Russian military intervention and aid to Syria #2

JohninMK wrote:Confirmation that the RuAF is operating right on the Turkish border.

I suppose if its OK for Turkish F-16s to overfly Syria to attack the Kurds, and ISIS of course, then it must also be OK for Su-25s to overfly Turkey to attack ISIS.

The Turkish Foreign Ministry has summoned Russian Ambassador to Turkey Andrey Karlov over an alleged violation of Turkish airspace by a Russian warplane, the ministry said in a statement Monday.

ANKARA (Sputnik) – According to the statement, a Russian warplane violated Turkish airspace in the province of Hatay near Syria on October 3. The aircraft left Turkish airspace after being intercepted by two Turkish F-16 fighter jets.

Read more: http://sputniknews.com/world/20151005/1028027560/turkey-russia-airspace.html#ixzz3ngt7LqlJ

All sorted then

ANKARA (Sputnik) – Moscow told Ankara that the Russian aircraft that violated Turkish airspace was a mistake and that it would not happen again, Turkish Prime Minister Ahmet Davutoglu said Monday.

Earlier on Monday, the Turkish Foreign Ministry said a Russian military aircraft had violated the country’s airspace on October 3 from Syria.

"We contacted Russia through diplomatic channels and were told that Russia respects Turkey’s borders and that incident occurred because of misunderstanding, but won’t happen again," Davutoglu said in an interview aired by Turkey’s Haberturk television channel.

The Russian aircraft left Turkish airspace after being intercepted by two Turkish F-16 fighter jets.

Read more: http://sputniknews.com/middleeast/20151005/1028036764/russia-turkey-airspace-border-violation.html#ixzz3nhBCpoYq

Krasukha-4 CONFIRMED

sputniknews.com/world/20151005/1028033057/syria-russia-electronic-warfare-systems.html

JohninMK wrote:
Looks to be on the wrong truck to be a SPN-3,4,30

http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-REB-Systems.html

What would we do without ausairpower.net?

Seems to be pointing up the line of approach, which looks to be North.

Well im lookin at the antenna arrangement.

But then yes im mistaken.. it's indeed Krasukha 4. I forget that Krasukha is a family of jammer (there is Krasukha 2)

max steel wrote:

How long before Russia establishes a forward operating base in the Damascus area? Or skips to an Iraqi base? Get at ISIS from the east and west.

Washington Post is actually useful for once, Russian assets in Syria:


Who controls what:



List of idiots from Homs:

I find it surprising how come so called rebels have a foothold near Golan heights area in Syria ? There is no link btwn isis held area with that region then how

"Free Syrian Army Command Asks Russia for Help Against ISIL

The representative of the Euphrates Volcano command of the FSA and the Kurdish YPG told Sputnik that the command supports Russia's operation against ISIL and requests military help................."

Read more: http://sputniknews.com/middleeast/20151005/1028038570/syria-fsa-command-asks-russia-for-help.html#ixzz3nhVKIdmk

nknown MiG-29 in the area of the Syrian-Turkish border seized as a target two Turkish F-16 aircraft. This was stated by the Turkish General staff, reports TASS.
The incident occurred on October 4,

???

Solncepek wrote:nknown MiG-29 in the area of the Syrian-Turkish border seized as a target two Turkish F-16 aircraft. This was stated by the Turkish General staff, reports TASS.
The incident occurred on October 4,

???

http://tass.ru/mezhdunarodnaya-panorama/2318628

Turkish General Staff: unspecified MIG-29 pursued two Turkish F-16s near the border with Syria

ANKARA, October 5th. / Correspondent. Kirill Zharov TASS /. MiG-29 near the Syrian-Turkish border, took as a goal, two Turkish F-16 aircraft.
This was announced by the Turkish General Staff, stated that "the nationality of the aircraft has not been established."
The incident occurred on October 4. "Ten F-16 (the Turkish Air Force) patrolling near the Turkish-Syrian border. During this mission of the MiG-29 with an unidentified nationality for five minutes and 40 seconds, held at gunpoint his radar two of our F-16s" - said the General Staff.
Other details of the Defense Ministry did not provide. Presumably, the MIG-29 was in the airspace of Syria and did not violate the Turkish border.
The statement of the Turkish Foreign Ministry
Earlier, the Turkish Foreign Ministry said that Russian fighter violated Turkish airspace. According to the Foreign Ministry, the incident took place on October 3rd.

"October 3 at 12:08 (Moscow time coincides with) owned by Russian aircraft violated our airspace near Yayladygy Hatay Province. After two F-16 Turkish Air Force, conducted patrols in the area, went to intercept the Russian aircraft left Turkish airspace at the Syrian track, "- says in a statement the Foreign Ministry.
"Russia's ambassador to Ankara was summoned to the Foreign Ministry, was brought strong protest from the deputy adviser to the Minister", - reported in the department.
The Kremlin's reaction
On Monday, the president's press secretary Dmitry Peskov said that Russia will check the information on violations of the airspace of Turkey, which is alleged to have committed a Russian fighter jet.
"With regard to this case, really, our ambassador was summoned to the Foreign Ministry (Turkey), he was given a note - he said. - There's mention of certain facts to be checked".
At the same time the Kremlin official said that "the relationship (for Russia) with Turkey is very complex, have a solid foundation."

seeing how Turkey has no problems to violate Syrian airspace, then Russia should make it clear that if they continue to violate Syrian airspace, that they will be targeted and potentially shot down. Or they will violate Turkeys airspace.

sepheronx wrote:...

The problem with this statement is, that there is no russian MIG-29s in Syria...

Militarov wrote:

Cyberspec wrote:

magnumcromagnon wrote:

Looks more like some MRLS munition

I belive its one of the BM-30 rocket derivates. Tho they reported this as "unexploded Russian bomb".

Yes, I doubled checked, and it appears to be MRLS.

Russia must work with, not against, America in Syria

full

We all know how the first world war started. Individual acts of violence cumulatively set in motion irreversible military operations that lacked overall strategic guidance as well as a larger clarity of purpose. The rest is history: a four-year slaughter conducted for the sake of ambitious goals largely formulated ex post facto by the victorious powers.

There is still time to avert a painful repetition, this time exploding in the Middle East, and in Syria specifically. I supported President Barack Obama’s initial decision not to use force in the Syrian tragedy. The use of US power to remove President Bashar al-Assad from office — so eagerly advocated by some of our friends in the Middle East — made no sense in the absence of genuine domestic consensus in favour of it either in Syria or in America. Moreover, whether we like it or not, Mr Assad was neither inclined to accommodate Washington’s urgings that he step down nor intimidated by helter-skelter US efforts to organise effective democratic resistance to his rule.

A breakthrough has since been achieved, however, in the very difficult nuclear negotiations with Iran, in which both the US and Russia co-operated with other leading powers to overcome the obstacles. One might have thought, therefore, that the next phase in coping with the Syrian problem might involve a renewed effort to resolve it, this time with the help of such important signatories as China and Russia.

Instead, Moscow has chosen to intervene militarily, but without political or tactical co-operation with the US — the principal foreign power engaged in direct, if not very effective, efforts to unseat Mr Assad. In doing so it allegedly launched air attacks at Syrian elements that are sponsored, trained and equipped by the Americans, inflicting damage and causing casualties. At best, it was a display of Russian military incompetence; at worst, evidence of a dangerous desire to highlight American political impotence.

In either case, the future of the region, and American credibility among the states of the Middle East, are both at stake. In these rapidly unfolding circumstances the US has only one real option if it is to protect its wider stakes in the region: to convey to Moscow the demand that it cease and desist from military actions that directly affect American assets. Russia has every right to support Mr Assad, if it so wishes — but any repetition of what has just transpired should prompt US retaliation.

The Russian naval and air presences in Syria are vulnerable, isolated geographically from their homeland. They could be “disarmed” if they persist in provoking the US. But, better still, Russia might be persuaded to act with the US in seeking a wider accommodation to a regional problem that transcends the interests of a single state.

Were that to happen, even some limited American-Russian political and military collaboration on the Middle East might prompt a further positive geopolitical development: constructive engagement on the part of China in containing the dangers of a wider Middle East explosion. Beijing has a significant economic stake in the prevention of a larger Middle East conflict. It should not only be interested in preventing the further spread of chaos but also in increasing its own regional influence.

France and Britain can no longer play a decisive role in the Middle East. The US is finding it hard to play such a role alone. The region itself is split on religious, political, ethnical and territorial lines, and slipping into widening violence. This calls for outside assistance but not for a new form of neocolonial domination. US power, intelligently and decisively applied in pursuit of a new formula for regional stability, is needed.

China would doubtless prefer to stay on the sidelines. It might calculate that it will then be in a better position to pick up the pieces. But the regional chaos could easily spread northeastward, eventually engulfing central and northeastern Asia. Both Russia and then China could be adversely affected. But American interests and America’s friends — not to mention regional stability — would also suffer. It is time, therefore, for strategic boldness.

The writer was national security adviser to Jimmy Carter, former US president

Akula971 wrote:Krasukha-4 CONFIRMED

sputniknews.com/world/20151005/1028033057/syria-russia-electronic-warfare-systems.html

I luv see the krazuk jam the f22

Solncepek wrote:Russia must work with, not against, America in Syria
The Russian naval and air presences in Syria are vulnerable, isolated geographically from their homeland. They could be “disarmed” if they persist in provoking the US. But, better still, Russia might be persuaded to act with the US in seeking a wider accommodation to a regional problem that transcends the interests of a single state.

With all due respect to the man's reputation but how is he so certain about the US "disarming" a Russian base? One look at the map and it should be clear who's going to come up with a much harsher response if it comes down to provocations. This accentuates the core logic of American geopolitics. Notice how he mentions a military option before the "common interests" option? They didn't shoot at Russian paratroopers in Pristina airport, they didn't respond when the Russian navy was ramming their ships in the Black Sea and I'm positive they won't lift a finger in Syria. All talk but no walk.

Oh boy, just look and listen at all the drama from NATO and particularly Stoltenberg and Kerry about this incident with the violation of Turkey's air space. Perhaps let Turkey and Russia figure it out between themselves? Turkey is a big boy and I'm fairly certain it can handle itself. Violating Syria's air space is ofcourse nothing to sweat about but oh no when a nation with bigger balls than you does the same.

Neutrality wrote:

Solncepek wrote:Russia must work with, not against, America in Syria
The Russian naval and air presences in Syria are vulnerable, isolated geographically from their homeland. They could be “disarmed” if they persist in provoking the US. But, better still, Russia might be persuaded to act with the US in seeking a wider accommodation to a regional problem that transcends the interests of a single state.

With all due respect to the man's reputation but how is he so certain about the US "disarming" a Russian base? One look at the map and it should be clear who's going to come up with a much harsher response if it comes down to provocations. This accentuates the core logic of American geopolitics. Notice how he mentions a military option before the "common interests" option? They didn't shoot at Russian paratroopers in Pristina airport, they didn't respond when the Russian navy was ramming their ships in the Black Sea and I'm positive they won't lift a finger in Syria. All talk but no walk.

It was a written by the notorious jackass Zbignew Brzezinski, that's all you need to know!

Get this: http://www.demorgen.be/buitenland/rusland-leger-heeft-afgelopen-24-uur-negen-stellingen-van-is-gebombardeerd-a2479310/

This particular line:

Volgens andere bronnen trof de Russische luchtmacht echter vooral stellingen van andere groeperingen zoals het al-Nusra Front, de Syrische tak van de terreurorganisatie al-Qaida.

Translation: "According to other sources however, the Russian air force struck mostly fortifications of other groups like the al-Nusra Front. The Syrian branch of AQ".

It's unbelievable but the author is deliberately trying to make the reader feel sorry for AQ's proxies. So now our dear MSM have to lower themselves to the point where they defend and feel sorrow for these organizations? Despicable.

About the question of russian sorties of 20 per day and if it should expand their operations.

I think they first want to establish a clear and safe perimeters for them and syrians to reinforce their echelons and canalize their resources, also first check NATO's and Israels responses and measures, before trying to get to far out of safety.

That is exactly why ECM/EW and modern and highly capable aircrafts like Su-30M are there. I would urge Syria to announce openly that they give to russia permission to shoot down any foreign jets if they violate Syrian airspace and Russia not only has the full right, but also it will shut the fuck up the turkey the little USrael bitch it is, also jews would shut up with their useless airforce.