U.S. and Russian Jets Clash Over Syria

[Ivanov]

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/06/19/u-s-and-russian-jets-clash-over-syria.html

 

 

[Battlefront.com]

unfortunately this is how a really bad situation can be made much worse.  Especially because one side seems to have zero regard for sticking to agreements to the point of risking an armed conflict.

Steve

[Sublime]

Yeah. When i read that news line I cringed.

I dont know if i felt better when I read it had happened last week and was over before I knew about it.. for days.. or if I felt worse because that means annihilation potentially on the horizon could have very little warning if some incident got out of control

[VladimirTarasov]

Guys I don't think one should worry about a incident like this, according to Russian MoD the US government didn't list that area in the no strike zone. And because of this incident the US and Russia will now increase cooperation in Syria further like mapping out areas. Obviously rebels backed by the US have been fighting Assad's regime, since the beginning of the conflict. And when these so called "rebel" groups are finished with ISIS they will eventually fight the SAA. So not listing zones that are being operated by US backed rebels will result in "accidents" like this. Russia has honored the US' call for halting operations in Aleppo to allow rebels to seperate from Al-Nusra. Thus making the SAA lose the advantage and even resulted in losses of territories. Either way, I don't see Russia or the US going to war against each other in Syria. 

[Anthony P.]

"The Daily Beast" "David Axe"

Yeah... Yeah no, I'm not reading that.

[Sgt Joch]

according to The Aviationist, there are conflicting reports as to what happened, including whether there was an intercept at all..

https://theaviationist.com/2016/06/20/u-s-fa-18-hornets-almost-clashed-with-russian-fighter-bombers-over-syria/

"Indeed, as reported by the CNN, U.S. F/A-18s were somehow close to engage Russian Sukhois (still not clear whether Su-34s or Su-24s as there are conflicting reports on the type of aircraft involved) that bombed U.S.-backed Syrian rebels near the Jordan border.

(...)

So, it looks like the American Hornets were pretty close to intercepting the Sukhois (in other reports they were able to visually ID the Russians), tried to contact the Russian planes as these carried out an air strike, but these simply ignored the calls on a previously agreed radio frequency."

Edited June 21, 2016 by Sgt Joch

[Sublime]

Vlad no offense but I dont believe anything official from the Russian MoD and everything from the US DoD with a grain of salt but being the evil capitalist American I am I still generally believe what they say though I do not doubt they will spin things or try to keep certain things in the back of newspapers.

However the US DoD still doesnt outright lie and say things like every airstrike made hit 100 percent of the targets 100 percent of the time no dead civilians.  The clusterfuk that is the Kunduz Hospital incident was all over our news and is still in it.. whilst I believe its the Russian MoD that made that outrageously idiotic claim.  

NATO doesnt claim such accuracy for its airplanes and we use a lot more smart weapons than you guys, have arguably better planes - at the very least equals on a lot of our planes and then more of our planes being clearly superior still i.e. F22s and B2s, Typhoons.

My worry isnt that Putler or America wants war. My worry is that the decidedly idiotic practices that the Russian military is doing... just for $hits and giggles could realllly get out of hand. For example buzzing the Donald Cook in the Black Sea. Those planes were waaaay to close. I dont think Americans would like it very much if a Russian plane kamikazied into a US ship and even if it was an accident there.d be absolute outrage and a feeling of we.ve been bringing this up to you endlessly for a few years and you guys keep poo pooing us about it.  Not to mention between 911 and WW2 i think Americans kind of have a... sensitive spot to uh airplanes crashing into stuff full of Americans.  So even if its perhaps subconcious an Su 24 slamming into a US ship would have consequences. Seriously if it didnt Id lose any remaining respect I have for our government leadership and their testicular fortitude. I dont mean attack Russia but just shrugging and saying oh sorry accident. No.

This practice of playing chicken with US airplanes. Aggressive maneuvering in the air that almost causes collisions in the air or at sea. Not good mojo. Even worse is its a war zone and you have to very prideful and nationalistic militaries operating there and one of them has had a serious Napoleon complex since 1991.

And what about Turkey?  Lets say another Su24 gets shot down for infringing on NATO airspace. Hows Putler going to save face? 

This is all a very dangerous game to play and I frankly think that the heads of all of our respective governments are complete douchebags to be playing with fire.  If a full scale war happened probably the only survivors would be Putler and whoever the US president is at the time!  Hows that for irony! Seriously it really gets me going to think of all the rich fat old men who play games with kids lives*, and play with the well being of societies in general just to play games or have some sense of  'we.re relevant again because any news coverage is good news coverage! Look America knows we exist again! It really irritates me to think that not only is this all happening but worse the Russian population is actually putting up with hardship and believing the sometimes outrageously stupid fabrications, invasion fear mongering, and manipulation of youthful energy and ignorance just to build up a military to a level you dont need. Because noones going to invade Russia. Not ever again. Not with all those nukes. Noone wants Russia anyways frankly. This entire military buildup is really so the Russian state can aggressively annex its neighbors and send expeditionary forces around. Why you guys would want the onus of what was termed 'Team America World Police' really boggles my mind.  Just because you have an expeditionary force again or can shoot some cruise missiles doesnt erase everything else and make Russia a great superpower again. And in fact I doubt Russia will ever be a superpower again.

* ( you.re really still a kid at 18 or 19. You havent lived long enough to rlly grasp your mortality or experienced enough to really be cautious with your life.Thats how the rich fat politicians have gotten kids to charge machine guns and goto war the last couple of thousand years.)

 

[Codename Duchess]

http://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/4071/was-russias-brazen-air-strike-on-us-backed-anti-isis-fighters-a-ploy

 

Rogeway suspects this was a ploy by the Russians to get access to the US Coalitions intelligence picture, which is something they've wanted since the onset of bombing. If only they could be trusted to not immediately start bombing anti-regime targets, they might have a chance of actual cooperation. However given that they didn't respond on dedicated channels it's pretty obvious this was deliberately provocative. Russian pilots aren't that unsafe and unprofessional. Especially as they returned to bomb it after the Hornets went to tank. Ballsy move by the Russians and I hope the Pentagon doesn't give them a single sticky note of intelligence.

[Sgt Joch]

Hmm, interesting details can be found if you google.

The "U.S. backed Rebels" at Al Tanf are the New Syrian Army, one of the last CIA/Pentagon trained and equipped Rebel group still active in Syria. Apparently, British, Jordanian and/or U.S. special forces are also embedded with the group. 

Not sure why the Russians would target them, the ostensible reason seems to be that some Islamic Rebel Groups affiliated with Al Qaeda are also with the NSA, but I cannot find independent verification of that.

Bellingcat has a nice overview of NSA equipment.

https://www.bellingcat.com/news/mena/2016/05/31/new-syrian-army-americas-tip-spear-isis-syrian-desert/

https://www.stratfor.com/analysis/brazen-russian-gambit-syria

Edited June 21, 2016 by Sgt Joch

[Wicky]

Send in the Welsh Air Force to sort things out...  :-)

[Vanir Ausf B]

11 minutes ago, Sgt Joch said:

Apparently, British and Syrian special forces are also embedded with the group. 

I predict some tension in the mess hall.

[Sgt Joch]

8 minutes ago, Vanir Ausf B said:

I predict some tension in the mess hall.

fixed! 

[Battlefront.com]

9 hours ago, Sgt Joch said:

Not sure why the Russians would target them,

Huh?  This I don't understand.  Are you saying you don't understand why Russia would bomb a group that is supported by the west to fight both the Syrian regime and ISIS?  That's been Russia's SOP since this fight started.  They define "terrorist" as anybody fighting against the Syrian regime and have in fact mostly targeted non-ISIS/Nusra groups since the very start of their air campaign.  The Russian goal is to keep the murderous Assad regime from collapsing, not to fight ISIS.

Steve

[VladimirTarasov]

11 hours ago, Sublime said:

Vlad no offense but I dont believe anything official from the Russian MoD and everything from the US DoD with a grain of salt but being the evil capitalist American I am I still generally believe what they say though I do not doubt they will spin things or try to keep certain things in the back of newspapers.

I don't believe the US DoD the same way you don't believe the Russian MoD how ever Al-Tanf is 300 kilometers away from agreed no target zones. And if the US will not share any information than we will bomb these groups. As they are not apart of the government of Syria or apart of the groups that are allied with the government of Syria.

11 hours ago, Sublime said:

However the US DoD still doesnt outright lie and say things like every airstrike made hit 100 percent of the targets 100 percent of the time no dead civilians.  The clusterfuk that is the Kunduz Hospital incident was all over our news and is still in it.. whilst I believe its the Russian MoD that made that outrageously idiotic claim.  

The Russian MoD claim for 100 percent of targets is saying all missions are against viable targets, as you can see in footage, dumb bombs sometimes deviate 10 meters or so to the right or left and even if it was said that it's 100% accuracy people in Russia can watch RuAF footage, in which sometimes the bomb misses its target. Civvies will die either way, if a JDAM is dropped in an urban environment no matter how much precision it has it's still a large bomb, shrapnel and the shockwave can kill civvies. Russia uses dumb bombs with similar explosive power, simply because we don't have the luxury of JDAM type weapons in large numbers. 

11 hours ago, Sublime said:

My worry isnt that Putler or America wants war. My worry is that the decidedly idiotic practices that the Russian military is doing... just for $hits and giggles could realllly get out of hand. For example buzzing the Donald Cook in the Black Sea. Those planes were waaaay to close. I dont think Americans would like it very much if a Russian plane kamikazied into a US ship and even if it was an accident there.d be absolute outrage and a feeling of we.ve been bringing this up to you endlessly for a few years and you guys keep poo pooing us about it.  Not to mention between 911 and WW2 i think Americans kind of have a... sensitive spot to uh airplanes crashing into stuff full of Americans.  So even if its perhaps subconcious an Su 24 slamming into a US ship would have consequences. Seriously if it didnt Id lose any remaining respect I have for our government leadership and their testicular fortitude. I dont mean attack Russia but just shrugging and saying oh sorry accident. No.

The Russian military doesn't have idiotic practices, if the US will send a ship 70 kilometers from a Russian base in international waters, you will have a SU-24M flying around you in international waters. Was the airplane too low? Yes, but don't come near my borders with your show of power.

11 hours ago, Sublime said:

And what about Turkey?  Lets say another Su24 gets shot down for infringing on NATO airspace. Hows Putler going to save face?

If the SU-24 actually violates Turkish air space, then I'll support the Turks. How ever if it is shot down say 1-2 kilometers away from the Turkish border heading westwards then I'd expect to see TU-160s and TU-95s dropping very long range cruise missiles at military targets.

11 hours ago, Sublime said:

And in fact I doubt Russia will ever be a superpower again.

The US is the only superpower you can be proud of it, how ever Russia does not care. We have our own interests, our own goals, and our own country's problems to worry about. If certain countries will mess with our goals and interests, we have enough power to defend ourselves, or be able to defend our interests. 

[Battlefront.com]

6 minutes ago, VladimirTarasov said:

I don't believe the US DoD the same way you don't believe the Russian MoD how ever Al-Tanf is 300 kilometers away from agreed no target zones. And if the US will not share any information than we will bomb these groups.

Have you considered that the US doesn't share intel with Russia because Russia is most likely going to pass the information onto the murderous tyrant that Russia is there to support?  And in this case the US did warn the Russians off the target and Russia decided to attack it anyway with a second mission.  I wonder what would happen if the US tried to strike one of Russia's supported non-Syrian rebel groups?

6 minutes ago, VladimirTarasov said:

The Russian MoD claim for 100 percent of targets is saying all missions are against viable targets,

No, this is incorrect.  Russian MoD says 100% targets hit accurately and 0 civilians killed.  It also says it is not using cluster munitions at all, not to mention over populated areas.  Both have also been proven to be outright lies.  Which, funny enough, Russian media accidentally uncovered, then tried to cover up, then uncovered again when it was clearly unable to undo the damage:

http://www.popularmechanics.com/military/weapons/a21451/russian-tv-accidentally-shows-cluster-bombs-in-syria/

And since Russian government and media lie about pretty much everything, we in the West aren't surprised by this.  In fact, we expect it.  To reuse an old joke...

Question = how can you tell if President Putin is lying?

Answer = if you see his lips move

6 minutes ago, VladimirTarasov said:

The Russian military doesn't have idiotic practices, if the US will send a ship 70 kilometers from a Russian base in international waters, you will have a SU-24M flying around you in international waters. Was the airplane too low? Yes, but don't come near my borders with your show of power.

Russia has no claim to international waters and buzzing a US warship could be seen as an act of war.  The US warship was within it's international rights to shoot down the Russian aircraft.  So clearly you do not understand how serious the Russian act of aggression is in legal terms or common sense terms.  Again, what do you think the Russian behavior would be if the US buzzed a Russian naval vessel in international waters near a NATO country?  Oh, like anywhere in the Baltic for example?

6 minutes ago, VladimirTarasov said:

If the SU-24 actually violates Turkish air space, then I'll support the Turks. How ever if it is shot down say 1-2 kilometers away from the Turkish border heading westwards then I'd expect to see TU-160s and TU-95s dropping very long range cruise missiles at military targets.

And yet you think Russia has a right to buzz bomb US naval vessels in International waters that are not conducting any sort of hostile activity, but Turkey doesn't have the right to shoot down an aircraft crossing into its airspace while conducting combat missions on its borders against people it supports despite it having issued strong warnings NOT to do this?  Clearly you have very confused standards.

6 minutes ago, VladimirTarasov said:

The US is the only superpower you can be proud of it, how ever Russia does not care. We have our own interests, our own goals, and our own country's problems to worry about.

Unfortunately Russia has a very bad habit of deliberately making it's problems the problems of others.  And yes, Russia clearly doesn't care.

6 minutes ago, VladimirTarasov said:

If certain countries will mess with our goals and interests, we have enough power to defend ourselves, or be able to defend our interests. 

Russia could try to have interests that don't come at the expense of others, or try something crazy like trying to make friends to further it's legitimate goals instead of creating enemies which only make it's legitimate goals harder to reach. 

More pragmatically, countries shouldn't enter into contests it can not win.  Russia going up against pretty much the whole world is rather stupid as a national policy, but from Putin's perspective it makes sense.  He's in it for the money and it is always easier to make money from conflict than it is from peace.

Steve

[LUCASWILLEN05]

20 hours ago, VladimirTarasov said:

Guys I don't think one should worry about a incident like this, according to Russian MoD the US government didn't list that area in the no strike zone. And because of this incident the US and Russia will now increase cooperation in Syria further like mapping out areas. Obviously rebels backed by the US have been fighting Assad's regime, since the beginning of the conflict. And when these so called "rebel" groups are finished with ISIS they will eventually fight the SAA. So not listing zones that are being operated by US backed rebels will result in "accidents" like this. Russia has honored the US' call for halting operations in Aleppo to allow rebels to seperate from Al-Nusra. Thus making the SAA lose the advantage and even resulted in losses of territories. Either way, I don't see Russia or the US going to war against each other in Syria.

Wars can easily be startedby mistake. There may be no intenon or desire for war but one could start over an incident like this given the current tensions However,both sides as you say seem to understand this and have probably already tken measures to prevennt another incident like this. The point is that Russian actions are perceived in th west as bing aggressive and provocative. Just as Russia views certain actions by Turkey (the shootdown ofRussian aircraf) as provocaive. In that atmosphere there is great potential for a small incident, no matter which side caused it.to escalae out of control very quickly. That us whhat people like Steve are saying. What youappear to be saying is that you don't think Russia intends anincident that could esclae into a magor war.

I think everybody here undersands Russia is trying to prop up Assad and secure your naval basng rightsat Latakia.Let's be honest thoseare Russia's reall motives for intervening in Syria. Perhaps however we should be discussng this on the CMSF forum?:-)

 

[VladimirTarasov]

2 hours ago, Battlefront.com said:

Have you considered that the US doesn't share intel with Russia because Russia is most likely going to pass the information onto the murderous tyrant that Russia is there to support?  And in this case the US did warn the Russians off the target and Russia decided to attack it anyway with a second mission.  I wonder what would happen if the US tried to strike one of Russia's supported non-Syrian rebel groups?

Quote

Oh please, Murderous tyrant? Sounds alot like justifications against Saddam and Qaddafi. How ever the case here is very different, I'm not going to get into an argument over who is a murderous tyrant and who isn't but when Russia supports peoples against regime in Kiev its bad but when US does it in Syria its all good? Both these events are very different but what you are doing here is very hypocritical. No offense of course, I'm not insulting you, I'm just saying.

2 hours ago, Battlefront.com said:

No, this is incorrect.  Russian MoD says 100% targets hit accurately and 0 civilians killed.  It also says it is not using cluster munitions at all, not to mention over populated areas.  Both have also been proven to be outright lies.  Which, funny enough, Russian media accidentally uncovered, then tried to cover up, then uncovered again when it was clearly unable to undo the damage: http://www.popularmechanics.com/military/weapons/a21451/russian-tv-accidentally-shows-cluster-bombs-in-syria/

Sure, I don't get why the RT would hide the cluster bombs, they are needed against such large groupings of targets. As the article says 352 cassettes if it has a 1% dud rate it'll leave 4 non exploded cassettes. In a war where terrorists are holding people in cities which are war zones, and expecting the government of Syria to some how be able to fight them head on into a urban environment without the use of other support weaponry is very childish. If these rebel groups are keeping people in the area they operate then this is their fault. The US in the beginning claimed no civvies were killed by their coalition in the anti ISIS war look at this https://airwars.org/ it also shows their claim on Russian collateral damage, how ever the US coalition isn't clean on this too, even with their 100% "precision" munition usage.

3 hours ago, Battlefront.com said:

Russia has no claim to international waters and buzzing a US warship could be seen as an act of war.  The US warship was within it's international rights to shoot down the Russian aircraft.  So clearly you do not understand how serious the Russian act of aggression is in legal terms or common sense terms.  Again, what do you think the Russian behavior would be if the US buzzed a Russian naval vessel in international waters near a NATO country?  Oh, like anywhere in the Baltic for example?

I mean we are one country with 28 countries now going hostile towards us over us annexing Crimea with a popular vote... And then you have Russia being grilled over supporting Russian/Ukrainian people in Ukraine but US is actively doing or did such things in Libya, Afghanistan, Syria and where else? Oh yeah Yugoslavia. So of course if a ship is going to be going to a drill in the Baltics 70 kilometers away from Russian bases, you'll have a Russian plane flying around you in international air space. The Russian jet buzzed the US ship close with no on board missiles, and the radars on the US ship would be able to detect emissions from these missiles if they were on. The US naval ship did not feel threatened, so they did not engage the air plane. How ever if you felt more threatened than the US ship I don't know what to tell you. The captain of the ship probably felt "annoyed" more than threatened.

[Sgt Joch]

7 hours ago, Battlefront.com said:

Huh?  This I don't understand.  Are you saying you don't understand why Russia would bomb a group that is supported by the west to fight both the Syrian regime and ISIS?  That's been Russia's SOP since this fight started.  They define "terrorist" as anybody fighting against the Syrian regime and have in fact mostly targeted non-ISIS/Nusra groups since the very start of their air campaign.  The Russian goal is to keep the murderous Assad regime from collapsing, not to fight ISIS.

Steve

Steve, did you look at the links I posted?

https://www.bellingcat.com/news/mena/2016/05/31/new-syrian-army-americas-tip-spear-isis-syrian-desert/

This is not your run of the mill rebel group. A cadre of SOFs with foreign, i.e. not Syrian troops?  1st class equipment including ATGM equipped Hummers, U.S. 120 mm mortars? U.S. Air and artillery support?

The "New Syrian Army" is a CIA  paramilitary unit allowing the US to have troops fighting ISIS while maintaining the fiction that it does not have "boots on the ground". No wonder the U.S. scrambled jets to intercept.

https://sofrep.com/44371/cia-funded-sof-trained-new-syrian-army-hits-ground/

Attacking the NSA is as close as you can get to attacking a U.S. military unit while maintaining plausible deniability.

So back to my original question, why would the Russians attack THAT unit and why NOW? Obviously the Russians are sending a message, but what has happened recently that would cause such a strong reaction?

Edited June 22, 2016 by Sgt Joch

[VladimirTarasov]

1 hour ago, LUCASWILLEN05 said:

I think everybody here undersands Russia is trying to prop up Assad and secure your naval basng rightsat Latakia.Let's be honest thoseare Russia's reall motives for intervening in Syria. Perhaps however we should be discussng this on the CMSF forum?:-)

That too, also we need an ally in the middle east, Iran is good and all but that's not gonna cut it.

 

[LUCASWILLEN05]

1 hour ago, VladimirTarasov said:

Oh please, Murderous tyrant? Sounds alot like justifications against Saddam and Qaddafi. How ever the case here is very different, I'm not going to get into an argument over who is a murderous tyrant and who isn't but when Russia supports peoples against regime in Kiev its bad but when US does it in Syria its all good? Both these events are very different but what you are doing here is very hypocritical. No offense of course, I'm not insulting you, I'm just saying.

Sure, I don't get why the RT would hide the cluster bombs, they are needed against such large groupings of targets. As the article says 352 cassettes if it has a 1% dud rate it'll leave 4 non exploded cassettes. In a war where terrorists are holding people in cities which are war zones, and expecting the government of Syria to some how be able to fight them head on into a urban environment without the use of other support weaponry is very childish. If these rebel groups are keeping people in the area they operate then this is their fault. The US in the beginning claimed no civvies were killed by their coalition in the anti ISIS war look at this https://airwars.org/ it also shows their claim on Russian collateral damage, how ever the US coalition isn't clean on this too, even with their 100% "precision" munition usage.

I mean we are one country with 28 countries now going hostile towards us over us annexing Crimea with a popular vote... And then you have Russia being grilled over supporting Russian/Ukrainian people in Ukraine but US is actively doing or did such things in Libya, Afghanistan, Syria and where else? Oh yeah Yugoslavia. So of course if a ship is going to be going to a drill in the Baltics 70 kilometers away from Russian bases, you'll have a Russian plane flying around you in international air space. The Russian jet buzzed the US ship close with no on board missiles, and the radars on the US ship would be able to detect emissions from these missiles if they were on. The US naval ship did not feel threatened, so they did not engage the air plane. How ever if you felt more threatened than the US ship I don't know what to tell you. The captain of the ship probably felt "annoyed" more than threatened.

Putin has been known cwrain deeply unpleasent methods. Poloium for example.While Putin mightnot be amurroustyrant comparedto someone like Kim Jon un or AbuBakr alBaghdadi he is aruthkess operator and is prepared to use overt methods beyond the recognise normz. Regarding Yugoslavia you forgetthet that the Serbs were close to committing genocide inKossovo whenNATO intervened.

The Russian annexationof Crimea is only one of the reasons the West has become more hostile in recent yers. Russian aovert actions in support of the pro moscow seperatists, hreats to invade Poland and the Baltic States (all NATO member states whethe Moscow likes it or not. Part of thismight be explaied by Russian paranoia dating fromOperation Barbarossa 2 but some kindof unprovoked Barbarossa 2 isn't gong to happen. If there were a Russian attack on NATO the most ha would be attemted durin a counter offensive is limited operations over the border. Cerainly there will b no "March onMoscow" orattempt at regime change. Maybe war ams might change were Russia to employ chemical weapons but such a Russian approach would likely achieve very little militarily givenmodernNATO NBC suits. A lot of Ukranianand/or Russian civillians would die though in the circumstances

[LUCASWILLEN05]

8 minutes ago, VladimirTarasov said:

That too, also we need an ally in the middle east, Iran is good and all but that's not gonna cut it.

 

Syria has been an ally of Russia/Soviet Union for a long time, certainly since he 1960s. From a Westrnpoint of view Syria might in many ways be regarded as a client state. Maybe you would regard a country like Souh Korea in the same wayalthough the US regards them as an ally.

In the Middle East Syria gives the Black Sea Fleet naval basing facilities at Latakia and other port. From a wider perspective Russia lost Iraq as an ally following he fall of addam Hussein..Perhaps certain diplomatic approaches have been made to Baghdad with a view to re-establishing an allianc.The Maliki government may not be too keen on the US but perhapsnot keen on Russia either. However thir Shi'ite bretheren in Iran seem to be a differen matter. Iran also tends to support Assad and goups like Hezbollah. It is all a very tangled and volatile scorpion's nest at the moment

[VladimirTarasov]

10 minutes ago, LUCASWILLEN05 said:

 Regarding Yugoslavia you forgetthet that the Serbs were close to committing genocide inKossovo whenNATO intervened.

I'm only replying to this because the other things is just a repeat of what is said over and over

Sure the Serb forces have committed genocide in the conflict, how ever your media never focused on the genocides committed by Albanians, Croatians, Bosnians against the Serbs as well. This does not justify what the Serbs did at all, how ever it does show how hypocritical one's government can be.

[VladimirTarasov]

5 minutes ago, LUCASWILLEN05 said:

Syria has been an ally of Russia/Soviet Union for a long time, certainly since he 1960s. From a Westrnpoint of view Syria might in many ways be regarded as a client state. Maybe you would regard a country like Souh Korea in the same wayalthough the US regards them as an ally.

In the Middle East Syria gives the Black Sea Fleet naval basing facilities at Latakia and other port. From a wider perspective Russia lost Iraq as an ally following he fall of addam Hussein..Perhaps certain diplomatic approaches have been made to Baghdad with a view to re-establishing an allianc.The Maliki government may not be too keen on the US but perhapsnot keen on Russia either. However thir Shi'ite bretheren in Iran seem to be a differen matter. Iran also tends to support Assad and goups like Hezbollah. It is all a very tangled and volatile scorpion's nest at the moment

Exactly why Russia supports our ally Syria. If the Syrian government is toppled it is Libya 2.0, and Russia now lost its port and influence in the region yet again to groups that are supported by the US.

[Sublime]

Id say this is already way worse than Libya 2.0 and there hasnt even been a regime change yet.

Oh and we supported the people overthrowing the government in Ukraine. Key thing there. We supported the PEOPLE. Thats different than supporting a state that broke up peaceful protests by mass murder. Assad brought this bs on himself. Barrel bombs and giggling about dead countrymen as a result of his actions. A despicable character.

 

Oh and we didnt engineer a coup in Kiev. We just supported the people in Ukraine when they basically en masse tried to come to the West and suffered for it. Even then we really havent done much to support the Ukrainians  theres really no comparison at all there to say Syria. In fact I hate to say it but all of your examples are unique situations and not just broadly applicable across the board. And all the arguments about well you did this in 1999 and etc are silly. Almost 20 years ago. If Russia was actually a democracy you.d have seen a couple different governments through by now. I guess if you.re seeing the same " president" on tv almost your entire life its easy to lose track of time. You know about all these 'you did this or x! So you shouldnt say anything about us doing worse now!' Is silly. In Russia do you have the saying "2 wrongs dont make a right"?

Edited June 22, 2016 by Sublime

[LUCASWILLEN05]

21 minutes ago, VladimirTarasov said:

Exactly why Russia supports our ally Syria. If the Syrian government is toppled it is Libya 2.0, and Russia now lost its port and influence in the region yet again to groups that are supported by the US.

Or groups hostile to both the US and Russia like ISIS. Russia however seem to concentrate on groups other than ISIS but are oppoosed to Damascus Would it not be better if Russia and the US brokered a ceasefire between Assad and the rebel groups not associated with ISIS and preferably fighting it. After that negotiate a political settlement based onpartition of Syia and Iraq beween the main religious and ethnic groups. Since Latakia is held by the Alawites some form of deal allowing Russia to continue access to the naval basing facilities in a new countryI shall call South Syria. Essemtially this will be the territores around Damscus and up the coast to include Latakia. The rebels get their own country North Syria. A similar split in Iraq essentially between th Sunnis, Shi'ites and Kurds. Maybe anindpendent Kurdistan but the Turks will ate that idea