Syrian War: News #23

flamming_python wrote:

d_taddei2 wrote:

flamming_python wrote:

Your field of vision is too narrow

Turkey jumped right back into the NATO/EU camp 3 weeks ago. Seemingly, the US decided that it's time for concessions, while Erdogan has been probably more than a little worried about his political future.
Talk of joining the EU again https://www.hurriyetdailynews.com/eu-membership-remains-turkeys-strategic-priority-erdogan-170756
The first meeting of the Turkish and Greek economic commission yesterday after 11 years https://www.hurriyetdailynews.com/turkey-greece-economic-commission-meets-after-11-years-171031
Probably cancelling further S-400 purchases, although that was dead anyway I suspect when Russia refused to share technology
Now discussions in the US on rewriting the Montreux conventions for passage of warships to/from the Black Sea, which would have to have the support of Turkey of course https://twitter.com/vicktop55/status/1486426725911343104

Question is - in exchange for what?
Certainly help with Turkey's currency crisis and investor confidence I'd assume
Dropping support for the Greek-Israeli EastMed gas pipeline https://www.euractiv.com/section/energy/news/greece-fumes-as-washington-loses-interest-in-eastmed-gas-pipeline/
F-35 purchases being on the table again https://ahvalnews.com/f-35/turkey-us-start-talks-f-35-fighter-jets
But Turkey's biggest point of contention with the US has always been the later's support of the Kurds in Syria. The US does need that border territory to prevent Syrian-Iranian transit via Iraq. But I predict that the Kurds will be dropped in some way, with the only thing left being a base at the Semalka border crossing, and the southern former-ISIS part of SDF territory still having a US presence.

With that in mind, Syria will stand to reincorporate all the Kurdish-populated core of SDF territory, and on terms more to its liking. Then it can proceed to destabilizing the US-allied former-ISIS warlords in the Deir-ez-Zor province.

My field of vision is perfect good thank u.

But what u failed to mention (maybe field of vision is too narrow) is if USA and Turkey are back in bed, that regardless if Kurds get dropped (which doubt that will happen anytime soon or if at all) and make a deal with Syrian government they will still have Turkish backed terrorists, which USA can now also support via Turkey to make sure Syria remains in chaos, and u forget Israeli airstrikes acting with impunity. And u think USA will give up oil wells in Kurdish held areas to Syrian government?????? Yeah I think not.

They could have Idilb, Latakia, Isis cleared from SAA areas, and insurgency in the south wrapped up by end of the year if they go for it. This would put pressure on Turkish backed terrorists in the north to which they will most likely fold. Then the Kurds will be left with very little choice as there areas they hold would be the last remaining area not liberated. Turkey at this point will climb out of bed with USA to make a deal with Syrian government to make sure that the Kurds get taken back under the wing of Syrian government, regardless of what USA says..the Kurds are ones who will witness a lose lose scenario.
But while Idilb Latakia still in terrorists hands Turkey will have no interest in making deals until it loses those areas. So without any progress u will see another stagnant year of tit for tat attacks

I'm perfectly aware of the pro-Turkish terrorists in northern Syria

But one problem at a time eh? You've been complaining that Syria isn't advancing. Well I'm betting they will swallow up the Kurds this year.

And anything that strengthens the Syrian state and its control over the territory is one step closer to ending this horrible war.

The US and Turkey will have their troops in the country for the time being, but the former will be deprived of its justification for being there, while the later can be bargained with; what with the Kurds now patronaged by Syria,
A win-win.

The USA have been deprived of a valid reason for years, and have been in Syria illegally. But USA does what it wants and runs roughshod over the UN security council and human rights.

Kurds will still be where they are at end of year.

GarryB wrote:On the face of it you could say the same about a lot of conflicts... the Ukraine, Libya... the problem is that while the US doesn't have the power or the money to win, they have the money and power to keep it going.

America is being an arsehole.

Human rights, peace, democracy, honour, truth, justice, friendship... just collections of letters that mean what we want them to mean.

Hollow empty monsters.

Russia needs to start hitting their ability to extract and transport and sell oil in the region... but when to start... perhaps get the Syrian military to a stronger place before opening that can of worms.

As I said USA has lost the toppling of Assad so it's become a sore loser keeping Syria in turmoil and keep Russia tied up spending money.

There is big differences in Libya and Ukraine. Ukraine has the Minsk agreement, while Syria has no agreement. Libya is in chaos with various countries supplying arms and mercs but no country has set foot in it officially. All three different scenarios.

The SAA have had a few years of fairly stagnant war and in that time will have had chances to train, get new equipment (ships have still been bringing equipment over the years), and no doubt some rest and a chance to see family, the moral must be better than it's ever been since war started.

The SAA need tie up loose ends such as insurgency in the south this shouldn't be hard to do. And clear government held areas of ISIS who continue to carryout and hoc attacks. Once this has been tackled (should have been done years ago) things takes away distractions and secures areas and protects civilians. Then they have a choice target Idilb or start agreements with Kurds, which ever one they succeed in u will most likely find the other will give up. However while USA is still supporting kurds u will find they will unlikely start agreements. Which means Idilb it is. Once that is encircled or taken u will Kurds have no real option but to come to the table. The SAA have years of experience and especially in the encircling/making cauldron tactics. By taking jisr Al shughur they can move along M4 highway effectively cutting off anything below the highway, they will then liberate that large chunk. They can also move up the Turkish border, stopping supplies (only so far up the border). While this goes on a push towards Al Atarib taking it and push to border. This will almost cut off idilib support from Turkey, and allow multiple routes to attack Idilb. I doubt SAA will enter it in full scale invasion but rather cut it off in a siege.

lyle6 wrote:

d_taddei2 wrote:
As I said USA has lost the toppling of Assad so it's become a sore loser keeping Syria in turmoil and keep Russia tied up spending money.

Russia's never sent anywhere north of 5k dudes at any one time - their footprint in Syria is indefinitely sustainable for a million man army.

If anything Syria is a cost imposition strategy on Turkey and the US, who both have to sustain entire populations of people almost on their own. Turkey, in particular is doubly shafted, since it has to provide for a couple million refugees when its economy is in the toilets.  

As an added bonus the US support of the Kurds is a constant source of friction for them and the Turks. Make no mistake, they might put aside the Kurdish issue for some tactical considerations but as long as the Kurds maintain their aspirations for a country of their own the Turkish state could not and would not abide any settlement that involves Kurdish autonomy. Its a death sentence: eventually they would have to renege.

When I said tyi g up Russia not my troop numbers that was pretty obvious. But it costs Russia money or do u think it's free? Sending arms, training, maintenance etc all costs money. The Syrian government isn't paying for it Russia is. And let's not forget Russian troops have died in Syria, what will we wait for ? More Russian troops killed? Or equipment lost? The quicker this war is over the better for Russia and Russian troops. Syria can get back to normality and start rebuilding,

As for USA they have a far bigger pot of Money for this things like this than Russia. And USA got hold of the oil thus stopping Syria gaining much needed funds. And don't forget Russia is also pumping aid into Syria another cost. You also forget it's pretty much Russia and Iran keeping Syria afloat, while USA had its allies also pumping money into their side. This has more of a financial burden on Russia than it has for USA.

And that is a bad news, in reality.
Sure, they are there for operational purposes, but as soon as the situation will calm, they need one base only.
Combined land/naval/air.
Easy to defend. Easy to resupply.
They can always use a Syrian bases if needed.

Since Russia's military is not a graft operation like that of the US, Russian bases cost vastly less than anything operated by the US
and its rotten NATzO allies. People should keep that in mind. The US military budget size cannot be used to scale its physical military
size. A mistake I see made everywhere.

Krepost wrote:In case you have not noticed, Russia has now 3 airbases in Syria:
- Hmeymim on the sea coast near Latakia
- T4 near Palmyra
- Qamishli in the far-eastern tip of Syria

All 3 bases are housing Sukhois, MiGs and Helicopters.

Add to this a naval base in Tartous and God knows how many land based posts and positions.

Overall nice increase in military footprint since they landed in 2015.

And of course this costs money it's not free just saying

franco wrote:

d_taddei2 wrote:

lyle6 wrote:

d_taddei2 wrote:
As I said USA has lost the toppling of Assad so it's become a sore loser keeping Syria in turmoil and keep Russia tied up spending money.

Russia's never sent anywhere north of 5k dudes at any one time - their footprint in Syria is indefinitely sustainable for a million man army.

If anything Syria is a cost imposition strategy on Turkey and the US, who both have to sustain entire populations of people almost on their own. Turkey, in particular is doubly shafted, since it has to provide for a couple million refugees when its economy is in the toilets.  

As an added bonus the US support of the Kurds is a constant source of friction for them and the Turks. Make no mistake, they might put aside the Kurdish issue for some tactical considerations but as long as the Kurds maintain their aspirations for a country of their own the Turkish state could not and would not abide any settlement that involves Kurdish autonomy. Its a death sentence: eventually they would have to renege.

When I said tyi g up Russia not my troop numbers that was pretty obvious. But it costs Russia money or do u think it's free? Sending arms, training, maintenance etc all costs money. The Syrian government isn't paying for it Russia is. And let's not forget Russian troops have died in Syria, what will we wait for ? More Russian troops killed? Or equipment lost? The quicker this war is over the better for Russia and Russian troops. Syria can get back to normality and start rebuilding,

As for USA they have a far bigger pot of Money for this things like this than Russia. And USA got hold of the oil thus stopping Syria gaining much needed funds. And don't forget Russia is also pumping aid into Syria another cost. You also forget it's pretty much Russia and Iran keeping Syria afloat, while USA had its allies also pumping money into their side. This has more of a financial burden on Russia than it has for USA.

1- equipment given is old stuff for the most part of which plans existed to recycle as scrape metal.
2- soldiers for the most part are written off against the military training budgets... live action is the best trainer

Still costs money to overhaul and ship. It's not free, and the amount of equipment sent to Syria now they should have started liberating it by now or what are they waiting for? Israeli airstrikes on the newly brought in equipment? Or to left as sitting ducks for TOW? They have almost three years of stagnation, training, and equipment, without any progress.

GarryB wrote:

They have almost three years of stagnation, training, and equipment, without any progress.

2014 to 2022 is 8 years of stagnation in Ukraine... just sayin.

20 years in Afghanistan and they leave it more damaged than it was when they went in, though their enemies the Taliban look funny in all that US special forces gear they left for them...

Afghanistan war was never going to be a win for the coalition and everyone knew that.

The Minsk agreement was what kept things stagnant in Ukraine, the fact the agreement didn't get fufilled is the fault of Ukraine.

In Syria zero agreement like the Minsk agreement. There was a small agreement between turkey and Syria although not official and could be broken whenever they wanted without international condemnation of a said agreement. Syrian government for the sake of their civilians, and already read need to finish the job

lyle6 wrote:

d_taddei2 wrote:
Still costs money to overhaul and ship. It's not free, and the amount of equipment sent to Syria now they should have started liberating it by now or what are they waiting for? Israeli airstrikes on the newly brought in equipment? Or to left as sitting ducks for TOW? They have almost three years of stagnation, training, and equipment, without any progress.

If we're talking pure economics you would have to discount Russian expenditures against the potential cost of renting all that prime Med real estate - something that could easily exceed the billions of dollars if it wasn't in Syria's interest to have the Russians invested in the country. And its not as if the Russians are shipping the Syrians top shelf hardware that the costs would be enormous in the first place.

U forgot when Russia back in 2005 already wrote off 73% of Syrian Soviet debt $13.4 billion. So it was already costing Russia money. Also on equipment Russia hasn't just sent old refurbished equipment, it's also sent new equipment such as T-90, TOS, kornet, and upgraded Syrian systems, and then u have to remember everything that Russia has deployed there, and loss of equipment, including russian aircraft, dead russian soldiers, maintenance etc etc and let's not forget all the ammunition that Russia uses and the ammo they supply Syria. And who do u think maintains and supplies parts for Syrian aircraft? Russia does. And no cost can be put on a Russian or Syrian soldiers life. And let's not forget Iranians and civilians.

So let's get ball moving.

If you read carefully the Russian documents, almost the whole Syrian operation was financed with the assets assigned to the training.
This was a hell of training for both of them, and only by watching the progress in both the Syrian and Russian army units, this war shape them and cast to just another level.
Take a look at the urban warfare performed by the regular Syrian army soldiers. They are actually better than you can observe on the training grounds along Europe, when NATO is making agenda using elite units.
I would risk an opinion, that the Syrian army at the moment, is the most battle hardened among all. They only need time to reorganize and reequip.