NATO warns Russia over air strikes

[Publicus]

Putin supporting Assad is the greatest danger to the region. The two joined are a danger equivalent to that of ISIS which itself presents its own dangers to almost anyone.

No government in the mix needs to oppose ISIS and support Putin. There is no such test of bona fides that could apply to Nato, the US and coalition partners, and others such as France.

Nato opposed ISIS long before Putin threw the switch on bombs away in Syria in absolute support of Assad, who Nato wants gone. Putin is bombing everyone he doesn't like, which is everyone except Assad. At the top of Putin's list are the rebels associated with the US..

Putin fanboyz need to throw away the leashes they have in their hands cause they're not going to walk anyone in to Putin's camp. The fanboyz need to recognize and realize they're not talking to fellow kulaks.

You have shown total ignorance of the region if you think Putin's support for Assad (which is longstanding) is the greatest danger.

Yes there is a test of any country invading, bombing or overflying any country. For the first two it's UNSC approval and for the third it's approval from the overflown country. That it is ignored by those who are self appointed world police doesn't make it justified or legal.

The US and many others opposed ISIS when it came into being - from the illegal invasion & mishandling of Iraq & it's military. But the opposition has been pathetic with the odd bombing mission that has had little or no effect on the spread of ISIS. Plus the arming & training of so-called 'good' rebels has been a disaster (which you choose to ignore), many having been captured and boosted the ISIS.

US & the US fanboyz need to discard their arrogance and not let it be a hurdle to making a real effort to get the ISIS & Al-Nusra (again ignored by you) out of Syria.

I don't know any 'fellow kulaks' but I suspect that your fellow US warboyz have as low a comprehension of the complexities of the region as you do. Too many neo-cons still involved.

You have shown total ignorance

There is your problem. And entirely so. Because it's a hellovaway to start a discussion, mainly because it is self-defeating.

So let's start with the basics of the present Soviet Russian military engagement in Syria and in the greater Middle East (who's next after Syria, Oman maybe??).

Putin jumped in to the Syrian civil war because his pal Assad had been losing all year to the new strategies and cooperation adopted by the diverse rebel forces. The conflict had begun to spiral out of Assad's capabilities.

Assad's army had shrunk to fewer than 100,000 from the 300,000 at the start of the Assad crackdown against Syrian activists in 2011. Rebels this year captured army and air force bases while routing Assad forces across the board. Assad's palaces were being shelled by rebel artillery situated in suburbs of Damascus.

Putin threw the switch for direct military involvement when Assad had to abandon his recently developed backup plans to relocate the president's office to the ultimate Alawite stronghold of Latakia on the Med coast because rebels had got within artillery range of it.

Throughout the year, the myriad of rebel forces have had unprecedented cooperation which is not to claim they sing kumbaya around a campfire every night. The successful new strategy has been to shift from attacking populated and defended cities to instead taking control of infrastructure connecting and linking the cities to their sources of supplies and to one another. Rebels have seized territory to control roads, rail lines, corridors of transportation and communication to include airports and air force bases. This has isolated a significant number of cities and forced Assad's military out of the urban areas into the open countryside where they get ambushed and routed.

Given that Moscow and the Assad family in Damascus have been in bed together for a long time, Putin made his move.

Putin and his fanboyz have set out to destroy or demolish anyone fighting against Assad, US and Nato sponsored forces first and foremost. Putin has given only token attention to ISIS because Putin's concern looking ahead is to get Assad to the negotiating table in Geneva on his feet instead of Assad arriving on a political stretcher or in a diplomatic wheelchair. The best way is to decimate the Nato sponsored forces. Indeed, Putin and Assad know they can't begin negotiating with Nato until Assad and his elites are off the ropes they have been hanging from most of the year.

Putin and Assad know they have to hang together lest they hang separately.

[h90]

Mistake? No way. These planes are high tech with lots of people involved regarding their operations. Impossible.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/full-list-of-incidents-involving-russian-military-and-nato-since-march-2014-9851309.html

Not the first time Russia's made a "mistake" by going into other countries sovereign territory.

Testing responds and responds time.....

[h90]

you think Russia really cares what NATO says ..............

So now come 150,000 Russian troops in to the ME in addition to Iran combat forces on the ground in Syria, China docking its single aircraft carrier at Tartus with designs to send CCP pilots on missions into Syria. Baghdad is aligned with Russia, Assad and the rest of 'em.

This is already looking worse than the United States in Iraq courtesy of Bush-Cheney.

The alarms and red lights are going off in Riyahd, Cairo, Tel Aviv, Beruit, the Gulf states, Kuwait, throughout North Africa and in Ankara which as we saw yesterday chased a Russian fighter plane out of Turkey airspace and for which Putin apologized, said was a mistake.

SecDef Ashton Carter is in Rome today meeting with all the Nato allies after stopping in Spain en route. The US 6th Naval Fleet is in the Med as a part of the Nato Southern Command and the US 5th Fleet is based in Bahrain to operate in the Gulf off Iraq and Iran with Suez in between.

Putin's economy is going deeper and deeper into the tank, Putin is stymied in Ukraine, so now Putin is going for broke in Syria and the Middle East.

It's of small comfort this isn't the Guns of August and that it is not Poland 1939....not yet.

Well seems Tel Aviv spoke with Putin and they have a kind of agreement. Cairo is friendly to Russia. So lots of army in this region....complete agree.

Putin's economy isn't looking too good, but isn't that bad as well. The devalue of the currency helps and sure China helps. China likes it if the world focus on Russia and leaves China alone with whatever they do. Putin indeed has a lot risk there. But at the moment he is extreme popular worldwide (so was Hitler and it didn't end well). Risky game....intended to save Syria and let Russia and Putin appear like the hero. It may work or it might be another Afghanistan if USA delivers anti-aircraft weapons to the extremists like McCain demanded already.

[Cook my sock]

Saying Putin supporting Assad is a danger to the region is moronic.

The same people would have backed the toppling of Saddam.

Unfortunately chucking dictators out with no plan B like the US do time and time again results in destabilising regions. Which is actually what the US and Israel wants..

Israel are the ones pushing the yanks into this. They desperately want Russia out of Syria, for obvious reasons. Russia want to keep their base on the coast and personally think Putin is running rings around the yanks atm

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[ABCer]

Right or wrong, moral or immoral, legal or illegal, politically correct (not PC in European terms) or as a political suicide - Putin is behind Assad.

On one hand it is soothing to see allies not flushing each other at the first request. A two finger response to UN, NATO and US is a pleasant sight just for a change.

Methinks - who are US, NATO, Turkey et al to warn Russia? Assad invited them. He invited NATO too - but they declined to co-operate (first). Than they decided to bomb their choice of warriors.

US, France and Co have 'bombed' ISIS for a long time. Net result - nothing, zelch, nada, zero. Russians start bombing and what? Americans warn them to stop! NATO warns them to stop! ISIS is said to be running for cover.

Apparently (without being an expert) - they bomb well! Some people here will say they are bombing the wrong terrorists. To me any terrorist is good when dead. Obviously not to Americans.

Toppling Assad has failed. Turning Syria into another Iraq, Libya or Afghanistan failed. Putin-Assad alliance will prevail. Naturally US and NATO are not happy. Well, they missed again.

And if Assad will manage to side with his Kurds by promising them autonomy - tough luck for Erdogan in two ways - as a NATO boy and as a great friend of his Kurds.

NOTE! I am not a fan of Putin. And I do not need Assad. But occasionally I like to see stupid people look stupid.

[Publicus]

Saying Putin supporting Assad is a danger to the region is moronic.

The same people would have backed the toppling of Saddam.

Unfortunately chucking dictators out with no plan B like the US do time and time again results in destabilising regions. Which is actually what the US and Israel wants..

Israel are the ones pushing the yanks into this. They desperately want Russia out of Syria, for obvious reasons. Russia want to keep their base on the coast and personally think Putin is running rings around the yanks atm

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

There's a sucker born every minute as the saying goes so keep your socks on and keep on cooking cause Russia just fundamentally altered the strategic calculus of the Middle East region for everyone, not only the United States.

Given Russia is now willing to use its military force in the Middle East, everyone has to calculate differently, speak even more carefully, act with a greater caution, share uncertainty concerning what might be next, and where.

Israel has to look at Iran and Syria in an even worse light now that Putin and the ayatollahs in Tehran have each and together put Russian and also Revolutionary Guards armed forces into action just the other side of the Golan Heights.

Leaders of the ME governments and their elites have begun to wonder when little green men will suddenly start to appear in their back yard, the way they did in east Ukraine, precipitating yet more of a Russian military intervention in their ME country under the pretense of crushing terrorism.

[Cook my sock]

"Act with caution" lmao

Cook my sock anytime

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Publicus]

Moscow has responded by saying the action was a “mistake”.

First, Russians are FAR too good a bunch of pilots to make such a mistake; they were fully aware of their actions.

Second, I NEVER go grammar Nazi on TV members, but a journalist should know better - the period goes inside the quotation mark at the end of a sentence:

"mistake."

Maybe you should do a little more research before submitting such a post. But, since I've been meaning to research this issue myself, so here's a site (www.quora.com) with varying opinions on this issue.

One of them is:

American English conventions: He thought dinner was "good."

British English conventions: He thought dinner was "good".

Side note: Those punctuation marks are quotation marks, not quotes.

-- David Bowman Chief editor writing instructor author of writing resources

Maybe you know about as much about Russian pilots, their navigation equipment, their operational polices, rules of engagement, etc. that they are now using in Syria as you do about English punctuation?

FYI:

“Republicans mangle the English language at twice the rate of Democrats,” USA Today reports.

[craigt3365]

Right or wrong, moral or immoral, legal or illegal, politically correct (not PC in European terms) or as a political suicide - Putin is behind Assad.

On one hand it is soothing to see allies not flushing each other at the first request. A two finger response to UN, NATO and US is a pleasant sight just for a change.

Methinks - who are US, NATO, Turkey et al to warn Russia? Assad invited them. He invited NATO too - but they declined to co-operate (first). Than they decided to bomb their choice of warriors.

US, France and Co have 'bombed' ISIS for a long time. Net result - nothing, zelch, nada, zero. Russians start bombing and what? Americans warn them to stop! NATO warns them to stop! ISIS is said to be running for cover.

Apparently (without being an expert) - they bomb well! Some people here will say they are bombing the wrong terrorists. To me any terrorist is good when dead. Obviously not to Americans.

Toppling Assad has failed. Turning Syria into another Iraq, Libya or Afghanistan failed. Putin-Assad alliance will prevail. Naturally US and NATO are not happy. Well, they missed again.

And if Assad will manage to side with his Kurds by promising them autonomy - tough luck for Erdogan in two ways - as a NATO boy and as a great friend of his Kurds.

NOTE! I am not a fan of Putin. And I do not need Assad. But occasionally I like to see stupid people look stupid.

I like your last post! It's an awful mess, eh? Damned if you do, damned if you don't.

Personally, I have no problems with Russia bombing terrorists. Unfortunately, their collateral damage right now is atrocious. And they are not planning this with all the other nations involved. Just going lone wolf. Creates an environment where a small mistake can have catastrophic consequences.

But Putin can't join in with the dozens of other nations already involved as he wants the brutal dictator Assad to survive. The others don't. Again, damned if you do, damned if you don't.

[slipperylobster]

It happened also in Europe:

http://www.globalresearch.ca/mistaken-identity-french-plane-entered-swedish-air-space-not-russian-as-reported/5414801

https://medium.com/war-is-boring/u-s-spy-plane-reportedly-violated-swedish-air-space-to-escape-russian-fighters-424d05e11bd5

It happens from time to time due to bad weather and navigational errors.

This is not intentional.

Reports of Russian incursions into national airspace regularly appear in the media, but they are often not officially confirmed or are disproved later.

Even Washington – which doesn’t typically hesitate to accuse Russia of wrongdoing with little to no evidence – says Moscow complies with international law when flying close to American borders. The US can only say that it doesn’t see “the security environment as warranting international activity,” in the words of State Department spokesperson Jen Psaki.

Reminds one of Malaysian Airlines...

[Cook my sock]

Russian Collateral damage is a drop in the ocean compared to what the west have inflicted on Syria

Lets look at the facts. A few years ago and Assad looked like the next toppling dictator, or so we thought. Israel were keen to see Assad go and Russia lose a strategic base near their coast - so Mossad, M15 and the CIA train up a rebel army in the Jordanian desert to finally topple the Assad regime, fully knowing this army had close connections to Al Qaeda. Unfortunately this rebel army splintered and before you knew it, ISIS appear. Now the west didn't know what to do. So they carefully and quietly dropped the Assad political hot potato and let a humanitarian crisis take hold.

This has been the single most scandalous war crime since the 2nd world war. Do your research and look at the estimated civilian casualties. Once beautiful cities and centuries old historic monuments lie in ruins. We stood by and did nothing. And now the problem is literally on europes doorstep with a million refuges we dare to complain.. What a disgrace we are.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Edited October 8, 2015 by Cook my sock

[ABCer]

First of all it was supposed to be Russia only targeting the so-called good rebels - which was a lie as they certainly targeted Al-Nusra, the Al-Qaeda affiliate (or are they supposed to be 'good' rebels?).

Now when they target the ISIS on the border between Syria & Turkey, the latter brings NATO into it - why?

It certainly shows up Turkey who seems to be more interested in protecting ISIS than attacking them.

There's so much hypocrisy about Russia's involvement in Syria & considering Assad invited them, who gave permission for the US, UK or France etc to overfly Syria?

Unfortunately the main western culprits are more prepared to allow ISIS to continue their murderous occupation rather than reach an agreement with those awful Russians to deal with the priority issue - ISIS - and then negotiate the Assad issue afterwards.

It is wrong and assinine [sic] to say that if we're not for Putin then it means we are for ISIS. This is akin to the Bush-Cheney pronouncements in 2002 about Iraq and all else. It is also trolling.

The hard core right keeps throwing the baby out with the bath water.

The right is wrong again because many of us are against Putin and against ISIS. If that explodes rightwing heads then so be it.

Ah, Publicus! So much self-adoration, so much Narcissism! And this 'many of us' - definitely a groupie syndrome!

In many posts here I emphasize:

I don't like Putin;

I hate ISIS; (Bad choice of word - HATE is a Politically Incorrect word. We are supposed to love them instead.)

I do not care one cinch for Assad;

AND

I resent US stupid, disastrous International Policies;

I detest UN biased and corrupt members; (some are closer to cannibalism than is comfortable to civilized people)

To deprive you of grounds to say I hate it all - I love old Europe and its culture. I have been there many times. Now I would like to go again but frankly - I am afraid!

I love many aspects of my life in Thailand, but not all.

I love a good argument on TV unless it is transformed into personal abuse (in which case I become doubly abusive).

One more thing. I would like one of these days to hear from you What is on the Right and What is on the Left of your fragile mind? But take your time, there is no urgency.

Edited October 8, 2015 by ABCer

[Barin]

Right or wrong, moral or immoral, legal or illegal, politically correct (not PC in European terms) or as a political suicide - Putin is behind Assad.

On one hand it is soothing to see allies not flushing each other at the first request. A two finger response to UN, NATO and US is a pleasant sight just for a change.

Methinks - who are US, NATO, Turkey et al to warn Russia? Assad invited them. He invited NATO too - but they declined to co-operate (first). Than they decided to bomb their choice of warriors.

US, France and Co have 'bombed' ISIS for a long time. Net result - nothing, zelch, nada, zero. Russians start bombing and what? Americans warn them to stop! NATO warns them to stop! ISIS is said to be running for cover.

Apparently (without being an expert) - they bomb well! Some people here will say they are bombing the wrong terrorists. To me any terrorist is good when dead. Obviously not to Americans.

Toppling Assad has failed. Turning Syria into another Iraq, Libya or Afghanistan failed. Putin-Assad alliance will prevail. Naturally US and NATO are not happy. Well, they missed again.

And if Assad will manage to side with his Kurds by promising them autonomy - tough luck for Erdogan in two ways - as a NATO boy and as a great friend of his Kurds.

NOTE! I am not a fan of Putin. And I do not need Assad. But occasionally I like to see stupid people look stupid.

............................

Personally, I have no problems with Russia bombing terrorists. Unfortunately, their collateral damage right now is atrocious. And they are not planning this with all the other nations involved. Just going lone wolf. Creates an environment where a small mistake can have catastrophic consequences.

But Putin can't join in with the dozens of other nations already involved as he wants the brutal dictator Assad to survive. The others don't. Again, damned if you do, damned if you don't.

You are wrong.

This is in fact America and Europe who don't want to cooperate.

They have rejected Russia's proposal on cooperation.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/09/16/us-syria-crisis-kerry-idUSKCN0RG2CJ20150916

http://www.usnews.com/news/politics/articles/2015/10/07/carter-us-not-cooperating-with-russia-against-islamic-state

And you blame it on Russia?

And they are not planning this with all the other nations involved. Just going lone wolf. Creates an environment where a small mistake can have catastrophic consequences.

And why do you call Assad a "brutal dictator"?

Because he is reluctant to obey orders from Washington?

Edited October 8, 2015 by Barin

[ABCer]

Russian Collateral damage is a drop in the ocean compared to what the west have inflicted on Syria

Lets look at the facts. A few years ago and Assad looked like the next toppling dictator, or so we thought. Israel were keen to see Assad go and Russia lose a strategic base near their coast - so Mossad, M15 and the CIA train up a rebel army in the Jordanian desert to finally topple the Assad regime, fully knowing this army had close connections to Al Qaeda. Unfortunately this rebel army splintered and before you knew it, ISIS appear. Now the west didn't know what to do. So they carefully and quietly dropped the Assad political hot potato and let a humanitarian crisis take hold.

This has been the single most scandalous war crime since the 2nd world war. Do your research and look at the estimated civilian casualties. Once beautiful cities and centuries old historic monuments lie in ruins. We stood by and did nothing. And now the problem is literally on europes doorstep with a million refuges we dare to complain.. What a disgrace we are.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Agree with everything you say.

Pity you don't say everything.

A week ago I said here on TV that Russian involvement means no more concept of collateral damage.

You mention Al-Qaeda. Who created this monster?

You never mention previous bitter-sweet 'mistakes' by US Administrators. Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, Libya ...

And Syrian humanitarian disaster is 'the most scandalous crime since WWII' only because the victims were dropped on the Europe's doorstep.

As mentioned, I agree with everything you said. But saying anything more - means one cannot bash Russia...

[craigt3365]

You are wrong.

This is in fact America and Europe who don't want to cooperate.

They have rejected Russia's proposal on cooperation.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/09/16/us-syria-crisis-kerry-idUSKCN0RG2CJ20150916

http://www.usnews.com/news/politics/articles/2015/10/07/carter-us-not-cooperating-with-russia-against-islamic-state

And you blame it on Russia?

And they are not planning this with all the other nations involved. Just going lone wolf. Creates an environment where a small mistake can have catastrophic consequences.

And why do you call Assad a "brutal dictator"?

Because he is reluctant to obey orders from Washington?

I'm not wrong. The coalition wants to cooperate with Russia, but the problem is Assad. The coalition wants him gone, Russia (for obvious reasons) doesn't. Very simple. It's a problem on both sides. Don't just blame the coalition for this. Russia has a responsibility also.

Have you done any research on Assad? Please do some and then report back if you think he's not a brutal dictator. He a bad one and should be convicted of crimes against humanity for what he's done to his fellow citizens. Including use of chemical weapons, tacitly approved by Russia...as they were backing him at the time this occurred.

This is from France, not the US:

http://www.france24.com/en/20150930-france-opens-war-crimes-inquiry-assad-regime

"Faced with these crimes that offend the human conscience, this bureaucracy of horror, faced with this denial of the values of humanity, it is our responsibility to act against the impunity of the assassins," Fabius said in a statement sent to AFP.

[Barin]

You are wrong.

This is in fact America and Europe who don't want to cooperate.

They have rejected Russia's proposal on cooperation.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/09/16/us-syria-crisis-kerry-idUSKCN0RG2CJ20150916

http://www.usnews.com/news/politics/articles/2015/10/07/carter-us-not-cooperating-with-russia-against-islamic-state

And you blame it on Russia?

And they are not planning this with all the other nations involved. Just going lone wolf. Creates an environment where a small mistake can have catastrophic consequences.

And why do you call Assad a "brutal dictator"?

Because he is reluctant to obey orders from Washington?

I'm not wrong. The coalition wants to cooperate with Russia, but the problem is Assad. The coalition wants him gone, Russia (for obvious reasons) doesn't. Very simple. It's a problem on both sides. Don't just blame the coalition for this. Russia has a responsibility also.

Have you done any research on Assad? Please do some and then report back if you think he's not a brutal dictator. He a bad one and should be convicted of crimes against humanity for what he's done to his fellow citizens. Including use of chemical weapons, tacitly approved by Russia...as they were backing him at the time this occurred.

There is a different opinion on who actually used the chemical weapons in Syria and why...

http://news.yahoo.com/syrias-assad-says-open-dialogue-united-states-101849298.html#

That was a planned provocation to blame it on Assad.

And please let his fellow citizens, the Syrian people themselves, to decide if they want to convict him of crimes or not.

Don't forget that Syria is an independent state with legitimately elected government headed by Assad.

Who has appointed America to be the World's Policeman?

The answer: it is self-appointed!

Edited October 8, 2015 by Barin

[craigt3365]

There is a different opinion on who actually used the chemical weapons in Syria and why...

http://news.yahoo.com/syrias-assad-says-open-dialogue-united-states-101849298.html#

That was a planned provocation to blame it on Assad.

And please let his fellow citizens, the Syrian people themselves, to decide if they want to convict him of crimes or not.

Don't forget that Syria is an independent state with legitimately elected government headed by Assad.

Who has appointed America to be the World's Policeman?

The answer: it is self-appointed!

That is entirely possible! As for the Syrian people, they've already decided they don't want him. Thus, the reason for the civil war. If this was Japan, he would have stepped down a long time ago...but then again, he would have been democratically elected and not a dictator.

http://www.aljazeera.com/news/middleeast/2014/06/bashar-al-assad-re-elected-syrian-president-20146419457810751.html

Voting was held only in government-controlled areas, excluding vast chunks of northern and eastern Syria that are in rebel hands.

[Barin]

There is a different opinion on who actually used the chemical weapons in Syria and why...

http://news.yahoo.com/syrias-assad-says-open-dialogue-united-states-101849298.html#

That was a planned provocation to blame it on Assad.

And please let his fellow citizens, the Syrian people themselves, to decide if they want to convict him of crimes or not.

Don't forget that Syria is an independent state with legitimately elected government headed by Assad.

Who has appointed America to be the World's Policeman?

The answer: it is self-appointed!

That is entirely possible! As for the Syrian people, they've already decided they don't want him. Thus, the reason for the civil war. If this was Japan, he would have stepped down a long time ago...but then again, he would have been democratically elected and not a dictator.

http://www.aljazeera.com/news/middleeast/2014/06/bashar-al-assad-re-elected-syrian-president-20146419457810751.html

Voting was held only in government-controlled areas, excluding vast chunks of northern and eastern Syria that are in rebel hands.

Anyway the majority of the Syrian population has elected Assad, it means he is a legitimately elected president.

The so called Syrian Opposition constitutes a minority of population.

Please correct me if I am wrong.

[craigt3365]

The majority didn't even vote. So impossible for him to win a majority. The election was rigged. Easy to do some research on this....please, there were no independent monitors for the elections.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syrian_presidential_election,_2014

United Nations Secretary General Ban Ki-moon warned that amid the ongoing Syrian Civil War and large-scale displacement of Syrian citizens, "such elections are incompatible with the letter and spirit of the Geneva communique" and would "damage prospects of a political solution with the opposition".^[9]

Remember what Joe Stalin had to say about democracy and voting: "it doesn't matter who votes, it matters who counts the votes".

[Pakboong]

Putin supporting Assad is the greatest danger to the region. The two joined are a danger equivalent to that of ISIS which itself presents its own dangers to almost anyone.

No government in the mix needs to oppose ISIS and support Putin. There is no such test of bona fides that could apply to Nato, the US and coalition partners, and others such as France.

Nato opposed ISIS long before Putin threw the switch on bombs away in Syria in absolute support of Assad, who Nato wants gone. Putin is bombing everyone he doesn't like, which is everyone except Assad. At the top of Putin's list are the rebels associated with the US..

Putin fanboyz need to throw away the leashes they have in their hands cause they're not going to walk anyone in to Putin's camp. The fanboyz need to recognize and realize they're not talking to fellow kulaks.

You have shown total ignorance of the region if you think Putin's support for Assad (which is longstanding) is the greatest danger.

Yes there is a test of any country invading, bombing or overflying any country. For the first two it's UNSC approval and for the third it's approval from the overflown country. That it is ignored by those who are self appointed world police doesn't make it justified or legal.

The US and many others opposed ISIS when it came into being - from the illegal invasion & mishandling of Iraq & it's military. But the opposition has been pathetic with the odd bombing mission that has had little or no effect on the spread of ISIS. Plus the arming & training of so-called 'good' rebels has been a disaster (which you choose to ignore), many having been captured and boosted the ISIS.

US & the US fanboyz need to discard their arrogance and not let it be a hurdle to making a real effort to get the ISIS & Al-Nusra (again ignored by you) out of Syria.

I don't know any 'fellow kulaks' but I suspect that your fellow US warboyz have as low a comprehension of the complexities of the region as you do. Too many neo-cons still involved.

You have shown total ignorance

There is your problem. And entirely so. Because it's a hellovaway to start a discussion, mainly because it is self-defeating.

So let's start with the basics of the present Soviet Russian military engagement in Syria and in the greater Middle East (who's next after Syria, Oman maybe??).

Putin jumped in to the Syrian civil war because his pal Assad had been losing all year to the new strategies and cooperation adopted by the diverse rebel forces. The conflict had begun to spiral out of Assad's capabilities.

Assad's army had shrunk to fewer than 100,000 from the 300,000 at the start of the Assad crackdown against Syrian activists in 2011. Rebels this year captured army and air force bases while routing Assad forces across the board. Assad's palaces were being shelled by rebel artillery situated in suburbs of Damascus.

Putin threw the switch for direct military involvement when Assad had to abandon his recently developed backup plans to relocate the president's office to the ultimate Alawite stronghold of Latakia on the Med coast because rebels had got within artillery range of it.

Throughout the year, the myriad of rebel forces have had unprecedented cooperation which is not to claim they sing kumbaya around a campfire every night. The successful new strategy has been to shift from attacking populated and defended cities to instead taking control of infrastructure connecting and linking the cities to their sources of supplies and to one another. Rebels have seized territory to control roads, rail lines, corridors of transportation and communication to include airports and air force bases. This has isolated a significant number of cities and forced Assad's military out of the urban areas into the open countryside where they get ambushed and routed.

Given that Moscow and the Assad family in Damascus have been in bed together for a long time, Putin made his move.

Putin and his fanboyz have set out to destroy or demolish anyone fighting against Assad, US and Nato sponsored forces first and foremost. Putin has given only token attention to ISIS because Putin's concern looking ahead is to get Assad to the negotiating table in Geneva on his feet instead of Assad arriving on a political stretcher or in a diplomatic wheelchair. The best way is to decimate the Nato sponsored forces. Indeed, Putin and Assad know they can't begin negotiating with Nato until Assad and his elites are off the ropes they have been hanging from most of the year.

Putin and Assad know they have to hang together lest they hang separately.

I really want my country to make plans to exit the Middle East at least to the point of direct troop/weapons involvement. What can best make that happen? It can't happen, we are too committed.

We are fast approaching a point of no return, WWIII is right around the corner. Putin is also committed and that is not good. We have a very weak position IMO with regard to our 7 countries in 5 years plan announced By Wesley Clark way back when. The prize for us is Iran. Putin is very much aware of what we are after and why. The first clue for Putin's intentions was when he purged government service of all dual citizens and required all Russian officials to bank in Russia. No doubt who he was after and he did not want any conflicting loyalties. BRICS is a big part of his total strategy.He is not done. China, Russia and India are buying up the world's gold at an alarming rate with sights set on a gold backed reserve currency which in my opinion is the game changer.

These are interesting times and I would like to get back to the slow boring times. In order for anything good to happen, our guys have to get back in step and pick up the paces.

[Pakboong]

Saying Putin supporting Assad is a danger to the region is moronic.

The same people would have backed the toppling of Saddam.

Unfortunately chucking dictators out with no plan B like the US do time and time again results in destabilising regions. Which is actually what the US and Israel wants..

Israel are the ones pushing the yanks into this. They desperately want Russia out of Syria, for obvious reasons. Russia want to keep their base on the coast and personally think Putin is running rings around the yanks atm

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

There's a sucker born every minute as the saying goes so keep your socks on and keep on cooking cause Russia just fundamentally altered the strategic calculus of the Middle East region for everyone, not only the United States.

Given Russia is now willing to use its military force in the Middle East, everyone has to calculate differently, speak even more carefully, act with a greater caution, share uncertainty concerning what might be next, and where.

Israel has to look at Iran and Syria in an even worse light now that Putin and the ayatollahs in Tehran have each and together put Russian and also Revolutionary Guards armed forces into action just the other side of the Golan Heights.

Leaders of the ME governments and their elites have begun to wonder when little green men will suddenly start to appear in their back yard, the way they did in east Ukraine, precipitating yet more of a Russian military intervention in their ME country under the pretense of crushing terrorism.

Russia exposed their hand a few years ago. This stuff doesn't happen over night and when it does happen over night, that is the kind of plan we can beat. This plan is much deeper and whether you think Putin and Assad are dictators, human devils or whatever, we have to take them seriously. If I learned anything in over 20 years in military service and an additional 10 in govt service, Respect your enemy.

[Pakboong]

Right or wrong, moral or immoral, legal or illegal, politically correct (not PC in European terms) or as a political suicide - Putin is behind Assad.

On one hand it is soothing to see allies not flushing each other at the first request. A two finger response to UN, NATO and US is a pleasant sight just for a change.

Methinks - who are US, NATO, Turkey et al to warn Russia? Assad invited them. He invited NATO too - but they declined to co-operate (first). Than they decided to bomb their choice of warriors.

US, France and Co have 'bombed' ISIS for a long time. Net result - nothing, zelch, nada, zero. Russians start bombing and what? Americans warn them to stop! NATO warns them to stop! ISIS is said to be running for cover.

Apparently (without being an expert) - they bomb well! Some people here will say they are bombing the wrong terrorists. To me any terrorist is good when dead. Obviously not to Americans.

Toppling Assad has failed. Turning Syria into another Iraq, Libya or Afghanistan failed. Putin-Assad alliance will prevail. Naturally US and NATO are not happy. Well, they missed again.

And if Assad will manage to side with his Kurds by promising them autonomy - tough luck for Erdogan in two ways - as a NATO boy and as a great friend of his Kurds.

NOTE! I am not a fan of Putin. And I do not need Assad. But occasionally I like to see stupid people look stupid.

I like your last post! It's an awful mess, eh? Damned if you do, damned if you don't.

Personally, I have no problems with Russia bombing terrorists. Unfortunately, their collateral damage right now is atrocious. And they are not planning this with all the other nations involved. Just going lone wolf. Creates an environment where a small mistake can have catastrophic consequences.

But Putin can't join in with the dozens of other nations already involved as he wants the brutal dictator Assad to survive. The others don't. Again, damned if you do, damned if you don't.

Putin may think Assad is the biggest idiot on the planet but he doesn't want to make the mistakes we made in Iraq, Libya, Afgan,,,etc He doesn't want to end up with a country that he has to completely rebuild. He has irons in the fire and much bigger fish to fry. I do hope we are paying attention.

[ABCer]

I would really like to know for sure

who is flying those Su-34 in Syria - Russians or Syrians?

It may be of importance.

[h90]

I would really like to know for sure

who is flying those Su-34 in Syria - Russians or Syrians?

It may be of importance.

The SU-34 is brand new, they Russians wouldn't let the Syrians fly them.

[khunken]

Putin supporting Assad is the greatest danger to the region. The two joined are a danger equivalent to that of ISIS which itself presents its own dangers to almost anyone.

No government in the mix needs to oppose ISIS and support Putin. There is no such test of bona fides that could apply to Nato, the US and coalition partners, and others such as France.

Nato opposed ISIS long before Putin threw the switch on bombs away in Syria in absolute support of Assad, who Nato wants gone. Putin is bombing everyone he doesn't like, which is everyone except Assad. At the top of Putin's list are the rebels associated with the US..

Putin fanboyz need to throw away the leashes they have in their hands cause they're not going to walk anyone in to Putin's camp. The fanboyz need to recognize and realize they're not talking to fellow kulaks.

You have shown total ignorance of the region if you think Putin's support for Assad (which is longstanding) is the greatest danger.

Yes there is a test of any country invading, bombing or overflying any country. For the first two it's UNSC approval and for the third it's approval from the overflown country. That it is ignored by those who are self appointed world police doesn't make it justified or legal.

The US and many others opposed ISIS when it came into being - from the illegal invasion & mishandling of Iraq & it's military. But the opposition has been pathetic with the odd bombing mission that has had little or no effect on the spread of ISIS. Plus the arming & training of so-called 'good' rebels has been a disaster (which you choose to ignore), many having been captured and boosted the ISIS.

US & the US fanboyz need to discard their arrogance and not let it be a hurdle to making a real effort to get the ISIS & Al-Nusra (again ignored by you) out of Syria.

I don't know any 'fellow kulaks' but I suspect that your fellow US warboyz have as low a comprehension of the complexities of the region as you do. Too many neo-cons still involved.

You have shown total ignorance

There is your problem. And entirely so. Because it's a hellovaway to start a discussion, mainly because it is self-defeating.

So let's start with the basics of the present Soviet Russian military engagement in Syria and in the greater Middle East (who's next after Syria, Oman maybe??).

Putin jumped in to the Syrian civil war because his pal Assad had been losing all year to the new strategies and cooperation adopted by the diverse rebel forces. The conflict had begun to spiral out of Assad's capabilities.

Assad's army had shrunk to fewer than 100,000 from the 300,000 at the start of the Assad crackdown against Syrian activists in 2011. Rebels this year captured army and air force bases while routing Assad forces across the board. Assad's palaces were being shelled by rebel artillery situated in suburbs of Damascus.

Putin threw the switch for direct military involvement when Assad had to abandon his recently developed backup plans to relocate the president's office to the ultimate Alawite stronghold of Latakia on the Med coast because rebels had got within artillery range of it.

Throughout the year, the myriad of rebel forces have had unprecedented cooperation which is not to claim they sing kumbaya around a campfire every night. The successful new strategy has been to shift from attacking populated and defended cities to instead taking control of infrastructure connecting and linking the cities to their sources of supplies and to one another. Rebels have seized territory to control roads, rail lines, corridors of transportation and communication to include airports and air force bases. This has isolated a significant number of cities and forced Assad's military out of the urban areas into the open countryside where they get ambushed and routed.

Given that Moscow and the Assad family in Damascus have been in bed together for a long time, Putin made his move.

Putin and his fanboyz have set out to destroy or demolish anyone fighting against Assad, US and Nato sponsored forces first and foremost. Putin has given only token attention to ISIS because Putin's concern looking ahead is to get Assad to the negotiating table in Geneva on his feet instead of Assad arriving on a political stretcher or in a diplomatic wheelchair. The best way is to decimate the Nato sponsored forces. Indeed, Putin and Assad know they can't begin negotiating with Nato until Assad and his elites are off the ropes they have been hanging from most of the year.

Putin and Assad know they have to hang together lest they hang separately.

You are a right hypocrite to criticise me for calling your statement about Assad being ignorant - which it is. You started by trying to twist what I said originally in this thread and then using really stupid terms like 'kulaks' and even the troll fall-back.

You are right in one comment - that Assad had lost a lot of ground to the variety of 'good' and 'bad' rebels and needed help, which he has now got. You seem to have no idea just who and what is involved with the rebels. Try this, courtesy of Barin:

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2012/jul/12/syrian-opposition-doing-the-talking

Oh and ISIS have recently been involved all over the region - from Tunisia, Egypt,Afghanistan, Yemen and even in Saudi & the Gaza strip. Assad? Only a target because he is an Alawite, a branch of Shia Islam against which the US is siding with all the Sunni heavyweights (plus, of course, Israel) as they have the money to buy large quantities of weaponry from the US & UK.

Assad is not any sort of benign dictator but he is the only one who can hold Syria against becoming a failed state like Libya &, in reality, Iraq. To give support to cooperation between Al-Nusra, ISIS & the various other militias is tantamount to allowing the ISIS & Al-Nusra (Al-Qaeda by another name) to be part of post-Assad Syria and become even stronger. This is where the priority comes in: ISIS, AL-Nusra or Assad - which is the greater danger to the region and even outside the region? It certainly isn't Assad and the lies used to support the invasion of Iraq are only slightly different about Syria.

Putin may not be a saviour of Syria but at least he is trying which is more than can be said for the US & its choirboyz.

Edited to give due credit to Barin for the Guardian article.

Edited October 8, 2015 by khunken

[Cook my sock]

The new line from the British to justify their stance against Putin is to claim that Assad was the sole reason for the creation of Isis. And the beeb are printing this online..

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Cook my sock]

And Syrian humanitarian disaster is 'the most scandalous crime since WWII' only because the victims were dropped on the Europe's doorstep.

...

I see what you did there.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[ABCer]

I would really like to know for sure

who is flying those Su-34 in Syria - Russians or Syrians?

It may be of importance.

The SU-34 is brand new, they Russians wouldn't let the Syrians fly them.

Well, in this case I would advise the allies to stay well clear of them when on a mission.

I know a bit about Russian pilots. We are not talking Tom Cruise in 'Top Gun'.

The Russian fliers have no fear of God on a mission. And very highly trained.

[Cook my sock]

Just a matter of time before Isis get their hands on a Russian pilot.

But I doubt Putin cares too much, it's all about Oil

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Publicus]

Right or wrong, moral or immoral, legal or illegal, politically correct (not PC in European terms) or as a political suicide - Putin is behind Assad.

On one hand it is soothing to see allies not flushing each other at the first request. A two finger response to UN, NATO and US is a pleasant sight just for a change.

Methinks - who are US, NATO, Turkey et al to warn Russia? Assad invited them. He invited NATO too - but they declined to co-operate (first). Than they decided to bomb their choice of warriors.

US, France and Co have 'bombed' ISIS for a long time. Net result - nothing, zelch, nada, zero. Russians start bombing and what? Americans warn them to stop! NATO warns them to stop! ISIS is said to be running for cover.

Apparently (without being an expert) - they bomb well! Some people here will say they are bombing the wrong terrorists. To me any terrorist is good when dead. Obviously not to Americans.

Toppling Assad has failed. Turning Syria into another Iraq, Libya or Afghanistan failed. Putin-Assad alliance will prevail. Naturally US and NATO are not happy. Well, they missed again.

And if Assad will manage to side with his Kurds by promising them autonomy - tough luck for Erdogan in two ways - as a NATO boy and as a great friend of his Kurds.

NOTE! I am not a fan of Putin. And I do not need Assad. But occasionally I like to see stupid people look stupid.

To me any terrorist is good when dead. Obviously not to Americans.

The statement is arbitrary, summary, whimsical, dismissive; not credible. It could come only from Putin and his supporters or fanboyz. It is reckless and irresponsible; contemptuous and contemptible. The too often warped view from down under can get very bizarre indeed.

tough luck for Erdogan...as a NATO boy...

Nato has since its founding in 1949 always been about Russia, to protect Europe against the then Soviet Russia and now Putin's irredentist and revanchist Russia. which is belligerent, bellicose; aggressive. It would seem there are English speakers who reject Nato and side with Putin and Russia. That is their choice to make but it is as equally a miserable choice now as it was to support Russia 1949-1991. Recall that Nato is the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation and that Russia is Russia, 1000 years of it.

European Union will not admit Turkey in the foreseeable future which is fine but Turkey remains a part of Nato. To date only Nato has kept the Erdogan led Turkey from becoming a kind of India, meaning a non-aligned country that plays footsie with any major power that will give it attention or solicit it for whatever reason. Erdogan remains tethered to Europe while he goes off to buddy up to the CCP Boyz in Beijing and Putin in Moscow. People on all sides don't like him for it. Erdogan sides with the West on Syria however, and wants Assad out, so Putin and his supporters have their current reason to not like him.