Russian military intervention and aid to Syria #11

"That’s it. The last remaining election fog has lifted. Instead of an overworked statement about a joint fight against the biggest enemy, ISIS (the Islamic State), the Trump administration proved that it will fiercely fight the legitimate Syrian government, in a tough contradiction with international law and without UN approval, in violation of its own procedures stipulating that the Congress must first be notified of any military operation unrelated to aggression against the US. On the verge of a military clash with Russia.
Nobody is overestimating the value of pre-election promises but there must be limits of decency.
Beyond that is absolute mistrust. Which is really sad for our now completely ruined relations. And which is good news for terrorists.
One more thing. This military action is a clear indication of the US President’s extreme dependency on the opinion of the Washington establishment, the one that the new president strongly criticised in his inauguration speech. Soon after his victory, I noted that everything would depend on how soon Trump’s election promises would be broken by the existing power machine. It took only two and a half months."
https://www.facebook.com/Dmitry.Medvedev/posts/10154257290791851

There is a lot that Russia needs to do diplomactly and military wise. Militarily Russia should strengthen its air defences and start patrols of Syrian Airspace, send in more fighters and reconnaissance planes. Give more advanced air defence systems to the SAA, give more advanced weapons to SAA and Allies.

Diplomatly Russia can invite enemies of Turkey and Israel(because these countries support the illegal actions of the US and are closer to Syria) intive a Hezbollah delegation and invite a PKK delegation, do others things that hurt these countries.

Russia needs to respond here.

Which can be the reaction in the battlefield of Russia to this attack? Maybe:

1.- Surely this will lead to improve the Air Defense of Syria. Under a philosophy of saturation with aged systems, but also with some more capable modern system. As consequence, it is possible to see a no fly zone for the US in Syria. The help to Syria can be from different countries, not only Russia.

2.- It is possible to see a reinforcement of the Syrian Air Force. Likely it would be with:

L-39 aircrafts decommissioned in Russia adapted to combat roles, like Syria is doing.
Mi-24 from the Russian Security Forces.
Ka-27/32 from the Russian Security Forces.

eehnie wrote:Which can be the reaction in the battlefield of Russia to this attack? Maybe:

1.- Surely this will lead to improve the Air Defense of Syria. Under a philosophy of saturation with aged systems, but also with some more capable modern system. As consequence, it is possible to see a no fly zone for the US in Syria.

2.- It is possible to see a reinforcement of the Syrian Air Force. Likely it would be with:

L-39 aircrafts decommissioned in Russia adapted to combat roles, like Syria is doing.
Mi-24 from the Russian Security Forces.
Ka-27/32 from the Russian Security Forces.

Russia have said today that they are going to upgrade Syria's air defences. An obvious place to start would be at Shayrat which now has a destroyed radar system. It would be a perfect opportunity to install a Russian owned/operated (and protected by Pantsir) S-300 system. With the runways still in good condition a delivery could no doubt be made very quickly.

The geographic location almost couldn't be better to extend coverage hundreds of miles eastwards. Just imagine the Russian MoD trolling the US, emphasising that the delivery of this new gear was being made only because the US had destroyed the old system, which was now out of production so couldn't be replaced on a like for like basis.

A lovely little unintended consequence

storm333 wrote:"
Nobody is overestimating the value of pre-election promises but there must be limits of decency.
Beyond that is absolute mistrust. Which is really sad for our now completely ruined relations. And which is good news for terrorists.
One more thing. This military action is a clear indication of the US President’s extreme dependency on the opinion of the Washington establishment, the one that the new president strongly criticised in his inauguration speech. Soon after his victory, I noted that everything would depend on how soon Trump’s election promises would be broken by the existing power machine. It took only two and a half months."
https://www.facebook.com/Dmitry.Medvedev/posts/10154257290791851

Presidents does not implement foreign policy ,only local one and only
as long as the establishment support it. Obama hinted at this after Trump
was elected , he actually leaked many things before by accident. He told
when after a question by journalist of what Trump presidency means. he told
that he knows Trump have made lots of promises ,that he will do this or that.
but he told ,that it will be a matter of short time ,that Trump will face a new reality when he officially becomes president.

So Obama hinted that Trump will not be able to implement many of its policies ,because a system is in place and will not allow it and will keep him
in place. and during the primaries , some candidates spoke about the elites.
When Obama and Clinton made it to the finals ,they had to meet in secret important people ,billionaires ,to discuss for both to run together for Presidency and secretary of state. the top billionaires in US ,i think run the government. people like waren buffet ,and many billionaire jews run US policy. Apparently according to Veterans today , the foreign policy of US is one that is sold like if it was a property in an auction. and the one that offer more money buys for 4 years the policy of US ,and will have significant influence in US policy. This is why Lobbies in US exist. The Jewish lobbies and wallstreet lobbies they buy with money US policy that presidents needs to implement..

JohninMK wrote:

eehnie wrote:Which can be the reaction in the battlefield of Russia to this attack? Maybe:

1.- Surely this will lead to improve the Air Defense of Syria. Under a philosophy of saturation with aged systems, but also with some more capable modern system. As consequence, it is possible to see a no fly zone for the US in Syria.

2.- It is possible to see a reinforcement of the Syrian Air Force. Likely it would be with:

L-39 aircrafts decommissioned in Russia adapted to combat roles, like Syria is doing.
Mi-24 from the Russian Security Forces.
Ka-27/32 from the Russian Security Forces.

Russia have said today that they are going to upgrade Syria's air defences. An obvious place to start would be at Shayrat which now has a destroyed radar system. It would be a perfect opportunity to install a Russian owned/operated (and protected by Pantsir) S-300 system. With the runways still in good condition a delivery could no doubt be made very quickly.

The geographic location almost couldn't be better to extend coverage hundreds of miles eastwards. Just imagine the Russian MoD trolling the US, emphasising that the delivery of this new gear was being made only because the US had destroyed the old system, which was now out of production so couldn't be replaced on a like for like basis.

A lovely little unintended consequence

This can be and should be treated like when the SU 24 was shot down, after the SU 24 incident, Russia sent advanced air defences because Russia had a reason. Now Russia again has a reason to give Syria modern air defences, hopefully Russia takes this chance.

par far wrote:

JohninMK wrote:

eehnie wrote:Which can be the reaction in the battlefield of Russia to this attack? Maybe:

1.- Surely this will lead to improve the Air Defense of Syria. Under a philosophy of saturation with aged systems, but also with some more capable modern system. As consequence, it is possible to see a no fly zone for the US in Syria. The help to Syria can be from different countries, not only Russia.

2.- It is possible to see a reinforcement of the Syrian Air Force. Likely it would be with:

L-39 aircrafts decommissioned in Russia adapted to combat roles, like Syria is doing.
Mi-24 from the Russian Security Forces.
Ka-27/32 from the Russian Security Forces.

Russia have said today that they are going to upgrade Syria's air defences. An obvious place to start would be at Shayrat which now has a destroyed radar system. It would be a perfect opportunity to install a Russian owned/operated (and protected by Pantsir) S-300 system. With the runways still in good condition a delivery could no doubt be made very quickly.

The geographic location almost couldn't be better to extend coverage hundreds of miles eastwards. Just imagine the Russian MoD trolling the US, emphasising that the delivery of this new gear was being made only because the US had destroyed the old system, which was now out of production so couldn't be replaced on a like for like basis.

A lovely little unintended consequence

This can be and should be treated like when the SU 24 was shot down, after the SU 24 incident, Russia sent advanced air defences because Russia had a reason. Now Russia again has a reason to give Syria modern air defences, hopefully Russia takes this chance.

At the time Russia increased its own air defense to defend their own positions. While the air defense of Syria has been also improved, now the goal would be different, would be more focused in the self-defense of Syria.

I see no end to this conflict that ends with Syria remaining in one piece. Even if you're able to push and clean Idlib (Al-Qaeda's HQ) you still have the Kurds with massive lands grab and american troops on the ground (acting as shield and gift bearers) that number thousands now. Israel will not give up the south either.

The U.S will get what it wants and no amount of hardware will change that unless they're booted out for good - which will take serious escalation. The U.S can get Turkey to arm the rebels in Idlib (ahem) to the teeth and no one will bat an eye or do a damn thing - if they so choose to play that card to pressure Putin to give up whatever it's they want. That's why they'll strategically delay Syrian advances when needed, flip flop on policy when needed, unleash their dogs when needed etc etc etc. It's a game that needs to end. Pretty clear now the U.S doesn't even care about bad PR from the U.N as long as they control the media propaganda and get Western Europe and their lackeys in the M.E on board as cheerleaders - in short, "no one cares what the "bad guys" say or think".

Russia (Iran and China-pfft)) either commit to truly end this conflict with a strong commitment of troops on the ground or this will continue to drag out as long as the U.S wants it to. 6 years and ticking. The pecking order gotta get straighten out.

If not, save the Syrian people and let the U.S takeover Syria. Try to backdoor them (chances of which are slim but if you must try - try). Needless to say it will be a massive blow to Russia (and Iran/Hezbollah).

ATLASCUB wrote:I see no end to this conflict that ends with Syria remaining in one piece. Even if you're able to push and clean Idlib (Al-Qaeda's HQ) you still have the Kurds with massive lands grab and american troops on the ground (acting as shield and gift bearers) that number thousands now. Israel will not give up the south either.

The U.S will get what it wants and no amount of hardware will change that unless they're booted out for good - which will take serious escalation. The U.S can get Turkey to arm the rebels in Idlib (ahem) to the teeth and no one will bat an eye or do a damn thing - if they so choose to play that card to pressure Putin to give up whatever it's they want. That's why they'll strategically delay Syrian advances when needed, flip flop on policy when needed, unleash their dogs when needed etc etc etc. It's a game that needs to end. Pretty clear now the U.S doesn't even care about bad PR from the U.N as long as they control the media propaganda and get Western Europe and their lackeys in the M.E on board as cheerleaders - in short, "no one cares what the "bad guys" say or think".

Russia (Iran and China-pfft)) either commit to truly end this conflict with a strong commitment of troops on the ground or this will continue to drag out as long as the U.S wants it to. 6 years and ticking. The pecking order gotta get straighten out.

If not, save the Syrian people and let the U.S takeover Syria. Try to backdoor them (chances of which are slim but if you must try - try). Needless to say it will be a massive blow to Russia (and Iran/Hezbollah).

Interesting analysis.

Disagree strongly on the last point. The US would not actually take over, it would be the US/Saudi/Qatar/Israel's proxies which would result in a bloodbath. This the Russians have said they will not allow, no way will there be another Libya in Syria.

GarryB wrote:........

Reports suggest only 23 of the missiles hit their targets... would be interesting to find out what happened to the other 26 missiles fired...

Isn't it obvious by now?

They are still out there...

Watching....

Waiting...

Plotting...

As far as I know, oil and gold price make a sharp boost after the Tomahawk launching.

So I wonder, whether the Syrian base was the real target of Trump ? Or the US venture capitalists just want to cause a deliberate chaos for something ?

It is clear that the Tomahawk launching was a severe waste of money with much of the missiles missed the target and the damage was minimal. So I suspect that the Wall Street fat cats killed people to gain something in the stock market.

GarryB wrote:Who cares what the Kurds want... they are not allies of Russia or Iran or Assad... if they are fighting for themselves or ISIS or whomever Daesh wants to call themselves, they are just another enemy force.

http://www.kurdistan24.net/en/interview/d770c4fa-c1a8-4bd4-bb91-01411fff97e5/Russia-supports-Kurdistan-politically-and-logistically

RUSSIA-KURDISTAN RELATIONS

In the domain of the bilateral relations between Russia and the Kurdistan Region, Mutsoev said they are much better than before.

“Russia has supported Kurdistan politically and logistically in the fight against [IS], and also many deliveries of weapons were transported to Kurdistan in the last period,” he stated.

“The Russian-Kurdish relations will further improve in the future,” he added.

Additionally, Mutsoev pointed out the public opinion in Russia always says the world will support whatever the Kurdish factions agree on in Kurdistan.

GarryB wrote:If America wants troops in Syria they can have another vietnam if they want...

Iran shares a border however and is going nowhere... Russia has managed to change the situation in their favour without needing to resort to a large force of troops on the ground, and I suspect that they will refrain from that in the future.

Who cares what the Kurds want... they are not allies of Russia or Iran or Assad... if they are fighting for themselves or ISIS or whomever Daesh wants to call themselves, they are just another enemy force.

American forces are there because there is a vacuum of power and Israel is there for the same reason. Once the Syrian army gains more of its land back it will become stronger and reclaim it all in time... or we can remind the US about it bullshit rhetoric about the sanctity of national borders...

The U.S, and Western E.U + Israel DON'T give a damn about borders. They sliced up Yugoslavia into a million pieces. Israel swallows up anything it can get its hands to. The grand master plan has always been slicing up Russia as well. They'll sell the Kurd genocide, displacement - whatever you want to call it (false flags included). They'll go as far as they need to as long as the nutheads are in control and they're clearly in control. Trumps NSC + Pentagon has been completely swamped with neocons, top to bottom.

The Chinese can END this easily - EASILY. China must however believe if they bunker down and keep Asia, and continue their economic game they'll succeed in the end. They underestimate many things - as they have before. Seems China got something worked up for North Korea after the recent visit + they don't want to rattle the Saudi's nor draw heat into themselves. China could however get a naval base + airbase with access to the Mediterranean but I guess China thinks they can buy it off cheap or live without one. Wonder where China will park the many carriers they are planning to build.

Anyhow Syria's fate will be decided on Rex Tillerson's visit to Moscow. If Moscow calls it off or vice versa - gloves will be off in both Ukraine and Syria. And Belarus should also need to be on guard. https://www.rt.com/uk/384030-johnson-cancelled-visit-moscow-syria/ - lapdog UK just cancelled.

That vacuum should have never been allowed to be filled up by the U.S - never. Israel who cares...pushover.

The only way to make sure that never happened was putting boots on the ground and aligning with some Kurdish faction from the start of ops. Russia's approach to this war has been a half-measure. And half-measure results it has gotten. The americans saw the play and quickly made sure that Russia wasn't going to turn over the war and win it easily in some sort of masterstroke just by being Assad's airforce. They're not stupid. They pushed and Russia blinked. Not to say all the blame belongs to Russia. Syria as a country is a mess. National identity is superseded by religion, ethnicity (that one can't even tell apart), languages....a mess. Assad's army is also a joke in terms of morale and will to fight. And the Iranians should get more involved with boots on the ground as well but I do see their calculus as to why not - they might have to however. The last civil war that got handled well that I remember was the Angolan civil war. And Cubans committed deeply. Obviously different beasts in this conflict but still.

JohninMK wrote:

Disagree strongly on the last point. The US would not actually take over, it would be the US/Saudi/Qatar/Israel's proxies which would result in a bloodbath. This the Russians have said they will not allow, no way will there be another Libya in Syria.

Proxies work for the big boss. They're interchangeable. Israel is a U.S state. Without its diplomatic cover, economic assistance, military assistance ad-infinitum it will fail and drown in the desert. Saudi Arabia would be a totally different country as well. Saudi's wouldn't withstand pressure to reform without U.S cover, much less get away with murder funding/nurturing global terrorism (along with the CIA) with no blowblack.

No country other than the U.S had the balls to be the Kurds army - it had to be them among the players in the conflict (or the Russians). The U.S is the only player strong enough to ward off a Russian challenge (that obviously never came because it's clear what type of challenge it requires). It was a big mistake for Russia to at the very least not had aligned with one of the current Kurdish groups and set up camp in the North (early on, or at least as soon as they started getting weapons from U.S and making gains). Pleasing Assad (by not playing with a Kurd faction early) had a MAJOR blowback. The Kurds are in it for themselves. They'll play anyone - and they sold out to the U.S. The Kurds will say nice things about Russia as long as Russia plays along with "autonomy". As soon as that doesn't happen they'll scream.

Optimally it would of been preferable if the Kurds were to have been overrun by the FSA/ISIS from the standpoint of ending the civil war with Syria borders 100% intact and having the government handle it all. Although as dirty as this war has been, if I am not mistaken the YPG cooperated with ISIS early on? Part of the same gang when needed?

The U.S clearly wants certain variations.

Borders intact edition = Kurds autonomy/Federation + Assad stepping down.
Borders split edition = Slicing up the North for the Kurds (Kurdistan?), (maybe even the Golan for Israel). Assad stays.

I tend to agree with you on many things, but not in the negativeness talking about the Kurds.

Of course the Kurds are playing for themselves. Who does not?

Despite what many times is said, the Kurds are not aligned with the US, like the government of Iraq is not aligned with the US. They, both, have to reject the help of the US? No-one is asking them to do. Not to the Kurds, not to Iraq.

There is some rare point here in the people blaming the Kurds, but not blaming Iraq because of the same reason. Iraq received higher level armament from the US than the Kurds.

If Russia plays their cards right they can pit Kurds against Turks and than Turks against NATO. Right now the last thing Russia can do is show fear, if they show fear, than it will be game over. Giving advanced weapons to the SAA would go along way and inviting a Hezbollah delegation to Moscow sends a strong message to Israel and inviting a PKK and other Kurdish delegation will send a strong message to Turkey and it will help Russia in the long run.

Problem with Syria is ISlam.

Is a religion that do not promote patriotism ,neither good morals and values.
They are muslins first ,and islam goes first. So Putin understand ,that it will
not be worth of it ,of sending a full scale army to save Syria from NATO ,
if later Russia have to finance the country with its own budget so they continue to exist.

Look what happened in Egypt .. in the war with Israel . Russia defended egypt
to fight Israel.. wasted a lot of money trying to save them. but what NATO did?
after they saw it was costly to overthrow its president ,they pushed for a
color revolution , to attack Egypt using its own people. and in less than 5 years or so , Egypt was controlled again by NATO . So Russia does not want to repeat the mistakes ,that after fighting ISIS for so long ,Assad is removed
and later the country disintegrates. And if Syria economy is bankrupt ,it will have major unrest for jobs and food. So Russia understand ,that the only way
Syria have a chance to survive ,is to give something of it to Americans. and allow kurds to have its own autonomy. and convince them to have good relations with Assad. The attack of NATO in Syria goes beyond a military one ,is economical too, and Syria cannot survive if it depends on Russia only for its economy and this is the last thing Russia wants. to have to maintain with its own budget 20 millions refugees in Syria ,that NATO will never stop attacking indirectly. So Putin needs to freeze the conflict and let the economic problems on the rebels terrorist zones ,make them realize ,that their Jihadist state project will not work. and they need to talk with Assad.
Putin mistake in Syria was only that it allowed the Syrian government to lose
too much territory 75% of it before helping directly. Russia should have never allowed Idlib too fall. and should have sent thousands of well armed private mercenaries to Syria long time ago. This same problems happened in Ukraine. Mr Putin left alone Yakunovych to its own luck for 6 months .and for not interfering before ,now he have NATO on ukraine borders.fighting by proxy them.

eehnie wrote:I tend to agree with you on many things, but not in the negativeness talking about the Kurds.

Of course the Kurds are playing for themselves. Who does not?

Despite what many times is said, the Kurds are not aligned with the US, like the government of Iraq is not aligned with the US. They, both, have to reject the help of the US? No-one is asking them to do. Not to the Kurds, not to Iraq.

There is some rare point here in the people blaming the Kurds, but not blaming Iraq because of the same reason. Iraq received higher level armament from the US than the Kurds.

I think the Kurd issue is very complicated obviously. The map redrawing after WW2 is a mess. But so has been the failure of Arab nations to try as hard as possible to cleanse the ethnic identity problem and replace it with a stronger national identity - which clearly does not exist. The fuckers are asking for autonomy and their dream is their own little country by splitting everyone else. That is a fact. Being a Kurd supersedes being a Syrian - no amount of baloney that they say will change the real game being played. You could draw a parallel to Chechnya and the chechens. Or if you need a U.S example...say the black cult in the U.S known as the Nation of Islam or La Raza for Mexicans.

I'm not saying the Kurds made a mistake accepting U.S assistance (although the U.S is behind the whole civil war to begin with so why ask/take their assistance?). I'm mostly highlighting that it was a failure of Russia not to act on the Kurd issue early on decisively. Otherwise the civil war could have an end in sight with Syria 100% intact and minimal changes to its government structure. The Kurds mess it all up. The fact that we refer to them as Kurds, not Syrians I think says enough.

The FSA, AL-Nusra, ISIS....these are players that can be steamrolled by brute military force and brought to the table to negotiate on your terms. You can't do that to the Kurds, not with american troops on the ground as a defacto protectorate.

Vann7 wrote:

Problem with Syria is ISlam.

Is a religion that do not promote patriotism ,neither good morals and values.
They are muslins first ,and islam goes first. So Putin understand ,that it will
not be worth of it ,of sending a full scale army to save Syria from NATO ,
if later Russia have to finance the country with its own budget so they continue to exist.

Look what happened in Egypt .. in the war with Israel . Russia defended egypt
to fight Israel.. wasted a lot of money trying to save them. but what NATO did?
after they saw it was costly to overthrow its president ,they pushed for a
color revolution , to attack Egypt using its own people. and in less than 5 years or so , Egypt was controlled again by NATO . So Russia does not want to repeat the mistakes ,that after fighting ISIS for so long ,Assad is removed
and later the country disintegrates. And if Syria economy is bankrupt ,it will have major unrest for jobs and food. So Russia understand ,that the only way
Syria have a chance to survive ,is to give something of it to Americans. and allow kurds to have its own autonomy. and convince them to have good relations with Assad. The attack of NATO in Syria goes beyond a military one ,is economical too, and Syria cannot survive if it depends on Russia only for its economy and this is the last thing Russia wants. to have to maintain with its own budget 20 millions refugees in Syria ,that NATO will never stop attacking indirectly.  So Putin needs to freeze the conflict and let the economic problems on the rebels terrorist zones ,make them realize ,that their Jihadist state project will not work. and they need to talk with Assad.
Putin mistake in Syria was only that it allowed the Syrian government to lose
too much territory 75% of it before helping directly. Russia should have never allowed Idlib too fall. and should have sent thousands of well armed private mercenaries to Syria long time ago.  This same problems happened in Ukraine. Mr Putin left alone Yakunovych to its own luck for 6 months .and for not interfering before ,now he have NATO on ukraine borders.fighting by proxy them.

I agree in many respects. I think the campaign for the most part has been handled cleanly. Not as clean as NATO did in Libya but clean enough given early inaction etc. I personally just see the Kurd oversight as the biggest blunder in the war - and not for lack of warming. The U.S telegraphed their moves well in advance (with the Kurds) and Russians had chances to counter act. Now they'll have to deal with the U.S on terms; how to put it, not optimal.

GarryB wrote:
Ideally once ISIS is done then Syria and the Kurds can talk about autonomy or something... but as I said above I doubt the Kurds will settle for anything less than independence... but then that would be a real genuine civil war that Russia doesn't need to get involved with.

Russia "shouldn't" get involved with it but the Americans can and will. Which is why they have boots on the ground to act as Kurds protector in chief. If there was an alternative scenario where Russians were the ones providing these services to the Kurds (and in so doing blocking american boots on the ground) then negotiations between Assad and the Kurds would be totally different. Safe to say Kurdish demands would be extremely moderate - pun intended. With the U.S on the ground and on their back the Kurds will stretch their luck beyond what they would otherwise get. Assad won't be able to use the threat of force to get a "moderate" deal.

GarryB wrote:
The US makes a lot of money by breaking countries and then selling services to rebuild... works best in oil rich regions that can generate revenue fairly quickly to pay to rebuild.

For sure. The geopolitical gains are infinitely more valuable as well - when it comes to Syria

GarryB wrote:
What are you talking about?

The US goes half cocked and fucks up and all of a sudden it is Russias fault?

Talking about "allowing" American soldier deployments in syrian soil, setting up camp with the Kurds. That should have been prevented.

The airstrike I agree. It's more of a theatrics show that while it doesn't mean much in terms of facts on the ground it does say a bit about American's going unchallenged if they please. That was their message - to go along with a policy shift.

....Talking about "allowing" American soldier deployments in syrian soil, setting up camp with the Kurds. That should have been prevented. ......

Russia couldn't stop that any more than USA could have stopped Russian deployment in Latakia. Not without WW3 in either case.

.....The airstrike I agree. It's more of a theatrics show that while it doesn't mean much in terms of facts on the ground it does say a bit about American's going unchallenged if they please. That was their message - to go along with a policy shift....

It went "unchanged" for a reason. No point revealing capabilities of your AA systems just to stop missile strike you knew about beforehand on irrelevant and easily restorable airfield.

Besides, those missiles were probably sent way around Latakia for mutual convenience.

Clowns like Lindzey let slip a lot.



How many troops do we need in Syria? About 7000.

How long will they stay? As long as they have to. After taking out ISIS in Raqqa, their mission would be to arm, train and support "the rebels" - aka they will not pack and leave. Al-Nusra will get rebranded (split/merged) for the billionth time until the chemistry mix is so diluted that the result = moderate rebels (for western media obv.). In effect, the Kurds have handed over to the U.S a massive stage of operations, safe for attrition warfare. And Assad isn't even close to even threatening Idlib yet.

When Rex flips flops and says Assad must go and I hear the Israelis drumming up war, the Turks singing praises and cheering for more and the Jordanians after the King's visit allowing American hardware into their country then I start paying attention to what neocon clowns let slip up since they are the dogs of the MIC in the U.S Senate. They let you know the objective, even if the means to get to the objective change over time.

PapaDragon wrote:
Russia couldn't stop that any more than USA could have stopped Russian deployment in Latakia. Not without WW3 in either case.

The matter is not whether Russia can demand the U.S to get out. The matter is that Russia should have prevented that deployment by taking the initiative and allying themselves with a Kurdish faction/group early on in their intervention, setting up camp (a sizeable contingent of special forces) and outmaneuvering the U.S in the north. Thus denying that area of operations, that window of opportunity to exist for the Americans to get troops on the ground. Of course once the agreement between the Kurds and the U.S was decided and the U.S starts shipping their personal it's all but over.

That was the lack of foresight. And I'm pretty sure there were Kurdish groups who would have allied with Russia, specially those with communist/socialist underpinnings. Decisive action just wasn't taken.

The matter is not whether Russia can demand the U.S to get out. The matter is that Russia should have prevented that deployment by taking the initiative and allying themselves with a Kurdish faction/group early on in their intervention, setting up camp (a sizeable contingent of special forces) and outmaneuvering the U.S in the north. Thus denying that area of operations, that window of opportunity to exist for the Americans to get troops on the ground.

1) Kurds are backstabbing snakes that were in US pocket long ago.

2) How do you sell deployment of that size to Russian electorate especially when you are being so restrained in Ukraine which is much more important?