ISIS/ISIL conflict in Syria/Iraq (No OpEd, No Politics)
- Thread starter Jeff Head
- Start date
janjak desalin
Junior Member
I read that, too. Considering the source, an Assad gov't high-up, I'm skeptical.
As far as illuminating ISIL is concerned, I thought it possible, too, that you might have meant to light them suckers up! I'm good with that!
I guess that Russia might have expected an opportunity to change the game after the Iran nuclear deal and started the training of the Syrian pilots say nine months ago on these aircraft.
plawolf
Lieutenant General
Or possibility 3) Russian pilots are flying Russian planes, with both sides telling everyone else those are Syrian pilots.
Have happened enough times in the past (with planes and pilots of many different countries being involved) that it should be considered as a serious possibility.
Or if you go with option 3), you get the same diplomatic and PR cover while not compromising on pilot capability and co-ordination.
With no disrespect to the Syrian pilots, but these are variants that are going to be different to what they have been used to flying, not lease because all the cockpit writing, displays and voice prompts are going to be in Russian. The cockpit layout and fighter capabilities are also going to be different from the Su24 they were used to flying, maybe significantly so depending on what model the Russians sent over.
In addition, given how long the war has been raging and the fact that Assad has had to resort to helicopter dropped barrel bombs, I wonder how many flying hours any remaining Syrian pilots would have been able to clock in recent years, or worse, if they had been flying and operating, it does not fill you with confidence of their effectiveness if Assad felt he also need to deploy barrel bombs on top of that.
Well, it could be strongly argued that the whole mess in Syria was started because certain people in certain capitals are still trying to play some Great Game in the region, and their post-Assad master plan for Syria most certainly does not include the Russians having a significant influence.
The whole thing was likely a move to remove a strong Russian ally in the region to start with, so ending up with Russia having more influence than before it all started would certainly not appeal.
Unfortunately, the more I see things developing, the less it looks like the western powers truly care, so seemingly, even want to stop ISIS.
Sure you cannot win a war from the air, but the western bombing campaign against ISIS has been surreally poor in performance.
If anyone had suggested that the combined might of the US and western air forces would have so little impact on a foe without any mid to high level air defences before this conflict, I think everyone would have scoffed.
It is still hard to reconcile the effectiveness of these every same western air forces and assets in other, similar campaigns (Libya as a case in point), with their near impotency now.
With reports that the US is blocking attempts to get ISIS branded as a terrorist organisation by the UN (seriously what's with that?!), it is hard not to have suspicions.
>>> Removed Acronym for Profanity per SD's Rules <<<
Last edited by a moderator:
You can argue effectively either way as the Pro's and Con's are all strong arguments.
China has strong incentives for getting involved.
- The future of its overland infrastructure projects linking to Africa
- The Uigher effect
- Geopolitical solidarity and a good place to demonstrate resolve
- An effective crucible to gain much needed combat experience
At the very least there are good reasons for Chinese Assets to position themselves even if only for Intel and Observation.
With the last point I agree wholly. But I reason that Russia might be damaging, to some extent, its reasonably good relations with Saudi Arabia. It might be prudent for China not to do the same. Of course Saudi politics are difficult to judge especially for total outsiders like myself.
And perhaps the Saudies are now mostly concerned with the terrible accident during the hadj.
plawolf
Lieutenant General
As I said earlier, the Chinese have assets that will massively boost and supplement what the Russians have available, however, if the Chinese do get involved, I would suspect a low-key to almost covert deployment.
Probably restricted to "civilian" advisors and contractors, who will operate mainly in a support function by operating drones and gathering intel rather than overt displays of power and hardware like the Russians are deploying.
I would be very surprised if the PLA gets directly and overtly involved with the fighting in Syria, but I would not be surprised if China secretly send in supplementary assets and support personnel to aid any Russian direct action.
Although direct PLA involvement could not be ruled out, especially if the Syrian government makes a formal request for military aid and assistance from China.
China's non-interference policy would be circumvented in that case, since the Chinese policy is specific to unauthorised and uninvited intervention in the affairs of others. Being formally asked to help and accepting it is something China is perfectly willing to do, and have done so many times in the past.
The price the Chinese would demand for such assistance would be for any and all Uighur terrorists to be placed very high on every target list (another reason for them to help with intel and targeting).
China may also get its own naval and military base out of such a deal.
Its all possible and easily within reach if only China has the will to pursue those goals.
I guess we will have to wait and see.
If true it's interesting to connect the dots between these two developments. If there was a UN mission targeting IS not only China but other countries will probably pitch in, crediting Russia, and most likely the mission would succeed working with the official Syrian government as the legitimate local authority.
Therefore steps to prevent this make sense with US allies Turkey and Saudi Arabia who most likely are sponsoring IS, and other armed extremists, or at least clearly not committed to defeating it despite official positions to the contrary. Just compare the resources devoted to and the effect of the Saudi-led campaign against the Houthi's in Yemen and the ineffectiveness of its supposed participation in the campaign with the US against IS.
Preventing such developments also align with US interests, specifically the current administration's subtle and brilliant strategy of enabling local forces, or anyone but the US, bleed ,stalemate, and increase the long term animosity between themselves to the benefit of the US simply not being involved too much. Textbook divide and conquer, and colonialism machinations. Besides from the obvious negatives for direct participants heavily invested in the conflict, the conflict also closes off many potential economic and business opportunities that would have benefited the likes of China at the expense of the US or its colonial system allies. An ongoing conflict with no winner is a huge boon to the US, the more others get involved with no end in sight the better. It also reshuffles Middle Eastern extremists' target lists to prioritize these other countries over the US even if the likes of IS are reduced to non-territory-holding terrorists.
janjak desalin
Junior Member
I question why Russia seeks 'good relations with Saudi Arabia' in the first place, as Saudi oil production/pricing practices affect drastically negative impacts upon the Russian economy. If there is one country against which a decisive strategic military attack would immediately improve both Russia's economic and geopolitical positions, it's Saudi Arabia, and, specifically, its oil production/processing/export installations in the northwestern Persian Gulf coastal region.
Not advocating, just contextualizing.