[Sixstrings]

Russia destroys Turkish truck convoy headed for Syrian militants -- Erdogan silent

AND what was in the truck convoy that the Russians destroyed? Chances are the trucks were loaded with US weapons and ammunition bound for the Syrian rebels.

The photos the rebels released after they shot down the Russian helicopter trying to rescue the pilots showed they were armed with US TOW missiles and other US equipment.

Can someone explain to me why even Bernie Sanders is for that policy, arming the moderate rebels that Russia bombs?

Sanders Backs Obama ‘Moderate Syrian Army’ Strategy

The Socialist Senator from Vermont explained that he supports President Obama’s regional strategy and rejects Clinton’s more interventionist stance.

“I support President Obama’s efforts to combat the Islamic State in Syria while at the same time supporting those in Syria trying to overthrow the brutal dictatorship of Bashar al-Assad,” he said.

The office of Senator Sanders did not respond by press time to a request by Breitbart News to elaborate on who “those in Syria trying to overthrow” Assad specifically are.
http://www.breitbart.com/national-security/2015/10/05/sanders-backs-obama-moderate-syrian-army-strategy-contra-hillary/

edit: I don't want to rant too much, this issue is too serious. Shorter version of the long rant: if you criticize everyone else, then just say what YOUR plan would be.

But yeah, the whole thing sucks. Any kind of war starting up between Turkey and Russia is bad bad bad stuff.

Ultimately I put the blame on Putin -- he doesn't need to be down there to start with. This ain't even east europe. And Putin already caused a bunch of trouble in Europe, that epic long "ukraine crisis" and Poland and the whole region is still worried to this day and honestly it's an objective reality that every last one of Russia's neighbors has issues with Russia. It can't be everyone else's fault, some of it has to be Putin's -- no?

Ultimately I put the blame on Putin -- he should join the international coalition, and not make things worse, and do not cross nato borders, and Russia shouldn't be doing its own thing in the ME, IT SHOULD BE with the international coalition with all the other nations.

It's PUTIN that has made things so dangerous, in Europe, in the ME. Enough with it, it would be nice if he'd join the international coalition because I think all the Western leaders are correct when they say that Putin just makes things worse.

It's just too much risk for the world. All to make Putin happy. Wtf. He started things up in Europe, now he's started things up in the ME, and according to ALL OUR LEADERS it has been Putin that has prevented resolution to the Syria crisis.

It's not good. This is not good world order, and it's not good for Russia or in the interest of the Russian people for goodness sake.

Notice how China has declared neutrality in this -- they did not take Putin's side.

I'm very worried about all this. Bottom line about it: in the interest of his own country (Russia), in the interest of the world, in the interest of not creating a very large war in the ME -- then Putin should cut a deal with the coalition and give up on Assad.

I miss Gorbachev. I miss Yeltsin. And Medvedev was never like Putin has been, for these years. Kruschev was before my time, but not even he was so risk-taking as what Putin is. And it is all so tragic and unnecessary -- Russia should be a friend, they don't need to keep doing the things they've been doing with Putin in charge.

I guess I wound up ranting anyway, with the rewrite.

[radon1]

And what about the downed airliner in Ukraine?

That was shot down by the Caliphate---not NATO.

Mistook Ukraine for Egypt here.

[radon1]

https://translate.google.ru/translate?h ... 63d60236fd

Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan said that if Turkish warplane is shot down over Syrian airspace from the complex S-400, Ankara will regard it as an act of aggression

So, Erdo effectively extends Turkish sovereignty to the Syrian territory. What is this, other than a land grab, or "annexation". Is this going to be protected by NATO, along with his cutie oil business?

[Sixstrings]

If you guys think I'm off base to criticize Putin, then read the chicago tribune, it says the same thing -- "Putin is waging war on far too many fronts:"

Putin's waging war on far too many fronts

Putin is discovering that he may have overstretched. He cannot send troops into southern Ukraine to restore power to Crimea, because that would cause international outrage and endanger any chance of forging an alliance with Western countries in Syria. Nor can he risk a military confrontation with Turkey, a NATO member that could cut off Russia's main supply line to Syria — across the Mediterranean. Russia can't manage several simultaneous conflicts with its most important neighbors, especially as domestic discontent with austerity measures appears to be rising.

Putin's Russia is not exactly weak, it's just alone and unloved after alienating even potential friends such as Turkey and Ukraine. In the near future, if pressure rises on any of his multiple fronts, Putin may feel cornered. In a book of interviews published in 2000, "First Person," he described a formative episode in the dingy St. Peterburg building where he lived as a boy:

"There, on that staircase, I figured out once and for all what the world 'cornered' means. There were rats in the hallway. My friends and I would always chase them with sticks. Once I saw a huge rat and started pursuing it until I chased it into a corner. It had nowhere to run. So it turned around and threw itself at me. It was unexpected and very scary. Now the rat was chasing me."

Now, however, it's Putin who may be cornered. He has pushed around his regional partners and rivals, his Western adversaries and a supine population for 15 years. If they all turn on him, he may not have a long-enough stick to fight all of them off.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/commentary/ct-putin-russian-plane-turkey-syria-ukraine-20151124-story.html

[davep]

Ultimately I put the blame on Putin -- he should join the international coalition, and not make things worse, and do not cross nato borders, and Russia shouldn't be doing its own thing in the ME, IT SHOULD BE with the international coalition with all the other nations.

The international coalition that had no mandate to bomb in Syria? The international coalition that didn't "notice" the Daesh oil runs in over a year while Daesh took more and more territory? At least Putin was asked in by the Government (whatever you may think of them) and started dealing with insurgents properly.

[Cottager]

I don't think Syria is worth ANY of these risks or costs.

Someone should tell Mr. Putin that. Lavrov has already told Kerry that Russia isn't really tied to Assad. So Putin should stop gaming out for max advantage and cut a deal with the coalition and cooperate with / join the existing international coalition.

I should have been more clear. Syria is not worth any of these risks or costs to NATO. Tartus is worth the cost to Russia; and Crimea is existential, basically worth any possible cost you could write on paper.

Thus the Russians are staying.
They will continue bombing near the Turkish border.
Perhaps they'll be a bit more careful and not give Turkey an opportunity for a legal kill.
Latakia will have S400, straight up acknowledged by Russia now.
Lavrov & Co seem to be having some fun describing all the repulsive terrorist financing stuff and terrorist milking stuff Turkey's been engaged in. If we live through this engage, Turkey needs booting; they are a liability, and really, an enemy of civilization.
Maybe Russia will realize why we used armed drones now too. They should bring their own online and use those near the border, then even if Turkey blew it up, no one would need get all that upset.

And folks, don't misread the title into thinking this is some movie thing that happens at a rate that keeps you at the edge of your seat chomping popcorn. Escalation events happen, usually, over weeks of time, not days or hours. In the real world, it takes hours and days to just figure out what you're escalating from.

To know if we've avoided WW3, we need to know what happens when a Turkish jet fires on a Russian jet that hasn't crossed their little border protrusions. Russians will fire back, and they have stuff that can make the kill and even if you'd like to pretend they don't, they will still have fired on a Turkish F16 that likely will have been in Turkey.

Of course, if the S400/S300 proves unable to to kill the F16; that's actually bad, because it means when we go back for Crimea, those Bouyan's will have to launch their cruise missiles as openers, and to have any impact on the conflict, those missiles will have to all be nuclear. I don't know that they'd even have time to fire a warning shot to prove willingness. And thus, the exchange of our strategic forces proceeds from that point.

This asymmetric weakness of Russia is very unsafe, it much too easily gives them a die alone, or die with everyone else choice. And the more asymmetric it is, the weaker Russia is, the MORE dangerous it becomes. Anyone honestly believe Russia would choose "die alone" in order to preserve the glories of American Capitalism? Seriously?

Russia being unable to conventionally defend itself is catastrophically dangerous. And that is the world we are pursuing because we believe the Russians would accept being oil and gas pumping slaves to the West.

Looks like Crimea essential only for you, but not for Russia itself. Or it doesn't care about its people at all. Now Crimea is experiencing blackouts. Russia is more stupidpower than superpower. Did they really count that Ukraine will provide electricity forever? Within 1,5 year "superpower" even wasn't unable to provide "essential" Crimea with electricity, while Kerch strait is only 3-13 km wide. Just put simple underwater power cable, thousands of miles such cables around. That's silly. It is no wonder only if we take into account that most "superpower's" towns looks like after heavy bombardment with nuclear warheads from central government
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZvkrpEXedfk

[Sixstrings]

The international coalition that had no mandate to bomb in Syria?

Russia would veto it.

The international coalition that didn't "notice" the Daesh oil runs in over a year while Daesh took more and more territory? At least Putin was asked in by the Government (whatever you may think of them) and started dealing with insurgents properly.

Well, I think the truth will come out on those things (I do have concerns, I'd want to know if the obama admin had anything to do with that). If there's corruption then the truth should come out -- but it does not therefore follow that NATO breaks up or everyone suddenly follow Putin, or that the middle east is handed over to the Russian Federation and Iran.

Anyhow.. Plant was correct in his analogy about the spanish civil war.

But I think a lot of you don't realize the simple realpolitik clash of blocs going on in the ME and that there's a bloc of US / Western allies and then there's Iran-Russia on the other side. Both may agree on fighting ISIS, but both are still in geopolitical opposition to each other.

Hollande says Assad has to go:

Syrian President Bashar al-Assad must go as soon as possible: Hollande
http://www.business-standard.com/article/pti-stories/assad-must-go-as-soon-as-possible-hollande-115112500049_1.html

[davep]

If there's corruption then the truth should come out

Corruption? It's active enabling of Daesh funding, going totally against the narrative that they were being degraded by NATO strikes. NATO has been shown to favour destabilising Assad over fighting Daesh. The recent Paris attack may have changed that, but the ongoing rhetoric of simultaneously getting rid of Daesh and Assad without other boots on the ground is pure horseshit.

[Tanada]

The international coalition that had no mandate to bomb in Syria?

Russia would veto it.

Yes, that is the way the UN was designed in 1945, expressly for the purpose of preventing countries from attempting regime change unless all five permanent security council members agree that government is a threat to world peace.

You just don't get it Sixstrings, the whole point of the UN is to prevent exactly what NATO is doing in Syria. We got UN approval for Afghanistan and Iraq because all five members saw the same data and reached the same conclusions, the governments of those two countries threatened to destabilize the world.

Syria certainly does not present that kind of threat. Syria is not worth pouring American/NATO lives and treasure into. Assad blah blah blah is not worth the US troops who would be putting their one and only life on the line just to throw him out and put some other equally bad person in his place.

[onlooker]

Those are valid points by Tanada however I would hasten to add that the UN has throughout its history been ineffective in its putative mandate to insure world peace. Wars and low level violent conflicts have erupted and become chronic such as in Israel ever since WWII. The US has by itself intervened militarily and also nurtured civil strife. Also, regional conflicts that have equated to mass genocide such as the Rwanda bloodbath have occurred. Now, Russia, Turkey and US are playing a dangerous game in Syria that threatens to escalate to levels unacceptable to a sane species. So the UN is a weak and ineffective organism that has very little real power and is certainly subservient to the will of the powerful countries as has been demonstrably shown and in fact begs the question why only those 5 countries have veto power and thus inordinate sway.

[AgentR11]

Looks like Crimea essential only for you, but not for Russia itself. Or it doesn't care about its people at all. Now Crimea is experiencing blackouts. Russia is more stupidpower than superpower. Did they really count that Ukraine will provide electricity forever? Within 1,5 year "superpower" even wasn't unable to provide "essential" Crimea with electricity, while Kerch strait is only 3-13 km wide. Just put simple underwater power cable, thousands of miles such cables around. That's silly. It is no wonder only if we take into account that most "superpower's" towns looks like after heavy bombardment with nuclear warheads from central government

You do know that even as you were typing these words, Russian electric power began to flow into Crimea?

So to respond to the talking point card you're reading from...

Crimea is the grand prize, the lynch pin of this decade's conflict. Economically, its a decent piece; its self sufficient in food calorie production, has a pair of substantial shipyards, oil and gas prospects, etc. But strategically, its simply life and death for Russia. I will also note that with the latest trio of corvettes that were stationed at Sevastopol, Crimea has become implicitly impossible to recapture; unless Ukraine will be refunding us (in cash) for the several hundred billion dollars in damage those three ships can inflict on NATO / EU on command.

Now, back to electricity. Russia was and is counting on terminating electrical power supplies from Ukraine. The ship they are using, JUANGUAN1, and the cable they are laying, are very special, unique types, of which only a few exist in the world, you have to schedule them, pay them, get all the equipment and supplies in place for them, have a place to spool them up, and then a month or few of driving that ship back and forth across the strait, then back over to Zalev shipyard, then back and forth across the strait, etc. Zalev had to be spiffied up for the job before hand as well.

The reason such cable laying around the world seems so uneventful, is that it is all scheduled and lain long before it becomes essential; whereas for years, Ukraine would not grant Russia permission to lay that cable, in order to keep this threat of power blockade alive.

Well, now its underway; Crimea will be buying electricity from Russia forever, Ukraine is losing yet more market share in the world economy, forever. I suspect, given the poor state of the Ukrainian power and grid system, that Russia is likely to completely, physically disconnect Crimea from Ukraine's grid probably this coming summer. That will seal the deal on that market.

Whats worse for UA, the schedule will bring a substantial block of power online on or before Dec 20; all those people in Crimea will have experienced a "shared sacrifice" moment of a type perfect for Russian cohesion, eg, the pain was very modest, but very annoying, completely inflicted by the incompetence of the government they left; and remedied by the action of the nation they joined.

It really boggles my mind that Ukraine wants to be a Western country so badly, and yet hates premium rate paying customers that pay their bills, so much. Crimea was the definition of a perfect customer, willing to pay premium rates, on time, in hard currency, wanting to be mostly ignored, and you sent them packing. NO ONE does that. That's insane. Unless you folks fix this attitude, and now, I mean fix it FAST, the association agreement you are bringing online is going to strip your country bare. The Germans, French, and English do NOT play nice. They play hardball from the first pitch; your courts will not be able to protect your oligarchs, your companies, your farms; contract law will be decided in European courts immune to their money and their rent-a-thugs, immune to Kiev's parliament. You guys are playing backyard mudball, with fist fights included; and are about to step foot into a professional stadium, facing the championship winners, all of whom you guys have cost a bunch of money, and NOT delivered the lynch pin prize.

Get your act together, or you are going to lose everything, and not to some Russian twerp with a tank; but to a German in a suit holding an ipad. A German that can look you right in the eye, take all your food in court, and walk away while your kid cries of hunger. This ain't no fun game with do-overs, you got a month and a little left.

[Tanada]

Those are valid points by Tanada however I would hasten to add that the UN has throughout its history been ineffective in its putative mandate to insure world peace. Wars and low level violent conflicts have erupted and become chronic such as in Israel ever since WWII. The US has by itself intervened militarily and also nurtured civil strife. Also, regional conflicts that have equated to mass genocide such as the Rwanda bloodbath have occurred. Now, Russia, Turkey and US are playing a dangerous game in Syria that threatens to escalate to levels unacceptable to a sane species. So the UN is a weak and ineffective organism that has very little real power and is certainly subservient to the will of the powerful countries as has been demonstrably shown and in fact begs the question why only those 5 countries have veto power and thus inordinate sway.

The goal which the UN was created for is to prevent World War III. In a way brush fire wars are seen as a way of letting off pressure between countries, kind of the old principal of diplomacy by other means. That doesn't mean we should encourage wars either, the whole Iran-Iraq war of the 1980's sponsored by the USA is a prime example. By the same token the USSR invasion of Afghanistan was not a nice thing either, but in the USA helping the 'rebels' was seen by many as retaliation for the USSR helping the 'rebels' in South Vietnam.

The world is like a very complex chess board, except when a player is captured or killed real people are harmed or dies. We should never gleefully support bad governments doing bad things, but by the same token we shouldn't be sticking our nose into every brush fire war and picking sides in rebellions or civil wars. How would the history books read if the UK had recognized the Confederate States of America in 1861 and supplied them with weapons and soldiers to help them become and remain independent from the USA?

Well however you feel about that is exactly how Assad feels about the USA/NATO supplying weapons to both the 'moderate rebels' trying to overthrow him and ISIS/ISIL. ISIL means Islamic State In Levant. One of the ancient names for Syria is Levant. These people have been slaughtering tens of thousands of non Muslims as well as people who are not 'Islamic enough' in their quest to create their own country on the bones of Syria and Iraq. The Christian population of Iraq in 2009 was close to 2.5 Million, today it is under 700,000. If that does not meet your definition of Genocide what does? It is as if our government decided in our name that overthrowing Assad, who is a genuinely unpleasant leader, was worth supporting the genocidal maniacs who also happen to want Assad dead.

[ROCKMAN]

Looker - And as I just posted above one of the five permanent security council members has just accused Turkey, in very clear language, of providing DIRECT MILITARY SUPPORT to ISIS. Which was the basis the US has used in the past to garner the "mandates" to attack such offending countries, such as Iraq some years ago.

If the Russians can provide clear documentation of those claims against Turkey how could the US or NATO argue against any Russian intervention? In fact the US could justify our attacking along the Turk border.

[ROCKMAN]

T - "Well however you feel about that is exactly how Assad feels about the USA/NATO supplying weapons to both the 'moderate rebels' ..." And now Russia and Syria are accusing a NATO member of supplying direct to support to ISIS. An accusation that seems rather credible with the latest revelations about ISIS shipping stolen Iraq oil thru Turkey.

How does that play out for the UN, NATO and the US? If the Turks are facilitating the financing the efforts of ISIS to kill infidels what should the US to do?

[AgentR11]

I'm very worried about all this. Bottom line about it: in the interest of his own country (Russia), in the interest of the world, in the interest of not creating a very large war in the ME -- then Putin should cut a deal with the coalition and give up on Assad.

There is a deal we could cut. Russia stays in Latakia/Tartus, and provides bluehats with active engagement rules to defend the Alawite population from reprisals. Assad retires comfortably in Russia, with full legal immunity from all nations for acts prior to departure. Federalized election structure, so the Alawaites get their guy (an Assad clone in every way but name), Sunni guys get theirs. Strong federal entities with a weak central government. We could probably still get our precious pipeline with such a deal.

But someone in the West is going to get their ego stomped on hard.

I miss Gorbachev. I miss Yeltsin. And Medvedev was never like Putin has been, for these years.

Gorby and Yeltsin were our shills, of course you miss them. Yeltsin had a come to Jesus moment at the end probably because he noticed how brutal our looting had become, and elevated Putin.

Also, Medvedev; don't underestimate this guy. He's friggin brilliant and absolutely NOT your friend. He's quiet, sneakier, but he will not serve NATO/EU interests under any circumstance. But together, Putin, Medvedev, and Lavrov; they outclass our guys at the top by such a large margin its sad.

Russia should be a friend, they don't need to keep doing the things they've been doing with Putin in charge.
I guess I wound up ranting anyway, with the rewrite.

Yes, we know you'd love to have seen the Russians continue to trade their entire future for some discount chocolate bars.

[Plantagenet]

There is a deal we could cut. Russia stays in Latakia/Tartus, and provides bluehats with active engagement rules to defend the Alawite population from reprisals. Assad retires comfortably in Russia, with full legal immunity from all nations for acts prior to departure.

Its a nice idea, but its fundamentally wrong because (1) its clearly not what Russia wants. Russia is now fighting for a victory for the Assad regime over the terrorists. (2) Furthermore the US cannot give Assad immunity from prosecution by the world court for war crimes---thats completely impossible.

Federalized election structure, so the Alawaites get their guy (an Assad clone in every way but name), Sunni guys get theirs. Strong federal entities with a weak central government.

Nobody is going to be delusional enough to believe such an arrangement would work. The federalized structure in Lebanon collapsed precisely because Assad and Iran added the Shiite Hezbollah movement to the point that they became more powerful then the central government army.

Even worse, Bush set up a "federalized" structure in Iraq which was also subverted by the Shia. As documented in a PBS Frontline investigation, on the very day that obama pulled out the last American soldier from Iraq the Shias also subverted the federal structure there. Maliki went to obama and said "oh we have evidence that the sunnis are plotting a coup" And Obama said go ahead and do whatever you want--the US has washed its hands of Iraq. And the next day the Shias arrested Sunni politicians and attacked and murdered the guards for the leading Sunni politicians and over the next year one by one they destroyed the Sunni leadership. This led to Sunni protests which culminated in the Shia massacre of the unarmed Sunni protesters at Hawija. After this the many Sunni gave up on the democratic process and iraq and we were on the road to the Caliphate.

Hawija massacre of Sunnis by Shia in Iraq

Personally, I think the Russians have this one right in supporting the Assad regime. Obama is repeating the same mistake Bush made in deposing Saddam Hussein in Iraq in 2003 and Obama himself made in deposing Khadafi in 2011. There is no democratic hero on a white horse out there to rule these countries after the US destroys their current regimes. It just makes things worse.

Why not join Russia and give our support to Assad and let him and the Syrian Army and the Russians fight the Caliphate for us? He's clearly the lesser of two evils.

[AgentR11]

Its a nice idea, but its fundamentally wrong because (1) its clearly not what Russia wants. Russia is now fighting for a victory for the Assad regime over the terrorists. (2) Furthermore the US cannot give Assad immunity from prosecution by the world court for war crimes---thats completely impossible.

Then that is the end of the debate with regard to a settlement; Assad+Russia+Iran are more than sufficient to defeat anything there short of a full scale NATO invasion with tens of thousands of boots on the ground, and the consequent number of American and Russian casualties.

If you can not produce a compromise that makes Assad reasonably comfortable; then its over before it began.

Assad stays in power. EOT.

I'm not really opposed to that result; Assad wants to blow up the same groups we should want to blow up. Plus a few more. And the few others he wants to blow up routinely trade and compete with each other for the same mercenaries.

There does not exist a permutation where Assad goes to the Hague that does not also include tens of thousands of NATO troops in Syria, and lots of NATO and everyone elses blood on the ground.

[ROCKMAN]

How would US aircraft do against the S400: according to perhaps to the best known independent weapons experts (Janes): The S-300 is regarded as one of the most potent anti-aircraft missile systems currently fielded. An evolved version of the S-300 system is the S-400 (NATO reporting name SA-21 Growler), which entered limited service in 2004.

No one has ever engaged in combat that didn't lose people. Remember the Patriot unit in Iraq that was taken out by a SCUD?

[Plantagenet]

How would US aircraft do against the S400: according to perhaps to the best known independent weapons experts (Janes): The S-300 is regarded as one of the most potent anti-aircraft missile systems currently fielded. An evolved version of the S-300 system is the S-400 (NATO reporting name SA-21 Growler), which entered limited service in 2004.

No one has ever engaged in combat that didn't lose people. Remember the Patriot unit in Iraq that was taken out by a SCUD?

The US should do everything possible to avoid coming into conflict with Russians in Syria. For heavens sake---the Congress hasn't even voted to send US forces into combat in Syria and the UN never approved US intervention there. The whole US war in Syris is an illegal war under both US and international law.

IMHO the whole US force should be brought home until we come up with an intelligent strategy (like joining WITH the Russians to fight ISIS.)

[SeaGypsy]

Bullshit about war crimes prosecution being unavoidable, Bush & Blair have been just fine, if landlocked perhaps.