Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Loud Whispers]

I never knew the black eyed peas could be so applicable to middle eastern politics

Wheere is the loooove

[Strife26]

They're very similar in that the application of fire should be strongly considered as a possible solution.

[Guardian G.I.]

The 7 day ceasefire is over, and the moment fighting started again (on more intense level, as even during ceasefire  there was still fighting here and there), the UN aid convoy got hit by russia or saa airstrike near aleppo. More than 10, including the head of syria red cross reported killed in the bombing

To make things worse, US Secretary of State John Kerry has explicitly called for an enactment of a no-fly zone in Syria, implied to be enforced against Syria and Russia.
It's very unlikely that either of them would agree to that, after what happened in Libya years ago. There's only one way the USA can enforce their plans.

EDIT: Interestingly enough, BBC have changed the title of their article. Previously, it used to be something like "Kerry urges Syria no-fly zones"; now it's simply "John Kerry urges planes to be grounded" - a much softer tone.

[Zangi]

Game of War

The Prize: 'Influence' over Syria. 
The Players: US, Russia, Turkey, Iran, 'The West', and Saudi Arabia
Primary Chess Pieces: 'Rebels' and Regime
Wild Cards: ISIS, Kurds, and 'Rebels'

[miljan]

That is nothing new. John Kerry was pushing for a no fly zone for a long time, openly. But without giving something to russia that will not happen. And any no fly zone is not possible if russia doesnt agree with it.

[Sheb]

I wonder if US intel is good enough to enforce a No Flight Zone on the Syrian Air Force whithout attacking Russia directly. After the first major gas attacks, they were a number of plans for limited strike on Syrian airfield using Tomahawks.

[miljan]

This is not a video game. You can see usa with all their technology and experience can not even make difference between over 100 saa troops and isis troops that didnt change location for a long time. Not even gonna talk sending missile that trajectory can be saw like attack on russian bases will be great way to start a war with them, as they will need to react with anti air potential on the attack as a lot of air basses and syrria air force are near center of syria. The only way no fly zone can be made is if they somehow made a deal with russia.

[Sheb]

Well, planes are bigger and easier to identify than ground troops. Such a strike would be much better prepared than just another strike on ISIS. Also, the good thing if you use tomahawk is that you don't really care if Russia shoots some of the down.

[miljan]

They are not easier to identify in hostile air space where you can not  scout. You need to rely on satellite images, making it a lot harder than identifying 100 saa with your drones. The bad thing is you put at risk your forces in the region from russian counter attack. You are literally opening fire (and this is a huge operation that will no be over fast) and are waiting for a response from russia, that can be anything, and hoping they do not attack and that they recognize that you are attacking only SAA forces, and are actually only hitting them and not accidentally russian forces or personnel. You are  here talking about balancing on edge of starting a open war with russia, for making a no fly zone of only syrian air crafts (by destroying most of their air potential). I guess it theoretically possible, but not easy and for sure not worth the gamble as you get little if it works, and lose a lot of it doesnt

[Sheb]

On the other hand, what you say about risking a war is also the calculation that Russia would have to make: do you risk a war with the US to protect Syrian crafts? 

[miljan]

The thing is the defender doesnt need to do calculations to defend him self from a attack. And this big operation that is not in advance provided to russia will always look as a attack on their forces also, and they will need to react fast, from syria and its fleets around it. USA as an attacker is where all the calculation is done and is one to gamble, not russia for defending its forces.

The other way around is that USA in advance says it will attack syria forces, and if russia protects it, there will be all out war, but even that is a USA gamble on how russia will react, and the thing is, US doesn't care that much about syria to risk and start a direct war with russia. US as attacker is the first one that needs to make a move, and russia to react to it. So the calculation and gamble is on US side. And we know anything like that will not happen as its very illogical thing to do.

[Sheb]

There won't be an all-out war. But it is true that the US has refused to strike Regime targets so far, and I don't see Obama changing his calculus right now, but damn I'd love to see some retaliation for crap like bombing the UN convoy.

[miljan]

There won't be an all-out war. But it is true that the US has refused to strike Regime targets so far, and I don't see Obama changing his calculus right now, but damn I'd love to see some retaliation for crap like bombing the UN convoy.

Its not that much to obama, as it is to current situation on the ground, and russia presence.
Yea, UN bombing was not on purpose. Unfortunately, the convoy was there when the case fire expired, and also videos recorded a lot of rebel armored cars going around the convoy, so my guess is they where the targets, and they didn't care as always for other casualties.

[Sheb]

I'm not so sure about the "not on purpose" part. It fits with the Russia/Syrian strategy to prevent aids coming into Aleppo (the much-touted "humanitarian corridors" let people leave, but not aid in) and the stalling of aid during the week of the ceasefire. Also, wasn't the convoy bombed hours after Assad unilaterally called off the truce before the negotiated end?

And frankly, I'd put it up to Obama more than the Russia presence. He didn't strike the regime even after the infamous "red line" stuff, even though not a Russian was in sight.

[miljan]

If they wanted to prevent aid than they could stop the convoy form entering the syria. Syrian government allowed the UN convoy in. UN does not work without approval of syrian government. So your assumption is not correct. There was no negotiation when convoy was bombed. negotiation for the ceasefire happened a week ago. Government and part of FSA agreed for ceasefire for 7 days. There where talks about prolonging the ceasefire  during this 7 days, but nothing happened of it, and the fighting resumed after the 7 day. There was nothing unilaterally done by syrian government, and its probably more some of the medias wanting to put the blame again on syrian government for not prolonging the ceasefire.

Actually Obama wanted to strike syria, and moved the fleet probably for preparation for bombing but was blocked by russia back then, and some type of deal was made. I dont remember was the deal about disarming the chemical weapons from syria or was that before it, was long time ago. Its very little to do with obama and more with situation on the ground and as said russia direct involvement now with syria. US can not do anymore what ever they want if second power is directly in play. Only if russia or some other country acted more directly against US involvement in past 20 years, we would not have this huge fuck up today