Russia Bombs CIA-backed Rebels in Syria
- Thread starter Clean
- Start date
Musburger1
2,500+ Posts
The lack of transparency between the US government and the citizenry it supposedly serves rankles me. At least in Russia, the policy is clear and the people understand what Putin does. It's well communicated and understood. In America, everything is cloaked in secrecy, deception, and ambiguity. The people now serve the government.
Clean
5,000+ Posts
Turkey shot down a Russian bomber over Turkish airspace today. Turkey claims they warned the plane repeatedly. Russia denies they were in Turkish airspace.
Turkey is NATO. We are NATO. The world just got more dangerous.
I wonder if Barrack regrets his "the 1970s called and want their Foreign Policy back" retort in the last Presidential debate?
BevoBeef
250+ Posts
I can understand the need for secrecy and ambiguity in foreign policy. That personally does not bother me. It is the deception and the skill to deflect away from the correct focus on the situation that is blowing my mind. I have wondered a number of times about what is the covert action we (USA) are taking to fight ISIS and that perhaps BO is getting a raw deal for something that he is actually doing silently in the background. I no longer doubt that he is doing absolutely nothing and that his theatrics is all for public consumption. The proof is in the pudding. The government is not who is at fault for the deception. It is the leadership in this administration that pushes the false red lines that fade away and the foolish blame on some video that supposedly rouses the terrorists. I agree that it is the people who are to blame for accepting this nonsense and inaction to find the truth by the general media. It is the people who are at fault to continually believe the nonsense being put forth by this administration.
Joe F, I applaud the attention to detail and humor that you have put into your timeline and the alerts in your last few posts. Bravo.
Last edited:
Seattle Husker
10,000+ Posts
Did you snicker as you wrote that? Transparent as in Russian troops/weapons are not in Eastern Ukraine? Transparent as in those weren't Russian troops in Crimea with Russian insignias removed?
Joe Fan
10,000+ Posts
So, if this can be believed (Russian-govt related social media accounts are rampant these days) the Russian jet was in Turkish airspace for 20 seconds.
The US confirmed that the Turks warned the Russian pilot multiple times. Interestingly, however, the US did not confirm the breach of Turkish airspace. Instead, simply saying it was along the border.
In addition, the FSA claims they shot at least one of the Russian airmen as he was parachuting down. However, there are other reports that say both are alive.
Lastly, that Russian heli mentioned above that was blown up by the TOW was a search heli looking for the for the pilots.
The US confirmed that the Turks warned the Russian pilot multiple times. Interestingly, however, the US did not confirm the breach of Turkish airspace. Instead, simply saying it was along the border.
In addition, the FSA claims they shot at least one of the Russian airmen as he was parachuting down. However, there are other reports that say both are alive.
Lastly, that Russian heli mentioned above that was blown up by the TOW was a search heli looking for the for the pilots.
Last edited:
Seattle Husker
10,000+ Posts
This is the crux of the matter. The question I see is whether we keep boots on the ground in perpetuity or not. If you evaluate how many American lives have been lost since we scaled down our Iraq presence clearly we've saved lives and spent less $$$ by not having a significant presence there. The consistent 2-10 deaths that were being announced per week have disappeared. Is this the best thing for the world? Clearly not. Is it the best thing for America? That's debatable. Remember, ISIS didn't start in Iraq. They started in Syria then rushed across the border to fill the power vacuum. Raqqa, their homebase, is in Syria.
It should be noted that the only countries with boots on the ground right now are Syria, Kurds, Iran and Iraq. Do you think there is a reason that Putin has taken the exact same strategy to attack rebels/ISIS that we have? Only the conservatives are advocating boots on the ground which is why it's important to point out that this situation started when they led the charge to nation build Iraq. It's possible that it's the R's that aren't learning from their own disastrous war drums.
Joe Fan
10,000+ Posts
So, since Russia was not actually attacking Turkey, the NATO treaty is not invoked.
Anyone disagree?
I think this would be my position if I were NATO.
Still, there is little doubt Putin will reciprocate. My guess is through terrorist acts inside Turkey. The Russians have some deep ties with certain terrorist groups that the media pays little attention to. Here is an article on that topic if anyone is interested https://kyleorton1991.wordpress.com/2015/09/08/how-russia-manipulates-islamic-terrorism/
Anyone disagree?
I think this would be my position if I were NATO.
Still, there is little doubt Putin will reciprocate. My guess is through terrorist acts inside Turkey. The Russians have some deep ties with certain terrorist groups that the media pays little attention to. Here is an article on that topic if anyone is interested https://kyleorton1991.wordpress.com/2015/09/08/how-russia-manipulates-islamic-terrorism/
Seattle Husker
10,000+ Posts
I'm trying to understand. Was this a TOW missile fired by Turkey or the Free Syrian Army?
Joe Fan
10,000+ Posts
The Russian jet was shot down by Turkish F-16s, although I originally thought it was a SAM. The Turkish Govt has said multiple times that it would do this is the Russians did not stop bombing the Turkmen (See tweet above showing Turkmen protesters outside the Russian Embassy). Back in March 2014, they did same thing to a Syrian jet. The Turks also shot down a Russian drone in Oct.
The Russian heli was in search mode in Syria, looking for the ejected airmen. If the video is correct, it sitting on the ground when hit by the TOW.
The Russian heli was in search mode in Syria, looking for the ejected airmen. If the video is correct, it sitting on the ground when hit by the TOW.
Last edited:
Seattle Husker
10,000+ Posts
Thanks for the summary. What is the benefit to Russia to provoke Turkey? Clearly they didn't think Turkey would stick up for itself.
Imagine if the US had a plane shot down by Syria then an rescue helicopter also shot down. What would our reaction be? Could this be why we aren't attacking Syria directly?
Musburger1
2,500+ Posts
No, not at all. When I say Putin is transparent in communicating with the people of Russia, that is exactly correct. After the fact (Crimea), Putin went into great detail to explain the actions he took and the reasons for them. Russians, Putin, and the people of Crimea saw his actions as liberation from an anti-Russian coup that overthrew the Ukraine regime.
As far as intervention in East Ukraine, that has been clandestine but with nearly full support of the Russian people. Putin has been criticized in Russia for not doing more. There's really not any obfuscation about policy so much as it is a strategy being used to protect Russia. Russians know the score.
Can you tell me what the US strategy is with respect to the Middle East? If you think it's about eliminating terrorism, and nothing more, you have been fooled.
Joe Fan
10,000+ Posts
OK, let's briefly cover the creation of ISIS.
Here is a key passage from a declassified Pentagon report on the situation in Syria from 2012 --
“...there is the possibility of establishing a declared or undeclared Salafist Principality in eastern Syria (Hasaka and Der Zor), and this is exactly what the supporting powers to the opposition want, in order to isolate the Syrian regime, which is considered the strategic depth of the Shia expansion (Iraq and Iran).”
Full document here http://www.judicialwatch.org/wp-con...12-DOD-Release-2015-04-10-final-version11.pdf
This is the money quote -- a smoking gun for Obama on this issue.
What it says is that US intelligence was well aware at that time of the possibility that Sunni extremists working to destabilize the Assad Govt might move to establish psuedo-state in eastern Syria based around orthodox, ultra-conservative, Sunni Islam. By "supporting powers to the opposition,” the paper means the US, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and Turkey. Why would these listed powers be happy with that outcome? Because it would “isolate” Assad while, at the same time, put a stop to Iran's regional grab (the dreamed of Iran-Shiite crescent).
In other words, Obama intentionally played on the Sunni/Shiite divide in Syria. He acquiesced to the establishment of a hardline, Salafi control in those areas of Syria because that was the worst outcome for both Assad and Iran. To be clear, Obama agreed to allow the creation of a Saudi-backed, Sunni militant group that would take hold of large swaths of Syrian territory in order to hurt not just Assad but to also used the Sunni group to cut off Shia Iran's supply link to Hezbollah. Obama saw it as a win-win. He even hoped this action would also ultimately weaken Iran's influence in Iraq.
While there are some other storylines with regard to ISIS/Obama, this is the key one. This is how ISIS was created, in a nutshell. Obama and his regional allies were all-in on the idea of using “Sunni extremists to bring about regime change in Syria” from the outset, and the direct result of this strategy is what we now call ISIS (or that's what most of us call them).
And, eventhough Obama's view of ISIS has evolved from seeing them as the most effective force in terms of fostering instability in Syria to the recognition that they are a brutal bunch that could (and did) become an international terror force, this is still where, when and how it started.
Joe Fan
10,000+ Posts
Putin doesnt think Obama wants to actually destroy ISIS.
The theory goes like this -- if we did actually take out ISIS, one of the main forces destabilizing the Assad regime would be gone. Moreover, the US would no longer have an excuse to be in Syria. With us out of the way, Syria’s political future would be entirely up to Russia and Iran. This not only would not play well in DC, but Riyadh and Doha as well.
Before they got into this, the Russians made fun of Obama's selective targeting of ISIS in bombing raids. Here is what the Russian FM, Sergei Lavrov, said about this --
"Despite announcing ambitious plans for its coalition against Islamic State (IS, formerly ISIS/ISIL), the analysis of those [US-led] airstrikes during over a year lead to conclusion that they were hitting selectively, I would say, sparingly and on most occasions didn’t touch those IS units, which were capable of seriously challenging the Syrian army."
“Apparently, it’s a kind of a ‘honey is sweet, but the bee stings’ situation: they want IS to weaken Assad as soon as possible to make him leave somehow, but at the same time they don’t want to overly strengthen IS, which may then seize power."
"The US stance seriously weakens the prospects of Syria to remain a secular state, where the rights of all ethnic and religious groups will be provided and guaranteed,”
"Russia’s assessment of the US-led anti-terror operation in Syria is based on observations of specific results and there are little results, not to say there are none – except the fact that during this period [since August 2014] the Islamic State has grown on the territories they control.”
The theory goes like this -- if we did actually take out ISIS, one of the main forces destabilizing the Assad regime would be gone. Moreover, the US would no longer have an excuse to be in Syria. With us out of the way, Syria’s political future would be entirely up to Russia and Iran. This not only would not play well in DC, but Riyadh and Doha as well.
Before they got into this, the Russians made fun of Obama's selective targeting of ISIS in bombing raids. Here is what the Russian FM, Sergei Lavrov, said about this --
"Despite announcing ambitious plans for its coalition against Islamic State (IS, formerly ISIS/ISIL), the analysis of those [US-led] airstrikes during over a year lead to conclusion that they were hitting selectively, I would say, sparingly and on most occasions didn’t touch those IS units, which were capable of seriously challenging the Syrian army."
“Apparently, it’s a kind of a ‘honey is sweet, but the bee stings’ situation: they want IS to weaken Assad as soon as possible to make him leave somehow, but at the same time they don’t want to overly strengthen IS, which may then seize power."
"The US stance seriously weakens the prospects of Syria to remain a secular state, where the rights of all ethnic and religious groups will be provided and guaranteed,”
"Russia’s assessment of the US-led anti-terror operation in Syria is based on observations of specific results and there are little results, not to say there are none – except the fact that during this period [since August 2014] the Islamic State has grown on the territories they control.”
Musburger1
2,500+ Posts
Joe, the summations you pasted are right on the mark. Americans for the most part are predisposed to block out and reject that analysis because they find it repugnant and 180 degrees opposite to the narrative we've heard since 9-11; that America is at war with terrorism.
This country no longer has any significant journalism or investigative reporting. We are awash in group think propelled by special interests and corporate dollars.
This country no longer has any significant journalism or investigative reporting. We are awash in group think propelled by special interests and corporate dollars.
Joe Fan
10,000+ Posts
Who actually provoked who? Maybe Russia was testing Turkey's "red line"? (see image below for more on this). Russia could argue that it violated sovereignty for 20 seconds while NATO does it every day in Syria.
They way I see it, Turkey and Russia are both somewhat nasty, semi-dictatorships. And both have a lot of nationalist people in them that hate the other country. Recall, Turkey was a stalwart in the Cold War (2nd largest military in NATO in those years) -- a key ally against the Soviets. The bad blood actually goes back centuries as the Ottomans and Russians fought multiple battles - all the way back to Peter the Great and beyond -- a "Clash of Civilizations" (and geography).
Anyways, we know pretty much what Russia wants out of this current mess.
But what about Turkey? They are more complex. Here is what I think --
Originally, back in March 2011, they did not pick a side. But when Assad lied directly to Turkey's FM about murdering protestors, Turkey decided Assad needed to go. Then, in June 2012, Assad shot down a Turkish jet.
Erdogan then opened the border to anyone who wanted to fight Assad and began laying plans to support a Muslim Brotherhood-style post-Assad government in Syria. This was despite the fact that, in the early going, the FSA was dominant. But Turkey's logistical support (and Qatar's money) instead went to Brotherhood-sympathetic rebel units. These included the extreme Syrian groups -- Ahrar al-Sham and al-Nusra. Without that support, both these groups would have been completely wiped out by now. On top of all of this, there is some evidence that Turkey has even supported ISIS. Keep in mind they are a NATO member so this would be pretty wild if true. Russia claims it has happened.
In March 2013, Erdogan reached a cease-fire with the Kurds (which lasted until the Fall of 2014). It was during this period, with the border with the Kurds peaceful, that Salafiist jihadis really began to pour into Turkey from around the globe. This loose border played one of the biggest roles in the growth of ISIS. Besides all the people (most of whom were funneled through the Balkans), there was the money, weapons, oil and antiquities. The Turks could have shut this down along time ago which would have seriously curtailed the growth of ISIS, but they didnt.
And now, only recently, Turkey finally took a position against ISIS, and began to use its own military. Of course, while they bombed some ISIS targets, they also bombed the Kurds in Iraq. This is also when they finally allowed the US to use Incirlik as a base to bomb ISIS.
So Turkey is now in an odd position. They still want Assad out but now they are getting threatened by ISIS who says it will create chaos inside Turkey if they shut the border. There has already been a suicide bombing in Istanbull in 2015 (Turkey relies heavily upon tourism). Plus there is the reverse refugee flow which has tilted ethnic balances.
On top of all this, remember Turkey's biggest fear has always been is the creation of a independent Kurdish state out of some part of Syria. From which the Kurds will launch even more terror strikes against Turkey. Turkey definitely fears this more than they do ISIS.
So, here is my guess -- Turkey still wants Assad gone. And they think he should go first, then ISIS. In addition, they are not at all happy with the lack of support they got from NATO states (especially after Syria shot down their fighter jet). So they feel they are somewhat on their own. Lastly, I think the reason that they finally declared against ISIS is because they want to have a large voice in who replaces them. They wont let it be the Kurds.
Here are some details of what Turkey says it told Russia --
Last edited:
Seattle Husker
10,000+ Posts
To be clear, I'm not saying that the US didn't look the other way and tacitly support opposition to Assad, whether they be Al-Nusra, Free Syrian Army or ISIS and it's antecedents. Assad was the target and our actions (or inactions) were shaped by that perspective.
Of course, nearly all the evidence shows that Russia was taking a similar stance towards ISIS up until they brought down the Soviet airliner. By some estimates (independent and otherwise) nearly 90% of their attacks were against the non-ISIS foes. Heck, they weren't attacking ISIS along the Turkey border when their fighter plane was shot down.
Of course, nearly all the evidence shows that Russia was taking a similar stance towards ISIS up until they brought down the Soviet airliner. By some estimates (independent and otherwise) nearly 90% of their attacks were against the non-ISIS foes. Heck, they weren't attacking ISIS along the Turkey border when their fighter plane was shot down.
L
LtSwtCrude
Guest
Per Joe Fan... "Somewhere around this time, Erdogan began laying plans to support a Muslim Brotherhood-style post-Assad government in Syria and he opened the border to anyone who wanted to fight Assad. In the beginning of the open conflict, the FSA was dominant yet Turkey (and Qatar) instead poured resources into Brotherhood-sympathetic rebel units. The Turks supported some of the most extreme Syrian groups like Ahrar al-Sham and al-Nusra. Indeed, these groups would probably have been completely wiped out by now but for Turkish logistical support and Qatari money. On top of all of this, there is some evidence that Turkey has even supported ISIS. Keep in mind they are a NATO member so this would be pretty wild if true."
Is Vladimir Putin right to label Turkey ‘accomplices of terrorists’?
The relationship hinted at by Russian leader after warplane was shot down is a complex one, and includes links between senior Isis figures and Turkish officials
http://www.theguardian.com/world/20...ists-warplane-analysis?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other
EXCERPT:
From midway through 2012, when jihadis started to travel to Syria, their presence was apparent at all points of the journey to the border: at Istanbul airport, in the southern cities of Hatay and Gaziantep – both of which were staging points – and in the border villages. Foreigners on their way to fight remained fixtures on these routes until late in 2014 when, after continued pressure from the EU states and the US, coordinated efforts were made to turn them back.
By then, Isis had become a dominant presence in parts of north and east Syria. It had splintered non-ideological factions of the Syrian opposition as well as Islamist groups, both of which had been backed by Turkey, and ensured that whatever form of governance that emerged from Syria’s ruins would have little to do with the revolution’s original goals.
The steady stream of foreigners who passed through Hatay and Gaziantep made little effort to remain discreet, gathering regularly in local hotels, coffee shops and bus stations. European diplomats alarmed by the gathering threat concluded that the Turkish leadership was sympathetic to conservative Islamists travelling to fight Assad.....
Is Vladimir Putin right to label Turkey ‘accomplices of terrorists’?
The relationship hinted at by Russian leader after warplane was shot down is a complex one, and includes links between senior Isis figures and Turkish officials
http://www.theguardian.com/world/20...ists-warplane-analysis?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other
EXCERPT:
From midway through 2012, when jihadis started to travel to Syria, their presence was apparent at all points of the journey to the border: at Istanbul airport, in the southern cities of Hatay and Gaziantep – both of which were staging points – and in the border villages. Foreigners on their way to fight remained fixtures on these routes until late in 2014 when, after continued pressure from the EU states and the US, coordinated efforts were made to turn them back.
By then, Isis had become a dominant presence in parts of north and east Syria. It had splintered non-ideological factions of the Syrian opposition as well as Islamist groups, both of which had been backed by Turkey, and ensured that whatever form of governance that emerged from Syria’s ruins would have little to do with the revolution’s original goals.
The steady stream of foreigners who passed through Hatay and Gaziantep made little effort to remain discreet, gathering regularly in local hotels, coffee shops and bus stations. European diplomats alarmed by the gathering threat concluded that the Turkish leadership was sympathetic to conservative Islamists travelling to fight Assad.....
Musburger1
2,500+ Posts
Thanks for the link, LtSwtCrude
I've got three articles that are well worth spending some time reading.
The first one goes into great detail, from a Russian perspective, of the historical relationship between Russian and Turkey, and then delves into the implications from the recent events.
This one probably takes 10 to 15 minutes to read.
http://fortruss.blogspot.com/2015/11/the-motive-how-russias-enemies-benefit.html
The next one details the ongoing flow of support between Turkey and the various jihadist factions opposing Assad, including ISIS.
This is probably a good 15 minute read. Maybe the best of the three.
The final is just primarily an opinion piece, but its one I fully agree with. It's a much easier read than the first two and does not go into any great detail.
http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com/2015/11/flight-paths-over-turkey-analyzed-obama.html
I've got three articles that are well worth spending some time reading.
The first one goes into great detail, from a Russian perspective, of the historical relationship between Russian and Turkey, and then delves into the implications from the recent events.
This one probably takes 10 to 15 minutes to read.
http://fortruss.blogspot.com/2015/11/the-motive-how-russias-enemies-benefit.html
The next one details the ongoing flow of support between Turkey and the various jihadist factions opposing Assad, including ISIS.
This is probably a good 15 minute read. Maybe the best of the three.
The final is just primarily an opinion piece, but its one I fully agree with. It's a much easier read than the first two and does not go into any great detail.
http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com/2015/11/flight-paths-over-turkey-analyzed-obama.html
Joe Fan
10,000+ Posts
Thats a good one. Quite a bit of history there. Turkey joined NATO in 1952
I will add this one bit of warning -- the Russian Govt has a huge presence now on social media. They are ubiquitous. One amusing example is watching the evolution of Wikileaks twitter. The Russians began to exert themselves there in 2013, and now dont seem to be trying to hide it at all anymore. it was Assange after all (directed by the SVR) who safely guided Snowden to safety in Moscow.
Yesterday, they suddenly went silent as the events unfolded. Why? Awaiting instructions of course. They are back today in full force. Just something to keep in mind.
Last edited:
Seattle Husker
10,000+ Posts
What the hell are those tanks going to do other than be targets in a game of target practice for Russian air power? Russia doesn't have troops on the ground.
Weekly Prediction Contest
* Predict HORNS-AGGIES *
Sat, Nov 30 • 6:30 PM on ABC
Recent Threads
-
The Media Industry
- Started by texas_ex2000
- Replies: 8K
- West Mall
-
President Biden Accountability Thread
- Started by 2003TexasGrad
- Replies: 4K
- West Mall
Prediction Results Threads
