb/showthr...ict-Thread?p=16332662&viewfull=1#post16332662

We know some things. The hostility to Assad is overplayed in Western media in order to support the propaganda for removing Assad. While it's true that Syria had some protests to Assad's regime back when all this started, much like Maidan, outside powers saw this as an opportunity to stir up trouble. The fact that the Arab spring happened across many countries at the same time, and that it occurred in close proximity to food/energy price shocks suggests that the rebellion itself wasn't directed at Assad so much as at the drop in food security.

So I would presume the election scenario plays out something like this: Russia bombs out ISIS and all the other groups fighting Assad. Assad declares his willingness to stand for elections. Because he's the only one who could reasonably keep Syria together at this point, pragmatic people will likely vote for the devil they know. The Americans will claim that Assad manipulated the election and so therefore the results aren't real (no matter if such a claim has any basis in fact), and use this as a justification to remain hostile to Syria as it has been all along. Whether or not the democracy is real won't have any kind of functional impact for at least a decade, I would presume.
 
Last edited:
Russia bombs out ISIS and all the other groups fighting Assad.

Also not so easy, they need a reliable force fighting on the ground and they don't have that with the Syrian armed forces.
 
Also not so easy, they need a reliable force fighting on the ground and they don't have that with the Syrian armed forces.
According to whom? And they're already marching on Aleppo. If they take that, what makes you think they can't take Raqqa?
 
Oh the Russian operation is pretty small. How many planes are they fielding and how many are US? And do Americans reveal how many of their planes have been damaged by the dust? Maybe they do.
So how come the Russians, in such a limited space of time, managed to cause so much upset amongst ISIS and Al-Quaeda?

WTF is the US and the rest doing in Syria??
 
...........

RT is a reliable souce in terms of finding information the Russian government wants westerners to know. CNN, BBC et. al. are reliable in this way too. If you wonder what the Russian government wants you to believe, watch RT. No doubt their agenda will reveal itself sooner or later.

Snipped all the biased wet dreamworld crap

FTFY ;)
 
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X