Is it really more practical to transport these aircraft by An-124 and reassemble them in Syria? Even if they were stored in this condition it seems odd to me. But perhaps it is to teach the people who are to maintain them to know the aircraft.
ISIS/ISIL conflict in Syria/Iraq (No OpEd, No Politics)
- Thread starter Jeff Head
- Start date
plawolf
Lieutenant General
Do Russia have any tankers deployed in Syria? If not, maybe they decided it's less costly to send planes over this way rather than send tankers from Russia to support their transfer.
Feb 5, 2017
... and from what I figured now, ISIL indeed is in Bzaah which would be an important point for the retreat from the whole (Qabasin and Al-Bab) pocket, which is shrinking quickly as also Government has been attacking it (from the south, including ):
(the gap south to Bzaah would be just about one mile wide)
EDIT
the point is the next post may be a pompous announcement of Al-Bab victory, which could mean (but wouldn't be included in a pompous announcementISIL pulled off after it had been holding up for months, in more or less open terrain, inflicting significant losses on a major NATO army with air dominance
Indeed, except that I no longer see an ISIS pullout as a viable option.
I am going to hazard my best guess as the Syrian Govt./Russian strategy here.
Its also worth stating that I see the hand of a very shrewd strategist at work in this situation.
It is very clear that Al-Bab and environs are being held, by a very large, very well fortified and very well supplied ISIS force. I would not be surprised to learn that many top ISIS units are in that garrison.
I do not believe that the SAA are going to try and force their way into the South of the City any time soon.
They are it seems instead more than happy to simply lock them in, while they expand East and South to liberate the remaining Eastern Aleppo countyside and the remaining stronghold of Deir Hafiz, just South East of Kuweires Airbase.
This is an inspired stategy. ISIS in Al-Bab cannot now break out even if they wanted too, as they would be running into the guns of the SAA for a massive Turkey shoot.
Speaking of Turkey, they cannot simply walk away or stop without losing very considerable face and so will need to try and overrun ISIS in Al-Bab through attrition, which is a very long and costly operation.
In short, by trapping ISIS in Al-Bab, the SAA have locked the Turks and ISIS into a death embrace in the City, which locks up the main strength of both forces and allows the SAA to operate in the remaining Aleppo countryside, pretty much at its pleasure.
Very, very clever.
Miragedriver
Brigadier
Russian sappers working in Aleppo. Syria
Miragedriver
Brigadier
Russian servicemen continue cleaning operations in Aleppo
Jura The idiot
General
I'm going to strongly limit my posting in
ISIS/ISIL conflict in Syria/Iraq (No OpEd, No Politics)
because I have enough (the unimportant part is it's been thousand plus posts, dozens of charts etc. over one year and a half when I was crosschecking sources to the above) since basically all anti-ISIL forces have disappointed me (those who've been reading my posts may recall the examples), and I add the important part as I see it (and before I'll read from somebody what I was thinking about); what I say now will make me even less popular in this Forum (LOL if you think it's not possible anymore, just read on):
to me, ISIL is a plague as bad as the Bolsheviks were around 100 years ago, and there are numerous anti-ISIL forces now as there were against Bolsheviks around 100 years ago; back then the problem was they were not united, sometimes subdivided, with conflicting interests (it's not 20th Century History thread here so just schematically what I mean):
General Wrangel x Admiral Kolchak
x
Piłsudski
UK, France (both broke after WWOne) x USA, Japan
x
Czechoslovak Legion
and against the odds, both military (above) and economical (no official export plus damaged infrastructure), the Bolsheviks survived, to Rapallo 1922 (when one of the losers of the preceding war went back to the game) and beyond ...
at this point you've already guessed where I'm heading so I'll be brief ...
now there are numerous anti-ISIL forces and the problem is they are not united, sometimes subdivided, with conflicting interests:
Mr. Assad; Iraqi Government; Kurds; Turks; Arab Monarchies; Iran; USA; NATO; Russia
and against the odds ... no! I truly hope the story stops here, it was just a stretch what I wrote, and in several years from now I won't see any rogue country officially starting to do business with ISIL (but, had it been 1920 now, in the same way I would've hoped the Bolsheviks would be defeated)
(I won't be responding and noticed
SampanViking
had posted here today so I assume he's watching)
ISIS/ISIL conflict in Syria/Iraq (No OpEd, No Politics)
because I have enough (the unimportant part is it's been thousand plus posts, dozens of charts etc. over one year and a half when I was crosschecking sources to the above) since basically all anti-ISIL forces have disappointed me (those who've been reading my posts may recall the examples), and I add the important part as I see it (and before I'll read from somebody what I was thinking about); what I say now will make me even less popular in this Forum (LOL if you think it's not possible anymore, just read on):
to me, ISIL is a plague as bad as the Bolsheviks were around 100 years ago, and there are numerous anti-ISIL forces now as there were against Bolsheviks around 100 years ago; back then the problem was they were not united, sometimes subdivided, with conflicting interests (it's not 20th Century History thread here so just schematically what I mean):
General Wrangel x Admiral Kolchak
x
Piłsudski
UK, France (both broke after WWOne) x USA, Japan
x
Czechoslovak Legion
and against the odds, both military (above) and economical (no official export plus damaged infrastructure), the Bolsheviks survived, to Rapallo 1922 (when one of the losers of the preceding war went back to the game) and beyond ...
at this point you've already guessed where I'm heading so I'll be brief ...
now there are numerous anti-ISIL forces and the problem is they are not united, sometimes subdivided, with conflicting interests:
Mr. Assad; Iraqi Government; Kurds; Turks; Arab Monarchies; Iran; USA; NATO; Russia
and against the odds ... no! I truly hope the story stops here, it was just a stretch what I wrote, and in several years from now I won't see any rogue country officially starting to do business with ISIL (but, had it been 1920 now, in the same way I would've hoped the Bolsheviks would be defeated)
(I won't be responding and noticed
SampanViking
had posted here today so I assume he's watching)
Well Jura, I have been watching and now that my busy time of year is subsiding, I hope to be a more active participant again.
It would be shame if you choose this time to discontinue your very valuable contribution.
I will just add to my post yesterday, that I think that a lot of the SAA activity in Eastern Aleppo is as much to do with the mundane,as it is with grand strategy.
The Government opened the new year with the City of Aleppo newly liberated, but still dependant on a very narrow and vulnerable lifeline from the south, to bring in the vast majority of the basics supplies for up to two million people.
I do detect an attempt to re-establish food security and normality for the citizens. I am aware that key industrial zones are the main target of reconstruction, in order to bring back employment and of course industrial/military capacity. I also note that the Eastern plains of Aleppo seem quite fertile and also contain the main Euphrates/Aleppo water canal/Aquaduct for the Cities water supply.
I do suspect, that the current drive would be to secure the territory from Aleppo to the Euphrates and then South, to give the City; not only Strategic Depth, but also access to local fresh produce and a secure water supply.
The military aspect of this is of course that it would remove a huge volume of "Civilian" traffic coming up on the road link to the South and that this alone would significantly enhance the SAA ability to deploy and respond in the area..
So lets see, if they push as far east as the Euphrates.
It would be shame if you choose this time to discontinue your very valuable contribution.
I will just add to my post yesterday, that I think that a lot of the SAA activity in Eastern Aleppo is as much to do with the mundane,as it is with grand strategy.
The Government opened the new year with the City of Aleppo newly liberated, but still dependant on a very narrow and vulnerable lifeline from the south, to bring in the vast majority of the basics supplies for up to two million people.
I do detect an attempt to re-establish food security and normality for the citizens. I am aware that key industrial zones are the main target of reconstruction, in order to bring back employment and of course industrial/military capacity. I also note that the Eastern plains of Aleppo seem quite fertile and also contain the main Euphrates/Aleppo water canal/Aquaduct for the Cities water supply.
I do suspect, that the current drive would be to secure the territory from Aleppo to the Euphrates and then South, to give the City; not only Strategic Depth, but also access to local fresh produce and a secure water supply.
The military aspect of this is of course that it would remove a huge volume of "Civilian" traffic coming up on the road link to the South and that this alone would significantly enhance the SAA ability to deploy and respond in the area..
So lets see, if they push as far east as the Euphrates.
Jura The idiot
General
... then please accept a virtual armchair-marshal's baton from me
LOL!
The differences among the various anti-IS forces predate IS. The various anti-IS forces also contribute(d) both directly and indirectly, deliberately and not, to IS' existence. IS and the conflict surrounding it are also only part of much larger scope machinations by the same various parties. I think if you can come to terms with these facts in a circumspect manner then you would neither be surprised nor disappointed in how events have unfolded and are likely to unfold.
I agree with PanAsian (that you should not be surprised if you....). Besides what PanAsian has said in post #5109, I will add this:
There was only two camps from the beginning, the Syrian government/Russia and the Rebel/Gulf monarchs/West. IS is just the most extreme faction within the rebel ranks, Al Nusra is another one. These guys just switch their names as they see fit. If you read the history of the relationship of Al Nusra and IS you would know what I mean. If you are disappointed with anyone not effectively fighting against IS, it is only the ones who turned blind eyes on money/material/personnel flow to IS/Nusra (or whatever names) through their boarders in the hope of regime change in Syria. We know very well who that are, the rebel's sponsors. It is these sponsors who switched side (half hearted) later when IS sent flesh-bombers to the sponsors' soil. You have never seen Syrian government used IS to fight the rebels, do you?
Now, you can ask yourself, how could Syrian government sincerely unite with one enemy against the other enemy of the same creation when both enemies want the very same thing (to overthrow it)? How could you then blame the government for that?
Let's revisit what was said at the very beginning of the Arab Winter(mess).
1. Kaddafi warned the west before he was killed by the west sponsored "freedom" fighter that he was fighting extremists hiding among the ranks of rebels, the west killed him anyway, then we see Libya became the hotbed for terrorists. These "freedom" fighters even killed their "friend´s ambassador".
2. Assad warned of "someone playing fire at the fault line of middle-east" back in the beginning of Syrian civil war, those someone played fire anyway, now we see what we are seeing. If anyone is to be blamed, it has to be the ones who did not listen to the warnings and started the fire.
BTW, bringing the Bolshevik doesn't help to present your concern as it is not comparable and risk to offend. I won't go to details as not to distract, but to be brief for you to consider. 1. Bolshevik were home-grown rebels/revolutions, a big difference. 2. Unlike IS who is enemy to the whole human race, Bolsheviks (even considering their huge mistakes in USSR) did and still does have many supporters/followers/Sympathizers in one form or another, another difference and therefor the risk of offending.
Last edited: