Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues
Isos wrote:ultimatewarrior wrote:If I were Putin I would have bombed the crap out of ISIS in 2014 and got SDF under Russia influence. Anyhow, east of Euphrates is useless. Only western Syria is important. That's where the coast is. Where there is water, there is life. There is no life east of Euphrates.
There is oil east of Euphrates.
The oil fields east of the Euphrates do not contain vast amounts of oil and given ISIS was able to sell it I am sure that the SDF/US can manage to as well.ultimatewarrior wrote:Isos wrote:ultimatewarrior wrote:If I were Putin I would have bombed the crap out of ISIS in 2014 and got SDF under Russia influence. Anyhow, east of Euphrates is useless. Only western Syria is important. That's where the coast is. Where there is water, there is life. There is no life east of Euphrates.
There is oil east of Euphrates.
Who are they going to sell it to? Nobody will buy it.
JohninMK wrote:The oil fields east of the Euphrates do not contain vast amounts of oil and given ISIS was able to sell it I am sure that the SDF/US can manage to as well.ultimatewarrior wrote:Isos wrote:ultimatewarrior wrote:If I were Putin I would have bombed the crap out of ISIS in 2014 and got SDF under Russia influence. Anyhow, east of Euphrates is useless. Only western Syria is important. That's where the coast is. Where there is water, there is life. There is no life east of Euphrates.
There is oil east of Euphrates.
Who are they going to sell it to? Nobody will buy it.
Also the Euphrates valley is very fertile and large amounts of food are grown there, on both sides of the river. Also hydro power plants on the river. Further east, it is as you say, pretty useless as the desert takes over properly.
nomadski wrote:
Everyone around the territory controlled by SDF, can make sure borders only open for non military goods. No weapons for SDF and yank bases. Iran and Iraqi popular forces and Turkey can close border in Iraq for yank supplies to armed separatists. Russia should not mind about this. It does not affect them.
nomadski wrote:Everyone around the territory controlled by SDF, can make sure borders only open for non military goods. No weapons for SDF and yank bases. Iran and Iraqi popular forces and Turkey can close border in Iraq for yank supplies to armed separatists. Russia should not mind about this. It does not affect them. Iran and Syria and Russia can still fight them in IDLIB. SDF not needed to participate in this fight. Ask Hezb forces to come or Iranians.....
nomadski wrote:Well tactics and strategy are not the same. A friend can lend you his car. But still, you may have to charge him for the petrol he used. Good in a big way, hard in a small way. It is not easy being shot at with your own weapons. But must see bigger picture. Local commanders have local rules of engagement against the rats. Politicians and businessmen have their own. Present tactic by Russia is good. Keep fight local. Keep friendship global.
Glad to see Orion. Can have some on station, over engagement zones. As soon as they fire, they are hit. No time to escape into hole.......
Russians should take a page from Americans. Be friends with those who are friendly. Be enemies with those who are not friendly. Never sell out a friend. Take every opportunity (for example, when Obama bombed the crap out of ISIS in 2014, Russia did nothing). There are many ways Russians can learn to have so many allies like Americans do. It's not hard. Just needs to change mindset and habits.
GarryB wrote:Russians should take a page from Americans. Be friends with those who are friendly. Be enemies with those who are not friendly. Never sell out a friend. Take every opportunity (for example, when Obama bombed the crap out of ISIS in 2014, Russia did nothing). There are many ways Russians can learn to have so many allies like Americans do. It's not hard. Just needs to change mindset and habits.
Say what?
Russia should act like the US does is like saying Mother Teresa should start selling kiddy porn... it is very profitable... think how many poor people she could save with all that cash...
America does not have friends and it will drop you like a hot rock when a better offer comes. During the cold war the US was friends with China and Pakistan... now it wants to be friends with India instead. The US was a friend of Argentina until there was a conflict with a more important friend called the UK so the US was decidedly unfriendly to Argentina after that.
Obama created ISIS... ISIS didn't suddenly appear from nothing... the bulk of ISIS or ISIL was the bulk of the Iraqi Army that were mostly Sunni who didn't really have a place in the largely Shia Iraq and felt left out and abandoned and so they got radical... the US pretty much ignored ISIS and has don't very little to defeat ISIS in Iraq and Syria... in fact the US supports ISIS in Syria because it is fighting Assad, so it has agreements with ISIS in Syria... In Iraq they delayed sales of weapons to Iraq to prevent them dealing with the ISIS problem... they ignored the oil trucks taking local oil to sell in Turkey that funded ISIS... it was the Russians that stopped that primary income for ISIS...
Russia can learn nothing from the US that they couldn't learn from a 5 year old boy... this is mine and if you try to take it I will hit you or tell my mummy...
ATLASCUB wrote:The SDF organization is a CIA creation. You can't outsmart the Americans on it. It's their baby. It's non sense to say Russia could have been allied to the "SDF". You can't ally to something run by american assets.
The muscle within that structure, that is the PKK, which for all intents and purposes is what matters was indeed handled poorly by Russia in my opinion.
Russia was, more likely, presented with 3 choices:
1. Directly target the PKK (branding them terrorist/separatist from the get-go and bunching them with ISIS and Al-Qaeda). This would have required a larger military commitment from Russia, and it would have added more enemy fronts to the war. This would also inadvertently have helped Turkey, one of the main conspirators of the war, and the literal lifeblood of the uprising, for FREE.
This option was not taken. There are gray areas here that could have been exploited if Russia was cunning enough but didn't. Not gonna get into it.
2. Try to negotiate with them and offer support - material support, and protection to their cause - not just words. This would be contrarian to supporting Assad, elevating the PKK's separatism and its personalities, and thus undermining the territorial integrity of Syria. Neither Assad nor the Iranians would have accepted that. This would also strengthen the Turkish/Arab/American axis on their commitment to the war by taking out areas of friction between them.
3. Keep contacts and mostly "ignore them" - rope-a-dope. This option has the caveat of knowing well that this would leave a vacuum of power that could only be filled (and was indeed quickly filled) by the Americans. The doubt however, at the time, was that the Americans MAYBE will NOT fill this vacuum, DARE they sideline its NATO ally Turkey.
That was answered, and the de-facto side-effect it has is the strangling of relations between Turkey and the U.S. Thus pitting two allies against each other.
This allowed the U.S however to cement its position in the conflict with a palatable proxy force to excuse its invasion of Syria - annexing 1/3 of it. The Americans obviously understood the gamble well, and are trying to come out of this betrayal to Turkey unscathed. That is obviously becoming a bit of a pickle. The Turks have been completely had for the most part given what the Americans have done to them. Fuck Erdogan the fool for setting fire to his neighborhood - serves that Muslim brotherhood cunt well that he caught fire himself
Russians knew this very well - despite acting dumb on the topic and hoping the Americans wouldn't do what was given to them on a silver platter. The Turkey "split" is recompense to Russia however. For Syria on the other hand, not much consolation for losing 1/3 of your territory. But outside of Russia who will help them? Iran could only do such much vs. so many foes. So the Syrians play the game.
Russia took choice #3.
My choice:
Try to negotiate with them early on in the intervention to come to a reasonable accommodation that didn't involve federalization or autonomy. Assess the level of infiltration and flirting that this group had with the Americans - to plan the map of operations if the American alliance was in the works (cutting them off Iraq would have been key). If that wasn't possible, at no further than after the Iblib operation (or close to the transition of power in the U.S), switch gears and target them militarily, with a ruthless well coordinated campaign, with the propaganda machine ready to go, with clear overtures to Turkey all in between and at the least box them to just North Syria.
I think Russia made a grave mistake when on the eve of the rush to Deir-zor, it came to the deal with the Americans for the demarcation of the Euphrates river - at least that far South, including all the oil fields. Despite whatever side-effect it had with Turkey it wasn't worth it.
The Americans aren't budging (unless they get Syrian Kurdistan ala Iraqi Kurdistan), and neither Assad nor Iran are willing to part ways with 1/3 of Syria just cause Russia is fine with it. The Turks were betrayed but they don't dare anger its master of 70+ years besides some barking (flirting w/ Russia, the S-400, SCO, Venezuela etc). Thus we got the freeze.
The PKK is not a party you negotiate with - it's a party you disband and destroy, sending them to the 7 seas. They will not negotiate its demise with Assad and the government of Syria, the very one they're trying to split away from. It's nonsensical and contradictory but propaganda does a helluva job on the uninformed. They have shown they will ally themselves with the devil, as long as it pushes their separatist agenda.
ultimatewarrior wrote:ATLASCUB wrote:The SDF organization is a CIA creation. You can't outsmart the Americans on it. It's their baby. It's non sense to say Russia could have been allied to the "SDF". You can't ally to something run by american assets.
The muscle within that structure, that is the PKK, which for all intents and purposes is what matters was indeed handled poorly by Russia in my opinion.
Russia was, more likely, presented with 3 choices:
1. Directly target the PKK (branding them terrorist/separatist from the get-go and bunching them with ISIS and Al-Qaeda). This would have required a larger military commitment from Russia, and it would have added more enemy fronts to the war. This would also inadvertently have helped Turkey, one of the main conspirators of the war, and the literal lifeblood of the uprising, for FREE.
This option was not taken. There are gray areas here that could have been exploited if Russia was cunning enough but didn't. Not gonna get into it.
2. Try to negotiate with them and offer support - material support, and protection to their cause - not just words. This would be contrarian to supporting Assad, elevating the PKK's separatism and its personalities, and thus undermining the territorial integrity of Syria. Neither Assad nor the Iranians would have accepted that. This would also strengthen the Turkish/Arab/American axis on their commitment to the war by taking out areas of friction between them - while simultaneously creating areas of friction for Russia with her own allies.
3. Keep contacts and mostly "ignore them" - rope-a-dope. This option has the caveat of knowing well that this would leave a vacuum of power that could only be filled (and was indeed quickly filled) by the Americans. The doubt however, at the time, was that the Americans MAYBE will NOT fill this vacuum, DARE they sideline its NATO ally Turkey.
That was answered, and the de-facto side-effect it has is the strangling of relations between Turkey and the U.S. Thus pitting two allies against each other.
This allowed the U.S however to cement its position in the conflict with a palatable proxy force to excuse its invasion of Syria - annexing 1/3 of it. The Americans obviously understood the gamble well, and are trying to come out of this betrayal to Turkey unscathed. That is obviously becoming a bit of a pickle. The Turks have been completely had for the most part given what the Americans have done to them. Fuck Erdogan the fool for setting fire to his neighborhood - serves that Muslim brotherhood cunt well that he caught fire himself
Russians knew this very well - despite acting dumb on the topic and hoping the Americans wouldn't do what was given to them on a silver platter. The Turkey "split" is recompense to Russia however. For Syria on the other hand, not much consolation for losing 1/3 of your territory. But outside of Russia who will help them? Iran could only do such much vs. so many foes. So the Syrians play the game.
Russia took choice #3.
My choice:
Try to negotiate with them early on in the intervention to come to a reasonable accommodation that didn't involve federalization or autonomy. Assess the level of infiltration and flirting that this group had with the Americans - to plan the map of operations if the American alliance was in the works (cutting them off Iraq would have been key). If that wasn't possible, at no further than after the Iblib operation (or close to the transition of power in the U.S), switch gears and target them militarily, with a ruthless well coordinated campaign, with the propaganda machine ready to go, with clear overtures to Turkey all in between and at the least box them to just North Syria.
I think Russia made a grave mistake when on the eve of the rush to Deir-zor, it came to the deal with the Americans for the demarcation of the Euphrates river - at least that far South, including all the oil fields. Despite whatever side-effect it had with Turkey it wasn't worth it.
The Americans aren't budging (unless they get Syrian Kurdistan ala Iraqi Kurdistan), and neither Assad nor Iran are willing to part ways with 1/3 of Syria just cause Russia is fine with it. The Turks were betrayed but they don't dare anger its master of 70+ years besides some barking (flirting w/ Russia, the S-400, SCO, Venezuela etc). Thus we got the freeze.
The PKK is not a party you negotiate with - it's a party you disband and destroy, sending them to the 7 seas. They will not negotiate its demise with Assad and the government of Syria, the very one they're trying to split away from. It's nonsensical and contradictory but propaganda does a helluva job on the uninformed. They have shown they will ally themselves with the devil, as long as it pushes their separatist agenda.
SDF is PKK renamed. PKK has existed long before there was CIA.
ATLASCUB wrote:ultimatewarrior wrote:ATLASCUB wrote:The SDF organization is a CIA creation. You can't outsmart the Americans on it. It's their baby. It's non sense to say Russia could have been allied to the "SDF". You can't ally to something run by american assets.
The muscle within that structure, that is the PKK, which for all intents and purposes is what matters was indeed handled poorly by Russia in my opinion.
Russia was, more likely, presented with 3 choices:
1. Directly target the PKK (branding them terrorist/separatist from the get-go and bunching them with ISIS and Al-Qaeda). This would have required a larger military commitment from Russia, and it would have added more enemy fronts to the war. This would also inadvertently have helped Turkey, one of the main conspirators of the war, and the literal lifeblood of the uprising, for FREE.
This option was not taken. There are gray areas here that could have been exploited if Russia was cunning enough but didn't. Not gonna get into it.
2. Try to negotiate with them and offer support - material support, and protection to their cause - not just words. This would be contrarian to supporting Assad, elevating the PKK's separatism and its personalities, and thus undermining the territorial integrity of Syria. Neither Assad nor the Iranians would have accepted that. This would also strengthen the Turkish/Arab/American axis on their commitment to the war by taking out areas of friction between them.
3. Keep contacts and mostly "ignore them" - rope-a-dope. This option has the caveat of knowing well that this would leave a vacuum of power that could only be filled (and was indeed quickly filled) by the Americans. The doubt however, at the time, was that the Americans MAYBE will NOT fill this vacuum, DARE they sideline its NATO ally Turkey.
That was answered, and the de-facto side-effect it has is the strangling of relations between Turkey and the U.S. Thus pitting two allies against each other.
This allowed the U.S however to cement its position in the conflict with a palatable proxy force to excuse its invasion of Syria - annexing 1/3 of it. The Americans obviously understood the gamble well, and are trying to come out of this betrayal to Turkey unscathed. That is obviously becoming a bit of a pickle. The Turks have been completely had for the most part given what the Americans have done to them. Fuck Erdogan the fool for setting fire to his neighborhood - serves that Muslim brotherhood cunt well that he caught fire himself
Russians knew this very well - despite acting dumb on the topic and hoping the Americans wouldn't do what was given to them on a silver platter. The Turkey "split" is recompense to Russia however. For Syria on the other hand, not much consolation for losing 1/3 of your territory. But outside of Russia who will help them? Iran could only do such much vs. so many foes. So the Syrians play the game.
Russia took choice #3.
My choice:
Try to negotiate with them early on in the intervention to come to a reasonable accommodation that didn't involve federalization or autonomy. Assess the level of infiltration and flirting that this group had with the Americans - to plan the map of operations if the American alliance was in the works (cutting them off Iraq would have been key). If that wasn't possible, at no further than after the Iblib operation (or close to the transition of power in the U.S), switch gears and target them militarily, with a ruthless well coordinated campaign, with the propaganda machine ready to go, with clear overtures to Turkey all in between and at the least box them to just North Syria.
I think Russia made a grave mistake when on the eve of the rush to Deir-zor, it came to the deal with the Americans for the demarcation of the Euphrates river - at least that far South, including all the oil fields. Despite whatever side-effect it had with Turkey it wasn't worth it.
The Americans aren't budging (unless they get Syrian Kurdistan ala Iraqi Kurdistan), and neither Assad nor Iran are willing to part ways with 1/3 of Syria just cause Russia is fine with it. The Turks were betrayed but they don't dare anger its master of 70+ years besides some barking (flirting w/ Russia, the S-400, SCO, Venezuela etc). Thus we got the freeze.
The PKK is not a party you negotiate with - it's a party you disband and destroy, sending them to the 7 seas. They will not negotiate its demise with Assad and the government of Syria, the very one they're trying to split away from. It's nonsensical and contradictory but propaganda does a helluva job on the uninformed. They have shown they will ally themselves with the devil, as long as it pushes their separatist agenda.
SDF is PKK renamed. PKK has existed long before there was CIA.
The SDF has other elements than just the PKK. The PKK however is the main muscle, dominant and largest faction. Most of the assets running the political wings, which are not strictly PKK individuals are American/CIA assets. The organization, as a front, is a CIA creation.
ultimatewarrior wrote:ATLASCUB wrote:ultimatewarrior wrote:ATLASCUB wrote:The SDF organization is a CIA creation. You can't outsmart the Americans on it. It's their baby. It's non sense to say Russia could have been allied to the "SDF". You can't ally to something run by american assets.
The muscle within that structure, that is the PKK, which for all intents and purposes is what matters was indeed handled poorly by Russia in my opinion.
Russia was, more likely, presented with 3 choices:
1. Directly target the PKK (branding them terrorist/separatist from the get-go and bunching them with ISIS and Al-Qaeda). This would have required a larger military commitment from Russia, and it would have added more enemy fronts to the war. This would also inadvertently have helped Turkey, one of the main conspirators of the war, and the literal lifeblood of the uprising, for FREE.
This option was not taken. There are gray areas here that could have been exploited if Russia was cunning enough but didn't. Not gonna get into it.
2. Try to negotiate with them and offer support - material support, and protection to their cause - not just words. This would be contrarian to supporting Assad, elevating the PKK's separatism and its personalities, and thus undermining the territorial integrity of Syria. Neither Assad nor the Iranians would have accepted that. This would also strengthen the Turkish/Arab/American axis on their commitment to the war by taking out areas of friction between them.
3. Keep contacts and mostly "ignore them" - rope-a-dope. This option has the caveat of knowing well that this would leave a vacuum of power that could only be filled (and was indeed quickly filled) by the Americans. The doubt however, at the time, was that the Americans MAYBE will NOT fill this vacuum, DARE they sideline its NATO ally Turkey.
That was answered, and the de-facto side-effect it has is the strangling of relations between Turkey and the U.S. Thus pitting two allies against each other.
This allowed the U.S however to cement its position in the conflict with a palatable proxy force to excuse its invasion of Syria - annexing 1/3 of it. The Americans obviously understood the gamble well, and are trying to come out of this betrayal to Turkey unscathed. That is obviously becoming a bit of a pickle. The Turks have been completely had for the most part given what the Americans have done to them. Fuck Erdogan the fool for setting fire to his neighborhood - serves that Muslim brotherhood cunt well that he caught fire himself
Russians knew this very well - despite acting dumb on the topic and hoping the Americans wouldn't do what was given to them on a silver platter. The Turkey "split" is recompense to Russia however. For Syria on the other hand, not much consolation for losing 1/3 of your territory. But outside of Russia who will help them? Iran could only do such much vs. so many foes. So the Syrians play the game.
Russia took choice #3.
My choice:
Try to negotiate with them early on in the intervention to come to a reasonable accommodation that didn't involve federalization or autonomy. Assess the level of infiltration and flirting that this group had with the Americans - to plan the map of operations if the American alliance was in the works (cutting them off Iraq would have been key). If that wasn't possible, at no further than after the Iblib operation (or close to the transition of power in the U.S), switch gears and target them militarily, with a ruthless well coordinated campaign, with the propaganda machine ready to go, with clear overtures to Turkey all in between and at the least box them to just North Syria.
I think Russia made a grave mistake when on the eve of the rush to Deir-zor, it came to the deal with the Americans for the demarcation of the Euphrates river - at least that far South, including all the oil fields. Despite whatever side-effect it had with Turkey it wasn't worth it.
The Americans aren't budging (unless they get Syrian Kurdistan ala Iraqi Kurdistan), and neither Assad nor Iran are willing to part ways with 1/3 of Syria just cause Russia is fine with it. The Turks were betrayed but they don't dare anger its master of 70+ years besides some barking (flirting w/ Russia, the S-400, SCO, Venezuela etc). Thus we got the freeze.
The PKK is not a party you negotiate with - it's a party you disband and destroy, sending them to the 7 seas. They will not negotiate its demise with Assad and the government of Syria, the very one they're trying to split away from. It's nonsensical and contradictory but propaganda does a helluva job on the uninformed. They have shown they will ally themselves with the devil, as long as it pushes their separatist agenda.
SDF is PKK renamed. PKK has existed long before there was CIA.
The SDF has other elements than just the PKK. The PKK however is the main muscle, dominant and largest faction. Most of the assets running the political wings, which are not strictly PKK individuals are American/CIA assets. The organization, as a front, is a CIA creation.
Nope. PKK was backed by Assad for decades. SDF is 90+% PKK with less than 10% Arabs. PKK / SDF is far more friendly to Assad than to America. America only uses SDF to fight Russia, which of course SDF will never do..
ATLASCUB wrote:ultimatewarrior wrote:ATLASCUB wrote:ultimatewarrior wrote:ATLASCUB wrote:The SDF organization is a CIA creation. You can't outsmart the Americans on it. It's their baby. It's non sense to say Russia could have been allied to the "SDF". You can't ally to something run by american assets.
The muscle within that structure, that is the PKK, which for all intents and purposes is what matters was indeed handled poorly by Russia in my opinion.
Russia was, more likely, presented with 3 choices:
1. Directly target the PKK (branding them terrorist/separatist from the get-go and bunching them with ISIS and Al-Qaeda). This would have required a larger military commitment from Russia, and it would have added more enemy fronts to the war. This would also inadvertently have helped Turkey, one of the main conspirators of the war, and the literal lifeblood of the uprising, for FREE.
This option was not taken. There are gray areas here that could have been exploited if Russia was cunning enough but didn't. Not gonna get into it.
2. Try to negotiate with them and offer support - material support, and protection to their cause - not just words. This would be contrarian to supporting Assad, elevating the PKK's separatism and its personalities, and thus undermining the territorial integrity of Syria. Neither Assad nor the Iranians would have accepted that. This would also strengthen the Turkish/Arab/American axis on their commitment to the war by taking out areas of friction between them.
3. Keep contacts and mostly "ignore them" - rope-a-dope. This option has the caveat of knowing well that this would leave a vacuum of power that could only be filled (and was indeed quickly filled) by the Americans. The doubt however, at the time, was that the Americans MAYBE will NOT fill this vacuum, DARE they sideline its NATO ally Turkey.
That was answered, and the de-facto side-effect it has is the strangling of relations between Turkey and the U.S. Thus pitting two allies against each other.
This allowed the U.S however to cement its position in the conflict with a palatable proxy force to excuse its invasion of Syria - annexing 1/3 of it. The Americans obviously understood the gamble well, and are trying to come out of this betrayal to Turkey unscathed. That is obviously becoming a bit of a pickle. The Turks have been completely had for the most part given what the Americans have done to them. Fuck Erdogan the fool for setting fire to his neighborhood - serves that Muslim brotherhood cunt well that he caught fire himself
Russians knew this very well - despite acting dumb on the topic and hoping the Americans wouldn't do what was given to them on a silver platter. The Turkey "split" is recompense to Russia however. For Syria on the other hand, not much consolation for losing 1/3 of your territory. But outside of Russia who will help them? Iran could only do such much vs. so many foes. So the Syrians play the game.
Russia took choice #3.
My choice:
Try to negotiate with them early on in the intervention to come to a reasonable accommodation that didn't involve federalization or autonomy. Assess the level of infiltration and flirting that this group had with the Americans - to plan the map of operations if the American alliance was in the works (cutting them off Iraq would have been key). If that wasn't possible, at no further than after the Iblib operation (or close to the transition of power in the U.S), switch gears and target them militarily, with a ruthless well coordinated campaign, with the propaganda machine ready to go, with clear overtures to Turkey all in between and at the least box them to just North Syria.
I think Russia made a grave mistake when on the eve of the rush to Deir-zor, it came to the deal with the Americans for the demarcation of the Euphrates river - at least that far South, including all the oil fields. Despite whatever side-effect it had with Turkey it wasn't worth it.
The Americans aren't budging (unless they get Syrian Kurdistan ala Iraqi Kurdistan), and neither Assad nor Iran are willing to part ways with 1/3 of Syria just cause Russia is fine with it. The Turks were betrayed but they don't dare anger its master of 70+ years besides some barking (flirting w/ Russia, the S-400, SCO, Venezuela etc). Thus we got the freeze.
The PKK is not a party you negotiate with - it's a party you disband and destroy, sending them to the 7 seas. They will not negotiate its demise with Assad and the government of Syria, the very one they're trying to split away from. It's nonsensical and contradictory but propaganda does a helluva job on the uninformed. They have shown they will ally themselves with the devil, as long as it pushes their separatist agenda.
SDF is PKK renamed. PKK has existed long before there was CIA.
The SDF has other elements than just the PKK. The PKK however is the main muscle, dominant and largest faction. Most of the assets running the political wings, which are not strictly PKK individuals are American/CIA assets. The organization, as a front, is a CIA creation.
Nope. PKK was backed by Assad for decades. SDF is 90+% PKK with less than 10% Arabs. PKK / SDF is far more friendly to Assad than to America. America only uses SDF to fight Russia, which of course SDF will never do..
Whatever you say.
War is an instrument of peace. Without war, there is no peace. Without peace, there is no war. Don't kid yourself. War happens everyday in the world. Closing your eyes don't make it go away. What is important is how to use war and peace for one's own interest. America bombed the s out of ISIS to gain a foothold in Syria in the form of SDF. Russia could have done the same. Russia turned its back on SDF, withdrew safekeeping force from Afrin, the only region of Syria untouched by war, and allowed Russia's enemy Turkey to steamroll Afrin, doing ethnic cleansing. Don't blame SDF not wanting to fight on Russia's side. Ask what Russia has done to deserve that.
SeigSoloyvov wrote:The SDF isn't an ally of Russia, that funny to think.
They are friendly to Assad yeah only because he is right next to them.
Tell me where in areas we have under our control are Russians? nowhere, SDF isn't ALLOWED to meet with any SAA or Russian forces without US advisors there.
If you think the SDF is an Ally of Russia that is 100 percent bogus thinking, we own parts of Syria now and the SDF long as they do what we ask. They can do what they want providing it doesn't conflict our interests. Which is a good deal for them, the only way the SDF will become Russia ally is IF we leave Syria for good but that ain't happening not for at least 20 something years.
Sorry buddy but we are the masters of this game always have been it's kinda our thing.
Isos wrote:SeigSoloyvov wrote:The SDF isn't an ally of Russia, that funny to think.
They are friendly to Assad yeah only because he is right next to them.
Tell me where in areas we have under our control are Russians? nowhere, SDF isn't ALLOWED to meet with any SAA or Russian forces without US advisors there.
If you think the SDF is an Ally of Russia that is 100 percent bogus thinking, we own parts of Syria now and the SDF long as they do what we ask. They can do what they want providing it doesn't conflict our interests. Which is a good deal for them, the only way the SDF will become Russia ally is IF we leave Syria for good but that ain't happening not for at least 20 something years.
Sorry buddy but we are the masters of this game always have been it's kinda our thing.
You wanted Assad dead at the beggining and since Russians are there you can't do shit.even your "punishement" strikes are made in desert again empty building.
Many time kurdes and SDF removed your troops because you suck at protecting them.
Now there is like 0 arab in the middle east that trust you. You bombed all the sides.
For the middle east, US are a chewing gum stuck on there shoes. Nothing more.
As a native English speaker his use of the language looks OK to me. We often use English grammar sloppily, many second language English speakers have a better grasp of grammar than we do. I know I have forgotten most of the rules they taught at school.ATLASCUB wrote:Why is Seig still acting like an american when he's clearly an English-as second language speaker. It takes one to know one with the grammatical mistakes and the way the sentences are structured. At most a naturalized American citizen past age 10-15. - usually the time when your native language and its rules become so ingrained in your head that no matter how good you learn English, you can't escape from making these sort of mistakes unless doing some serious peer review before submission.
ATLASCUB wrote:Why is Seig still acting like an american when he's clearly an English-as second language speaker. It takes one to know one with the grammatical mistakes and the way the sentences are structured. At most a naturalized American citizen past age 10-15. - usually the time when your native language and its rules become so ingrained in your head that no matter how good you learn English, you can't escape from making these sort of mistakes unless doing some serious peer review before submission.
|
|
|
Home
Latest images
Register
Log in