Syrian War: News #18

Tingsay wrote:How can the S-200 not differentiate between F-16 and a turbopop??? Is it that bad of an AD?

dino00 wrote:
So let me ask:
Did you see Strategic Patience when Georgia atacked Russian peacekeapers?
Did you see Strategic Patience when Ukrain atacked Russian people?

What would you do? War with Ukrain? War with Israel?

Putin is the president the Resintence needs, every step has to be prepared.

ATLASCUB wrote:Going by Putin's comments, he's gonna let this pass.

ATLASCUB wrote:G
Chalk up another 15 dead to the tally..... what's it now? In the hundreds of Russian dead?

How many Israeli soldiers dead? How many American soldiers dead? ... for a conflict these countries masterminded and started? Yeah that's what I thought....  

ultimatewarrior wrote:Putin blocked delivery of MiG-29 M / M2 Syria PAID FOR before the war, refuses S-300 to Syria, refuses S-300 for Lebanon. Allows Israel to bomb Syria day and night. Unfortunately, as long as Putin is in office, many more Russian servicemen will die unnecessary deaths in Syria. Very unfortunate.

Neutrality wrote:Keyboard warriors

All talk but no walk, I'm 100% sure of this. None of you would go into the trenches or storm frontlines if the shit REALLY hit the fan. No, you'd rather desert.

Neutrality wrote:Keyboard warriors

All talk but no walk, I'm 100% sure of this. None of you would go into the trenches or storm frontlines if the shit REALLY hit the fan. No, you'd rather desert.

Neutrality wrote:Keyboard warriors

All talk but no walk, I'm 100% sure of this. None of you would go into the trenches or storm frontlines if the shit REALLY hit the fan. No, you'd rather desert.

UPDATE: Some very important info. Really important which clarifies a lot (in Russian):

Syrian AD didn't have IFF codes, which Russia (understandably) didn't want to provide. So, that means the integration with SAA's AD is done by simpler protocols.

https://zvezdaweekly.ru/news/t/20189181420-Dxjyv.html

Neutrality wrote:Keyboard warriors

All talk but no walk, I'm 100% sure of this. None of you would go into the trenches or storm frontlines if the shit REALLY hit the fan. No, you'd rather desert.

flamming_python wrote:

Karl Haushofer wrote:.....

Russia Insider used to be very pro-Putin just a few years ago. Lately they have turned a lot more critical towards him.

Oh yeah, just type in 'Grandmaster' into their search engine; back 1-2 years ago they were all hailing him as this Grandmaster that checkmates the West at every move.

lol

Powerpoint extract from a conference given by Admiral Cebrowski at the Pentagon , on 23 July 2003. Left, in mauve, the zone in which the state structures have to be destroyed.

Although the White House and Russia have agreed to end the proxy war fought by jihadists in Syria, peace is a long time coming. Why?

Why is there a war against Syria?
Contrary to the idea carefully sown by seven years of propaganda, the war against Syria is not a « revolution which went wrong ». It was decided by the Pentagon in September 2001, then prepared for many years, admittedly with a few difficulties.

A war in preparation for a decade

JPEG - 38.6 kb
The preparation of the war is explained in depth in Thierry Meyssan’s latest book. It is already available in French, Spanish, Russian and Turkish. It will be published in September in English, Arab and Italian.
A reminder of the main stages of the planning of the war:
- In September 2001, US Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld adopted the strategy of Admiral Arthur Cebrowski, which specified that the state structures of half of the world had to be destroyed. For those states whose economy is globalised, the United States would control the access to the natural resources of those regions not connected to the global economy. The Pentagon commenced its work by « remodelling » the « Greater Middle East » [1].
- On 12 December 2003, George Bush Jr. signed the Syria Accountability and Lebanese Sovereignty Restoration Act. From that moment on, the President of the United States enjoyed the right to go to war with Syria without having to ask Congress for approval [2].
- The Lebanese civil war (1978-90) ended with the Taif Agreement. At the request of the Arab League, and with the approbation of the UN Security Council, the Syrian Arab Army came to the assistance of the Lebanese army in disarming the militias, then, acting as a Peace Force, stabilised the country. Thereafter, Israël accused Syria of having occupied Lebanon, which makes no sense at all. [3]
- In 2004, during the summit of the Arab League in Tunis, President Ben Ali attempted to push through a motion authorising the League to legitimise the use of force against member states who refused to respect the League’s brand new Human Rights Charter.
- In 2005, the CIA organised the Cedar revolution in Lebanon. By assassinating Sunni leader Rafic Hariri and blaming the Christian President of Lebanon and the Alaouite President of Syria, they hoped to trigger a Sunni uprising against the Syrian Peace Forces. With the Marines ready to disembark in Beïrut, Syria withdrew on its own initiative, and the tension was dissipated [4].
- In 2006, Dick Cheney tasked his daughter Liz with creating the « Iran Syria Policy and Operations Group ». They organised the Israeli attack against Hezbollah, thinking that they would be unable to resist for long. US Marines were then intended to disembark in Beïrut and continue their march of « liberation » on Damascus. However, the operation failed, and after 33 days of combat, Israël had to retreat [5].
- In 2008, Washington once again tried to create conflict with Lebanon as its flash point. Prime Minister Fouad Siniora decided to cut the internal communications of the Resistance and to interrupt air transport with Teheran. Within a few hours, Hezbollah had inverted the Western military system and replaced all of its infrastructures.
- In 2010, Washington adopted the strategy of « leading from behind ». The Obama administration handed the attacks on Libya and Syria to France and the United Kingdom respectively (Lancaster House agreements).
- In 2011, beginning of military operations in Syria.

It is therefore absurd to speak of the war against Syria as a spontaneous event sui generis [6].

Indirect war

The original feature of the war against Syria is that although it was declared by states (the « Friends of Syria »), it was in reality fought almost exclusively by non-state armies, the jihadists.

During the seven years of this war, more than 250,000 combatants arrived from overseas to fight against the Syrian Arab Republic. They were without doubt little more than cannon fodder, and insufficiently trained, but during the first four years of the conflict, these soldiers were better armed than the Syrian Arab Army. The most important arms traffic in History was organised in order to keep the jihadists supplied with war materials [7].

The Western powers had not used mercenaries on this scale since the European Renaissance [8].

It is therefore absurd to speak of a « revolution that went wrong ».

A war supervised by allies who have their own objectives
By asking Israël to attack Lebanon on their behalf, then by handing over the wars on Libya and Syria to France and the United Kingdom, and finally by using the NATO installations in Turkey, the Pentagon allowed its plan to be confounded by its allies.

Just as in all wars, the leading country has to promise its obedient allies that they will be awarded a return on their investment. However, with the entry of Russia into the war, Western victory became impossible. Every one of the United States allies turned progressively back towards its own strategy in the region. With time, the war objectives of the allies gained the upper hand over those of the United States, who refused to invest as much as they should have done, militarily speaking.

Israël

Pursuing the colonial ideology of some of its founding fathers, Israël implemented a policy of division intended to split its larger neighbours into a collection of small countries which were to be ethnically or religiously homogeneous. It therefore supported - in vain - the division of Lebanon into two states, one Muslim and one Christian, or again the creation of a Kurdistan in Iraq, then later in Syria. We do not have the Israëli strategic documents, but retrospectively, the line followed by Tel-Aviv corresponds to the « Yinon plan » of 1982 [9] or that of the Institute for Advanced Strategic and Political Studies of 1996 [10].

The Israëli strategy stayed within the limits of the « remodelling of the Greater Middle East » designed by Rumsfeld and Cebrowski. However, it did not have anything like the same objective - the Pentagon wanted to control the access to the region’s riches by the developed countries, while Israël wanted to ensure that none of its neighbours could become strong enough to challenge it.

The United Kingdom and France

The United Kingdom and France fell back on their colonial policy, as it was defined at the moment of the fall of the Ottoman Empire and the division of the Middle East (the Sykes-Picot agreements).

The British used a replay of the « Great Arab Revolt of 1915 » that Lawrence of Arabia had set up against the Ottomans. At that time, they had promised freedom to all Arabs if they would throw off the shackles of the Ottoman Empire and place the Wahhabites in power, This time they promised freedom if they would overthrow all their national governments and replace them with the Muslim Brotherhood. But neither in 1915, when the British Empire replaced the Ottoman Empire, nor in 2011, did the Arabs find their liberty. That was the « Arab Spring » plan of 2011 [11].

The French were seeking to re-establish the mandate on Syria which had been handed to them by the League of Nations. This was explained by Picot’s great-nephew (as in the Sykes-Picot agreements), ex- President Giscard d’Estaing [12]. And that is what President Hollande demanded during his visit to the United Nations, in September 2015. Just as in 1921, when France stood for the ethnic separation of the Kurds from the Arabs, it therefore defended the creation of a Kurdistan, not on its historic territory in Turkey, but anywhere, so long as it was on Arab land in Syria.

Turkey

As for Turkey, it dreamed of realising the promise of its founder, Mustafa Kemal Atatürk, the « National Pact » (Misak-ı Millî) [13], adopted by the Ottoman Parliament on 12 February 1920. Its intention was to annex Northern Syria, including Aleppo, and also to eliminate the Christians, including the Catholics in Maaloula and the Armenians in Kessab.

Turkey entered into conflict with the other allies – with the Israëlis because they sought to annex Northern Syria rather than making it autonomous – with the British because they wanted to re-establish the Ottoman Caliphate - and with the French because they sought to create an independent Kurdistan in Syria. Above all, it entered into conflict with the United States themselves because they made no secret of wanting to destroy Syria after having dismantled it [14].

How to escape from this war?
After seven years of combat, the Syrian state is still standing. The Syrian Arab Republic and its allies, Russia, Iran and the Hezbollah, are victorious. The foreign armies (the jihadists) have suffered a crushing defeat, but not their commanders – the United States, Israël, the United Kingdom, France and Turkey.

Not only has the war re-awoken the ambitions of the beginning of the 20th century, but none of the protagonists who have not paid for their defeat in blood are ready to abandon the fight.

It may seem stupid to want to start over with a war which has already been lost by the jihadists. The presence of the Russian army makes impossible any direct confrontation. Far from being eliminated, the Syrian population is now battle-hardened, ready to suffer even more hardship, and is much better armed than before. Above all, it has given the situation some serious thought, and is less manipulable than it was in 2011. However, just as before, Western political rhetoric has once again taken up its refrain « Bachar must go ».

Logically, therefore, the conflict will have to start again on another battle-field. While in the past, Admiral Cebrowski had planned to take the next stage of the war to Central Asia and the South-East, his successors will first have to finish the job in the Greater Middle East. They are currently studying the possibility of relighting the fire in Iraq, as we see with the spectacular about-face of the Rohani administration and the riots in Bassorah.

LMFS wrote:We all would like to see action from Russia, myself the first, because the villainy of Israel's behaviour in Syria is beyond words, and because it is also fair to think that allowing these provocations is not the right way to put and end to them. But just as food for thought I submit what both Martyanov and the Saker answered to P. Craig Roberts exactly about this very crucial issue.

The West is MAD to escalate tensions with Russia as main military power of the non-aligned block, since their power is decaying and each passing day is bringing closer their demise. Russia (rather Putin, since there are so many other people in disagreement) is simply refusing to engage and trying as hard as he can to buy time for the multipolar block to become an economic and political alternative to the West, without the need of a military conflict which in best case would delay the Russian growth by decades and in worst put an end to the world as we know it. This is obviously the correct thing to be tried, the only question is whether he will manage to pull it off or whether the provocations will escalate to the point where they must be met with lethal force against the West. Since the later is clearly ruled by soulless creatures (I refuse to consider them complete humans due to their extreme emotional dysfunctions) that would not doubt for a second to stage a massive provocation against Russians or a false flag (WMD included) on their own population, they have all escalation possibilities at their disposal and Russia's walk on the tight rope is an extremely complicated feat, unless the millions of intellectual zombies in the world wake up by some miracle and prevent something really stupid to happen. Not holding my breath for it sadly.

Nevertheless I would expect more support for a guy which is bearing a HUGE responsibility for the future of the whole world and taking hits to literally save our asses. Unless of course, you think the West is not trying to escalate tensions with Russia and will be deterred by some testicular action here and there. As always, to correctly assess the opponent is the key. While military experts in the West would certainly opt for restraint, it is very obvious that the political power is not in their hands but in those of some very disturbed maniacs (some read about "dark triad" personality traits and its characteristics is recommended) who are:
- clueless about military, so cannot really assess the risk of blowback their provocations have. By nature and life training they are experts in graving power, not in the boring technicalities needed to use it properly
- due to impulsive behaviour, risk affinity and adventurism, have no thoughtful consideration of consequences like WWIII
- in their total lack of empathy, will bear no remorse for one or one billion deaths. They mean exactly the same to them: nothing
- as narcissists and self-worshippers, they are ready to accept nothing else than submission.

Therefore to delay the conflict until those maniacs are taken down by internal rivals or their own populations is the only sane approach, even when it may very well not work.

Stealthflanker wrote:

Even X-band narrow beamwidth radar like the 5N62 will have quite large resolution cell which can be exploited. At 150 km range the typical range of S-200. The 5N62 will have like 2576 m x 2576 m Resolution cell (assume 1.4 degrees of beamwidth) The range resolution is probably big too so.. the F-16 can be like 1000m above the Il-20 and unresolved.

The missile will simply go to the center of it..and pick one with biggest return. or average the return and go to center which could be the Il-20.