Russia Bombs CIA-backed Rebels in Syria

[Musburger1]

Zork, I'm going to start a new thread and start with your proposal. It gets interesting.

 

[Joe Fan]

Interesting map of where and who Russia is bombing
Perhaps even more interesting is who they are not bombing

 

[Joe Fan]

Let's not over embellish, Joe.

Sorry for the confusion but I am not actually Miriam Elder. But its easy to see how the two photos might throw you off.

Below are the first two paragraphs translated. Putin launched a sub-based cruise missile. Then held a news conference to make sure everyone was aware. He then had his agitprops make sure everyone was also aware that those same cruise missiles can be equipped with nuclear warheads (are you one of the agitprops? If so, how fun).

Miriam's take on all of this was reasonable. Putin "floated" this idea. I honestly cant wrap my head around what your issue is with what she tweeted. It was all so in character with Putin. Its how he rolls.


"Putin discussed with Defence Minister Sergei Shoigu, the first blow to the militants missiles "Calibre" submarine "Rostov-on-Don" from the Mediterranean Sea. "Once again, the cruise missile" Caliber "has proven its effectiveness over long distances," - said Shoigu.

"This new, modern and high-performance, high-precision weapons, - said the president. - And it can be equipped with both a conventional warhead and a special warhead that is filled with nuclear. "

 

[Musburger1]

On the map: most of the strikes appear to take place int the rebel controlled area adjacent to the Syrian controlled area. This makes sense to me as the boundary between the two would be where most of the fighting would occur and thus present the most immediate threat to Assad and the Syrian army. Why use up most of your bombing 300 miles away in the desert when the near term goals are to secure the Syria. Army and to help them advance/recapture the adjacent territory occupied by "rebels?"

Joe, I'm convinced the US is 100% wrong in the approach being taken and Russia has constantly been placed on the defensive from NATOs expansion, US financial warfare, and US assistance to the Gulf State's that sponsor the outflow of terrorism and threaten to change the status quo in Syria and beyond.

Putin definitely is sending a message that Russia will not back down. He's offered to negotiate for several years now but the US has refused and escalated at almost every turn.

 

[Joe Fan]

Brit paper also covered the Putin/nukes/Syria story
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...hopes-they-will-never-be-needed-a6766196.html
He said: "With regard to strikes from a submarine. We certainly need to analyse everything that is happening on the battlefield, how the weapons work. Both the [Kalibr] missiles and the Kh-101 rockets are generally showing very good results. We now see that these are new, modern and highly effective high-precision weapons that can be equipped either with conventional or special nuclear warheads."


Here is how Reuters framed it -- ‘Hopefully, no nukes will be needed’ against ISIS – Putin"
LOL, then why bring it up at all?
https://www.rt.com/news/325178-putin-nukes-missiles-isis/

 

[Joe Fan]

...... Why use up most of your bombing 300 miles away in the desert when the near term goals are to secure the Syria.......

Because he says he there to defeat ISIS. Yet he is not actually bombing ISIS.
Some of the targeting even appears to show he is protecting them.

 

[Musburger1]

Says who? That's what the State Department puts out and the press reports. RT reports the exact opposite.

Tell me, what incentive would Russia have to leave ISIS in place? They are a threat to the Syrian regime, they recruit from the Caucasus which then produce trained terrorists that can enter Russia. Does the postulate that Russia does not wish to harm ISIS make sense? At all?

I'm certain you know Russia's history with Chechnya. Why would you fight a war against Wahabi terrorists and then allow them to regroup and come after you again? It's absurd.

 

[Seattle Husker]

That's what the State Department puts out and the press reports. RT reports the exact opposite.

Did you really just compare the State Department with RT? I get the former has bias and will spin the news but that's not their mission. Can you say the same for RT?

 

[Musburger1]

Did you really just compare the State Department with RT? I get the former has bias and will spin the news but that's not their mission. Can you say the same for RT?

Seattle, you have to always question what you hear from the media. Any media. And then if you have enough information and context, sometimes you have to evaluate which stories make the most sense.

But back to the original assertion that Russia isn't fighting ISIS which implies that they don't wish for ISIS to be defeated. Then a day later, oh, Putin threatens to nuke ISIS. Doesn't the inconsistency bother anyone?

In the past few weeks, Russia has presented numerous videos of missile launchings and drone footage of oil facilities being bombed along with documentation showing the complicity of Turkey with the oil trading. In this specific instance, common sense should be enough for most anyone paying attention to discern which story is the more accurate one. You have common sense and the ability to reason don't you?

 

[Joe Fan]

 

[Joe Fan]

Says who? That's what the State Department puts out and the press reports. RT reports the exact opposite.
Tell me, what incentive would Russia have to leave ISIS in place? .....

I think I already wrote about this above, but the theory goes like this --

Russia wants Assad to remain. Besides the historical ties, he is their only foothold in the region -- their only projection of power. This military action shows how desperate they are to keep him there. Russian military engaged in open combat outside their adjacent territory is a huge deal.

So, how do they do accomplish this? How does Russia get what it wants when the rest of the entire world (other than Iran/Hezbollah) wants Assad out? The answer to your question is found in the answer to this question.

Russia/Putin showed their playbook with the Chechens. Their services actually secretly manipulated that situation to make the separatists behave and appear worst than they actually were (and they were already bad) to justify coming in and crushing them later. This is how Putin/Russia roll. Remember, Russian players are largely amoral. They dont have to play by the same rules as other developed nations. They dont have internal democratic checks. They dont have an open media. They dont have tons lawyers enforcing strict rules of engagement. They do not care about things like "collateral damage," or "civilian casualties." They still use the traditional Soviet/KGB tactics, which is what Putin knows.

This is now their model for dealing with ISIS. In short, their plan is to make ISIS look worse than Assad so that the West will ally with Assad. If ISIS were routed, the West would immediately turn on Assad and oust him. So, from the Russian perspective, ISIS must remain for now.

There is even some proof that Russians have had direct ties to ISIS and have aided them in the past. I can dig that out later if you want. Putin's calculus and timeline have changed since the airplane disaster -- he now wants to wipe them off the face of the earth. But he will delay this (as that bombing map supports) as long as he needs to in order to first assure Assad's security. I think he wants the rebels beaten down leaving the battlefield to only Assad vs. ISIS. Then the West's choice is binary -- and Assad will be left as the least bad of two bad options.

 

[Clean]

But back to the original assertion that Russia isn't fighting ISIS which implies that they don't wish for ISIS to be defeated.

Joe Fan's posts are blocked at work, so I apologize if this has been discussed already.

al-Assad's other major ally, Iran, isn't doing anything about ISIS either. You'd think that with the threat they present to Shiite muslims, Iran would be more concerned than they appear to be. I've heard it said that Iran likes the chaos that ISIS creates. It takes the focus off of them and their nuclear aspirations.

 

[Joe Fan]

Joe Fan's posts are blocked at work, so I apologize if this has been discussed already.

All of them? Seems odd. Am I on the watchlist?

 

[Joe Fan]

Russia/Putin showed their playbook with the Chechens. Their services actually secretly manipulated that situation to make the separatists behave and appear worst than they actually were (and they were already bad) to justify coming in and crushing them later. This is how Putin/Russia roll. Remember, Russian players are largely amoral. They dont have to play by the same rules as other developed nations. They dont have internal democratic checks. They dont have an open media. They dont have tons lawyers enforcing strict rules of engagement. They do not care about things like "collateral damage," or "civilian casualties." They still use the traditional Soviet/KGB tactics, which is what Putin knows.

One thing that occurred to me later to add to this point. Many of the Iraqi Sunni military leaders who ended up in ISIS are educated. And many or most of them studied at certain Russian schools. So, it is no coincidence that the tactics ISIS uses when it moves into a new region have alot of overlap with that of the Soviets when they moved into Eastern Europe. Identify the opposition within the local community, kill him or send him away, and his family. Stuff like this.

 

[Seattle Husker]

One thing that occurred to me later to add to this point. Many of the Iraqi Sunni military leaders who ended up in ISIS are educated. And many or most of them studied at certain Russian schools. So, it is no coincidence that the tactics ISIS uses when it moves into a new region have alot of overlap with that of the Soviets when they moved into Eastern Europe. Identify the opposition within the local community, kill him or send him away, and his family. Stuff like this.

ISIS also actively infiltrates the Syrian resistance. They send ISIS members with $300k-$400k in cash to spread around to gain favor in moderate resistance groups. Ultimately, these clandestine ISIS members ascend to higher leadership levels where they can coopt the resistance and turn them towards ISIS. Where did they learn that from?

 

[Musburger1]

ISIS also actively infiltrates the Syrian resistance. They send ISIS members with $300k-$400k in cash to spread around to gain favor in moderate resistance groups. Ultimately, these clandestine ISIS members ascend to higher leadership levels where they can coopt the resistance and turn them towards ISIS. Where did they learn that from?

Maybe more important, where did they get the $300-$400k from? Most likely the same entities that fund ISIS would be the entities that train them. Are we suppose to believe the US-Gulf-NATO coalition is funding them while the all powerful Putin directed espionage team is training them?

 

[Clean]

All of them? Seems odd. Am I on the watchlist?

Just the Twitter ones. I didn't get the 12:58 one, but got the next three.

 

[Musburger1]

I think I already wrote about this above, but the theory goes like this --

Russia wants Assad to remain. Besides the historical ties, he is their only foothold in the region -- their only projection of power. This military action shows how desperate they are to keep him there. Russian military engaged in open combat outside their adjacent territory is a huge deal.

So, how do they do accomplish this? How does Russia get what it wants when the rest of the entire world (other than Iran/Hezbollah) wants Assad out? The answer to your question is found in the answer to this question.

Russia/Putin showed their playbook with the Chechens. Their services actually secretly manipulated that situation to make the separatists behave and appear worst than they actually were (and they were already bad) to justify coming in and crushing them later. This is how Putin/Russia roll. Remember, Russian players are largely amoral. They dont have to play by the same rules as other developed nations. They dont have internal democratic checks. They dont have an open media. They dont have tons lawyers enforcing strict rules of engagement. They do not care about things like "collateral damage," or "civilian casualties." They still use the traditional Soviet/KGB tactics, which is what Putin knows.

This is now their model for dealing with ISIS. In short, their plan is to make ISIS look worse than Assad so that the West will ally with Assad. If ISIS were routed, the West would immediately turn on Assad and oust him. So, from the Russian perspective, ISIS must remain for now.

There is even some proof that Russians have had direct ties to ISIS and have aided them in the past. I can dig that out later if you want. Putin's calculus and timeline have changed since the airplane disaster -- he now wants to wipe them off the face of the earth. But he will delay this (as that bombing map supports) as long as he needs to in order to first assure Assad's security. I think he wants the rebels beaten down leaving the battlefield to only Assad vs. ISIS. Then the West's choice is binary -- and Assad will be left as the least bad of two bad options.

I think I already wrote about this above, but the theory goes like this --

Russia wants Assad to remain. Besides the historical ties, he is their only foothold in the region -- their only projection of power. This military action shows how desperate they are to keep him there. Russian military engaged in open combat outside their adjacent territory is a huge deal.

So, how do they do accomplish this? How does Russia get what it wants when the rest of the entire world (other than Iran/Hezbollah) wants Assad out? The answer to your question is found in the answer to this question.

Russia/Putin showed their playbook with the Chechens. Their services actually secretly manipulated that situation to make the separatists behave and appear worst than they actually were (and they were already bad) to justify coming in and crushing them later. This is how Putin/Russia roll. Remember, Russian players are largely amoral. They dont have to play by the same rules as other developed nations. They dont have internal democratic checks. They dont have an open media. They dont have tons lawyers enforcing strict rules of engagement. They do not care about things like "collateral damage," or "civilian casualties." They still use the traditional Soviet/KGB tactics, which is what Putin knows.

This is now their model for dealing with ISIS. In short, their plan is to make ISIS look worse than Assad so that the West will ally with Assad. If ISIS were routed, the West would immediately turn on Assad and oust him. So, from the Russian perspective, ISIS must remain for now.

There is even some proof that Russians have had direct ties to ISIS and have aided them in the past. I can dig that out later if you want. Putin's calculus and timeline have changed since the airplane disaster -- he now wants to wipe them off the face of the earth. But he will delay this (as that bombing map supports) as long as he needs to in order to first assure Assad's security. I think he wants the rebels beaten down leaving the battlefield to only Assad vs. ISIS. Then the West's choice is binary -- and Assad will be left as the least bad of two bad options.

Russia/Putin showed their playbook with the Chechens. Their services actually secretly manipulated that situation to make the separatists behave and appear worst than they actually were (and they were already bad) to justify coming in and crushing them later. This is how Putin/Russia roll. Remember, Russian players are largely amoral. They dont have to play by the same rules as other developed nations. They dont have internal democratic checks. They dont have an open media. They dont have tons lawyers enforcing strict rules of engagement. They do not care about things like "collateral damage," or "civilian casualties." They still use the traditional Soviet/KGB tactics, which is what Putin knows.

Oh good grief. What planet are you from? You think Russia is the only country that uses propaganda, disregards laws, inflicts damage on civilians, and so forth? You don't have to go outside of the United States to see the same techniques. Ever heard of the Bay of Pigs? How about the Iraqi's taking the Kuwait babies out of the incubators and Saddam's nuclear program? Democratic checks? You mean like unauthorized spy programs on civilians? Or maybe unauthorized operations like carpet bombing of Cambodia. What about depleted uranium, destroying the infrastucture of Libya and Iraq? Is that caring about "collateral damage?"

This is now their model for dealing with ISIS. In short, their plan is to make ISIS look worse than Assad so that the West will ally with Assad. If ISIS were routed, the West would immediately turn on Assad and oust him. So, from the Russian perspective, ISIS must remain for now.

I don't think Russia has to make ISIS look worse than Assad. ISIS has done a good job of that themselves; you know, videos of executions, burying people alive, etc. Are you saying that all the Youtube promotions weren't done by ISIS but in fact by Russian spies or something? That's insane.

There is even some proof that Russians have had direct ties to ISIS and have aided them in the past. I can dig that out later if you want. Putin's calculus and timeline have changed since the airplane disaster -- he now wants to wipe them off the face of the earth. But he will delay this (as that bombing map supports) as long as he needs to in order to first assure Assad's security. I think he wants the rebels beaten down leaving the battlefield to only Assad vs. ISIS. Then the West's choice is binary -- and Assad will be left as the least bad of two bad options.

Oh please do dig out some proof of Russia's ties to ISIS. Maybe it will provide even more entertainment in support of your thesis. It's ironic that you raise the possibility that Russia would delay the attack on ISIS until they degrade the "rebel" opposition. The Russian side has been saying all along just the opposite; that the US hasn't seriously damaged ISIS yet because they are waiting for them to degrade Assad's forces first. It seems when you can't come up with something original, you just take an existing narrative, turn in 180 degrees, and apply it where you wish as it if were fact.

 

[Joe Fan]

Russia/Putin showed their playbook with the Chechens. Their services actually secretly manipulated that situation to make the separatists behave and appear worst than they actually were (and they were already bad) to justify coming in and crushing them later. This is how Putin/Russia roll. Remember, Russian players are largely amoral. They dont have to play by the same rules as other developed nations. They dont have internal democratic checks. They dont have an open media. They dont have tons lawyers enforcing strict rules of engagement. They do not care about things like "collateral damage," or "civilian casualties." They still use the traditional Soviet/KGB tactics, which is what Putin knows.

Oh good grief. What planet are you from? You think Russia is the only country that uses propaganda, disregards laws, inflicts damage on civilians, and so forth?

You veered off topic somewhat, but there is nothing on the planet that rivals the current Russian propaganda machine. They are legion. It is no coincidence Snowden ended up there. Likewise, have a look at Wiki's tweets from the last year - the Russians are now in complete control and no longer even try hide it. In the last 24 hours, Poland kicked out a "journalist" who was actually a Russian spy. These type stories keep going and almost never end. Your stubborn defense of them is the typical Russian agitprop style too, by the way..

And, yes, Russia is different and does play by different rules, as I already explained. It's not a democracy -- thus, they lack internal checks and balances democracy offers. They do not have free speech or a free press. And their "rules of engagement" have always been loose -- for example, if a western military takes sniper fire from the window or roof of a building, they maneuver to outflank him, then take him out. If that's not possible, they will withdraw. The Russians just blow up the entire building. This goes back to WWII -- it has always been their style.

 

[Musburger1]

for example, if a western military takes sniper fire from the window or roof of a building, they maneuver to outflank him, then take him out. If that's not possible, they will withdraw. The Russians just blow up the entire building. This goes back to WWII -- it has always been their style.

You mean like we did with the Hospital in Afghanistan a few weeks ago. We thought the Taliban was using it as a base so we basically destroyed the hospital.

 

[Joe Fan]

...It's ironic that you raise the possibility that Russia would delay the attack on ISIS until they degrade the "rebel" opposition.

Only roughly 5% of Russian ordinance has been dropped on ISIS. The rest on the rebels. When ISIS advances on rebel positions, there are no Russian sorties.

The Russian side has been saying all along just the opposite;

Russians are professional liars. The map above of the air strikes show as much.

that the US hasn't seriously damaged ISIS yet because they are waiting for them to degrade Assad's forces first.

This is about the only thing you've written that is half accurate, yet you still don't understand it. True, Obama has imposed severe guidelines on US sorties in Syria. As a result, they have been largely ineffective. Just like Bush did with air missions in Iraq, Obama has all targets vetted through lawyers first. The lawyers are also present in control during the mission. They have veto authority. It's a mess.

The Russians of course laugh at this. They have never had a lawyer present for anything. Again, they are playing by a different set of rules than the US. And the results can be tragic in terms of humanity. One example is the Russian bombing missions in Aleppo where there have been lotsa civilian casualties. Another example are the truckers moving the bootleg oil. The US, of course, knew they were there and what they were doing, but Obama's policy did not allow bombing them since technically the truckdrivers were civilians, not combatants. The truckers knew the story and moved tons oil through Turkey. Enter the Russians, who dont give a crap about the truckers. They and their rigs are destroyed. While tactically effective, people not taking a side in the civil war are being killed in this manner.

 

[Joe Fan]

You mean like we did with the Hospital in Afghanistan a few weeks ago. We thought the Taliban was using it as a base so we basically destroyed the hospital.

The key difference being that we told the truth about it. The Russians would have ignored the complaints, done no investigation, never admitted they had any fault. They would have blamed someone else, as is the eternal Russian character.

 

[Joe Fan]

Oh please do dig out some proof of Russia's ties to ISIS. Maybe it will provide even more entertainment in support of your thesis.

I am going to write this up too, but it will take awhile. Then that will be the end of this.

 

[Musburger1]

The key difference being that we told the truth about it. The Russians would have ignored the complaints, done no investigation, never admitted they had any fault. They would have blamed someone else, as is the eternal Russian character.

Wrong again. The US lied about the circumstances until two servicemen came forward. Only at that point was the official line retracted.

The military's official account, a summary of which was disclosed on Nov. 25 by the commanding U.S. general in Afghanistan, says the soldiers and airmen intended the air strike to hit a different building a half mile away — an Afghan intelligence facility said to be occupied by the Taliban.

It was only because of technical failures and human error, Gen. John Campbell told reporters, that an AC-130 mistakenly struck and destroyed the trauma center in the Doctors Without Borders hospital.

Campbell's account didn't address the evidence that the U.S. had been focusing on the hospital.
​

Joe, I'm not denying Russia does not fight ruthlessly. I'm just pointing out that your assertions that the US is some kind of pristine, humane, righteous force for good over evil is fantasy. That the Russians are world class liars and propagandists and the US is the epitome of truth finding and transparency - it's all ********.

 

[Joe Fan]

Apparently Putin has ordered an unconditional shutdown of all targets in Syria

 

[Joe Fan]

.....
Joe, I'm not denying Russia does not fight ruthlessly. I'm just pointing out that your assertions that the US is some kind of pristine, humane, righteous force for good over evil is fantasy. That the Russians are world class liars and propagandists and the US is the epitome of truth finding and transparency - it's all ********.

What I actually wrote was that the US did come clean on that incident. Look, it takes time to do an investigation, take statements, gather evidence. Not fast enough for you it appears but the point is that all this was done. And then admissions were made.

Further, there have been many allegations about what Médecins Sans Frontières is doing with regard to the Taliban, and not all of it is on the up and up. Not an excuse for what happened but I would not mind seeing more honesty from them. Organizations that rely on donations should always have to disclose all (IMO).

Lastly, here is a helpful hint for you in the future - when you have to create strawman in order make your argument, you have already lost.


ps -- And the Russians are world class liars and propagandists.

 

[Joe Fan]

.....and the US is the epitome of truth finding and transparency - it's all ********.

If you think that I think Obama is the "epitome of truth finding and transparency" then you must be a Martian who arrived yesterday?


Maybe a Martian from Moscow?

 

[Seattle Husker]

Apparently Putin has ordered an unconditional shutdown of all targets in Syria

Sorry, what does this mean? Is Russia no longer targeting anything in Syria?

 

[Joe Fan]

 

[BevoJoe]

Here is how Reuters framed it -- ‘Hopefully, no nukes will be needed’ against ISIS – Putin"
LOL, then why bring it up at all?

Scare tactic most likely...