• Russia: Cooperate on Syria or prepare for unforeseen consequences
    27 replies, posted
[IMG]http://static.dnaindia.com/sites/default/files/2015/09/08/373933-russian-troop-getty-images.jpg[/IMG] [QUOTE]Russia has called for military-to-military cooperation with the United States to avert "unintended incidents" as it stages navy exercises off the coast of Syria, where U.S. officials believe Moscow is building up forces to protect President Bashar Assad. The United States is using Syrian air space to lead a campaign of air strikes against Islamic State, and a greater Russian presence raises the prospect of the Cold War superpower foes encountering each other on the battlefield. Both Moscow and Washington say their enemy is ISIS, whose Islamist fighters control large parts of Syria and Iraq. But Russia supports the government of Assad in Syria, while the United States says his presence makes the situation worse. In recent days, U.S. officials have described what they say is an increase of Russian equipment and manpower. President Barack Obama said this would not change U.S. strategy in countering Islamic State fighters, which includes U.S. planes leading an international coalition in airstrikes in Syria. "But we are going to be engaging Russia to let them know that you can't continue to double-down on a strategy that is doomed to failure," he said at an event with military service members during a visit to Maryland. In the latest reports, two Western officials and a Russian source told Reuters Moscow is sending advanced SA-22 anti-aircraft missiles to Syria. The system would be operated by Russian troops, rather than Syrians, the Western officials said. U.S. officials in Washington also said they believed about 200 Russian naval infantry forces were now stationed at an airfield near the Syrian city of Latakia, an Assad stronghold, and that the number had increased in recent days. At a news conference in Moscow, Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said Russia was sending equipment to help Assad fight Islamic State. Russian servicemen were in Syria, he said, primarily to help service that equipment and teach Syrian soldiers how to use it.[/QUOTE] [url]http://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/russia-u-s-talk-us-syria-or-risk-unintended-incidents-n426296[/url]
Honestly, USA should let Russians prop up Assad if it means another helping hand against ISIS. Assad is a rotten rat but ISIS should stay the priority, even if it's at cost of letting Russians prop up their weapon money buddy. [editline]12th September 2015[/editline] The last thing anybody needs is Russian SAM "accidentally" shooting down some American planes and/or American jets "accidentally" bombing some Russian forces.
"prepare for unforeseen consequences" i was gonna make that joke but i don't want to look like a retard
[QUOTE=Trixil;48666766]"prepare for unforeseen consequences" i was gonna make that joke but i don't want to look like a retard[/QUOTE] that was the joke..
[quote]President Barack Obama said this would not change U.S. strategy in countering Islamic State fighters, which includes U.S. planes leading an international coalition in airstrikes in Syria.[/quote] Well if they do put boots on the ground to fight Daesh then they need to cooperate with us, and tell us where they're going to be. Otherwise, we'll continue kinetic operations like we have been. Obama really hit the nail on the head with that simple statement.
Our official media coverage switched from all about Ukraine to some Ukraine and some Syria. Seems like Russia really has big plans for Syria.
Russia will start by taking ukraine and syria
[QUOTE=ridinmybike;48670962]Russia will start by taking ukraine and syria[/QUOTE] Why the hell would Russia even [b]want[/b] Syria? This isn't some conspiracy to start seizing property, because Syria is borderline worthless at this point. The lack of infrastructure alone makes it a multi-billion dollar liability. As far as I'm concerned, they're honestly trying to stomp out ISIS before it becomes a problem in some of Russia's more tempermental regions.
[QUOTE=Awesomecaek;48666755]Honestly, USA should let Russians prop up Assad if it means another helping hand against ISIS. [/QUOTE] I would prefer it if we didn't support a regime that uses chemical weapons on its own people.
[QUOTE=ewitwins;48671294]Why the hell would Russia even [b]want[/b] Syria? This isn't some conspiracy to start seizing property, because Syria is borderline worthless at this point. The lack of infrastructure alone makes it a multi-billion dollar liability. As far as I'm concerned, they're honestly trying to stomp out ISIS before it becomes a problem in some of Russia's more tempermental regions.[/QUOTE] For the same reason they wanted Crimea. Warm water ports.
[QUOTE=ewitwins;48671294]Why the hell would Russia even [b]want[/b] Syria? This isn't some conspiracy to start seizing property, because Syria is borderline worthless at this point. The lack of infrastructure alone makes it a multi-billion dollar liability. As far as I'm concerned, they're honestly trying to stomp out ISIS before it becomes a problem in some of Russia's more tempermental regions.[/QUOTE] Syria is one of the last remaining pro-Russian states in the Middle East.
[QUOTE=ewitwins;48671294] As far as I'm concerned, they're honestly trying to stomp out ISIS before it becomes a problem in some of Russia's more tempermental regions.[/QUOTE] i seriously doubt that's the reason the russians stepping up their presence. they're are probably in Syria to secure their naval base in Tartus. fighting ISIS is probaby not their main goal.
I love how one of the Russian soldiers has a hand on his chin, probably wondering why the hell he's there.
[QUOTE=Dr. Gestapo;48671878]i seriously doubt that's the reason the russians stepping up their presence. they're are probably in Syria to secure their naval base in Tartus. fighting ISIS is probaby not their main goal.[/QUOTE] Before all RF personnel were evacuated from Syria in 2013, the Tartus station only had 4 Russian servicemen. It's been slowly reinforcing itself. [url]https://www.bellingcat.com/news/mena/2015/09/07/are-there-russian-troops-fighting-in-syria/[/url]
[QUOTE=puppy156;48671900]I love how one of the Russian soldiers has a hand on his chin, probably wondering why the hell he's there.[/QUOTE] Or imagining how cool it would be to invade something.
[QUOTE=l33tkill;48667017]Well if they do put boots on the ground to fight Daesh then they need to cooperate with us, and tell us where they're going to be. Otherwise, we'll continue kinetic operations like we have been. Obama really hit the nail on the head with that simple statement.[/QUOTE] Careful calling them Daesh. I got chewed out by multiple people in my thread for calling them Daesh instead of ISIS. Fucking keyboard warriors, man.
[QUOTE=purvisdavid1;48672405]Before all RF personnel were evacuated from Syria in 2013, the Tartus station only had 4 Russian servicemen. It's been slowly reinforcing itself. [url]https://www.bellingcat.com/news/mena/2015/09/07/are-there-russian-troops-fighting-in-syria/[/url][/QUOTE] Well they also had a hush hush military observation post near the Golan heights which let them spy on israel, they cleared out of there though because the region became too unstable [editline]13th September 2015[/editline] [QUOTE=BazzBerry;48672478]Careful calling them Daesh. I got chewed out by multiple people in my thread for calling them Daesh instead of ISIS. Fucking keyboard warriors, man.[/QUOTE] We Americans love our acronyms, we got our NSAs our CIAs, our USSRs so naturally we love when we can call an enemy by an acronym
[QUOTE=Banhfunbags;48671819]I would prefer it if we didn't support a regime that uses chemical weapons on its own people.[/QUOTE] You have two choices in front of you: eat shit or eat shit that tastes good. What do you choose?
[QUOTE=Banhfunbags;48671819]I would prefer it if we didn't support a regime that uses chemical weapons on its own people.[/QUOTE] Lesser evil as Assad is at least not a complete savage but just a small dictator. I mean he is a dick, but its either him or endless war at this point.
[QUOTE=Dark RaveN;48672924]You have two choices in front of you: eat shit or eat shit that tastes good. What do you choose?[/QUOTE] Well one can always eat bad shit until it tastes good. When it comes to Middle East and, well, pretty much everyone who isn't "Middle East", it seems to be the main modus operandi.
This whole thing is looking like Putin's attempt to save some face after the absolute foreign relations disaster caused by the Ukraine invasion but hey, anything that severely hurts ISIS is all fine in my book.
They're right, though. We established proper procedures for cooperation between NATO countries because of the amount of times we bombed/shot at each other by accident in Iraq onwards. Meticulous care needs to be taken to make sure we don't accidentally wipe out a Spetsnaz squad or something, because that could really upset things yet again. For once Russia and the US are fighting the same people at the same time.
[QUOTE=Jon27;48673180]They're right, though. We established proper procedures for cooperation between NATO countries because of the amount of times we bombed/shot at each other by accident in Iraq onwards. Meticulous care needs to be taken to make sure we don't accidentally wipe out a Spetsnaz squad or something, because that could really upset things yet again. For once Russia and the US are fighting the same people at the same time.[/QUOTE] The catch is that Russia supports Assad, whom US hates.
[QUOTE=DudesonFan;48673117]This whole thing is looking like Putin's attempt to save some face after the absolute foreign relations disaster caused by the Ukraine invasion but hey, anything that severely hurts ISIS is all fine in my book.[/QUOTE] Nah it's not. Russia is raking in money (and did for many years) for the supplies they sell Assad's regime. It's nothing but good ol' arms export interest.
I'm wondering how much effort the Russians are willing to exert to help keep Assad propped up and in power.
[QUOTE=BazzBerry;48672478]Careful calling them Daesh. I got chewed out by multiple people in my thread for calling them Daesh instead of ISIS. Fucking keyboard warriors, man.[/QUOTE] Sorry, but I'm not going to refer to them as an Islamic state regardless of where I post. We call them by their proper name at work, why not anywhere else? I honestly don't care if they read what I write anyways. But calling them an Islamic State in any situation is an insult to Muslims to one of the highest degrees. I've called them ISIS before unintentionally right in front of Saudi and Jordanian pilots during a pre-briefing, and I received the biggest ass chewing that I've ever had from any of the coalition partners. They take that shit seriously, and I had the lucky time of finding out why they do. :v: [editline] 13SEP15 [/editline] Ahh now I see why you mentioned that. Because people clearly care about how others refer to a terrorist organization by. That's actually pretty funny. Do I care if anyone else calls them ISIS/ISIL? Not one bit lol. I probably should have mentioned that somewhere, but I honestly didn't think people would be so butthurt about it.
[QUOTE=l33tkill;48674390]Sorry, but I'm not going to refer to them as an Islamic state regardless of where I post. We call them by their proper name at work, why not anywhere else? I honestly don't care if they read what I write anyways. But calling them an Islamic State in any situation is an insult to Muslims to one of the highest degrees. I've called them ISIS before unintentionally right in front of Saudi and Jordanian pilots during a pre-briefing, and I received the biggest ass chewing that I've ever had from any of the coalition partners. They take that shit seriously, and I had the lucky time of finding out why they do. :v:[/QUOTE] Boo hoo. It's not our fault that people continue to associate with some weirdo club-label when others in the magic club are committing atrocities. This is the most annoying argument ever anyway, considering how clearly the Islamic State is motivated by Islamic doctrines.
[QUOTE=MuffinZerg;48673216]The catch is that Russia supports Assad, whom US hates.[/QUOTE] This is true. But regardless of who Russia is supporting, we have no interest in dropping bombs on Russian troops. That would be an act of war. The only way around it is for communication between the people authorising the airstrikes and the people in charge of the Russian ground operation. Even with JTACs and such, and perfect cooperation between ground and air, accidents and near disasters have happened by the dozen in Afghanistan and Iraq, so this situation could be a real time bomb.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.