Sirija

[Shan Jan]

Sirija je vec podeljena, ovo je verovatno spasavanje Asadove trecine.

[Prospero]

Putin Said to Explore Sidelining Assad Even as He Arms Him

 

 Henry Meyer Donna Abu-Nasr

September 13, 2015 — 11:00 PM CEST

Updated on September 14, 2015 — 1:09 PM CEST

 

A view of former Syrian army MiG-23 fighter jets at the Abu Duhur military airport, the last regime-held military base in northwestern Idlib province.

Photographer: Omar Haj Kadour/AFP via Getty Images

 

Russia is sending signals to the U.S. and Saudi Arabia that it may allow Syria’s embattled leader Bashar al-Assad to be eased out of power as it seeks to forge a united front against Islamic State and retain influence in the region, officials and Syrian opposition leaders said.

 

Officials from the three countries, as well as from the opposition, have been negotiating possible terms for sidelining Assad since at least June, when President Vladimir Putin hosted Saudi King Salman’s son, Deputy Crown Prince Mohammed, they said. Saudi Arabia is Assad’s main regional enemy, while Russia is his longtime ally. Since then, Russia’s whirlwind diplomacy has brought key officials from across the region to Moscow for talks.

 

Syria’s civil war has traumatized the Middle East, spilling into neighbors and enabling the rise of Islamic State amid the turmoil. The latest Russian-backed efforts to end the conflict come as its fallout spreads westwards, with hundreds of thousands of migrants seeking refuge in the European Union.

 

Like every other aspect of the war in Syria, though, Russia’s policy isn’t straightforward. U.S. and Russian officials say they’re weighing a transition plan that would strip Assad of power while remaining interim head of state.

 

Putin Gambit

 

“There’s a convergence on the threat of ISIS,” Paul Salem, vice president of the Middle East Institute in Washington, said by phone, using an acronym for Islamic State. “This convergence wasn’t there when they last tried diplomacy two years ago.”

Yet at the same time, Russia is ramping up military aid to Syria, home to its only naval base outside the former Soviet Union. Big questions remain, the U.S. official stressed, including whether Putin really is prepared to see Assad marginalized and, if so, whether he can persuade him to go quietly.

 

U.S. intelligence agencies have concluded that Russia is set to start flying combat missions from a new air hub inside Syria, other American officials said. Putin may be betting that an increased military presence will either help Assad stay in power or give Russia more sway in influencing the outcome of the crisis if the Syrian leader is forced out.

 

ISIS controls as much as half of the country, while rebel militias backed by the U.S., Saudi Arabia, Turkey and Qatar are gaining ground, leaving only about a fifth under the government’s firm control, according to Amos Gilad, a senior Israeli defense official. That area is home to most of the population, though, including key urban centers such as the capital, Damascus.

 

Diplomacy or War?

 

If Putin continues to escalate his support for Assad, the Saudis, who are suspicious of the Russian leader’s intentions, will respond by stepping up their aid to the rebels, according to Jamal Khashoggi, a Saudi commentator and former government adviser.

“The fact that the Russians are sending servicemen to Syria now proves that it’s not diplomacy, it’s war,” he said.

 

Prince Mohammed bin Salman shakes hands with Russian President Vladimir Putin. Photographer: Sasha Mordovets/Getty Images

 

Publicly, Russia remains far apart from the U.S. and its allies on Syria. Asked if Russia would accept Assad staying on in a purely ceremonial role, Putin’s spokesman, Dmitry Peskov, said that “only the Syrian people can decide the fate of Syria, not some outside countries.”

 

If the gap is narrowing behind the scenes, it may largely be due to Islamic State. Putin came to power fighting Islamist separatists in the Caucasus, and has reason to fear the rise of jihadists in Syria. Their numbers include about 1,000 Russian-speakers, Elena Suponina, a Moscow-based Mideast expert, has estimated, raising the threat of attacks inside Russia.

 

Road Map

 

Putin is more interested in defeating Islamic State and retaining influence in the Middle East than he is in propping up an increasingly weak ally, according to the Soufan Group, a U.S. security consultancy run by a former counter-terrorism official at the Federal Bureau of Investigation.

 

The U.S.-Russian overlap may help shape a new road map put forward by the UN’s special envoy for Syria, Staffan de Mistura. It calls for reducing Assad’s role to “protocol” only, London-based Al-Hayat newspaper reported Sept. 1.

 

The UN envoy is assembling working groups of Syrian government and opposition figures for a process dubbed Geneva 3, after two inconclusive rounds of talks in the Swiss city.

 

“The contours of a deal should be ready by year-end,” said Qadri Jamil, a Kurdish politician and former Syrian deputy premier who now lives in Moscow.

 

UN Address

 

Hassan Abdel Aziz, an Assad opponent who flew to Moscow from Damascus for talks, said there’s broad agreement that senior posts in the transitional government will be split evenly between current officials and the opposition, though die-hard Assad loyalists will be excluded.

 

Putin said last week that Assad agreed to hold early parliamentary elections and invite “healthy” opposition groups into his government. The Russian leader may flesh out his plan when he addresses the United Nations General Assembly in New York later this month, according to Peskov.

 

Other countries will also need to be brought on board if Russia and the U.S. can find common ground. Saudi Arabia may accept Assad staying on as a powerless figurehead but only during the transition, said Haytham Manna, a Paris-based opposition leader who met with officials in Moscow last month.

 

Iran, Germany

 

Iran, Assad’s other main ally, will be forced to fall in line if Putin does “wash his hands” of Assad, said Mustafa Alani, the Dubai-based director of National Security and Terrorism Studies at the Gulf Research Center. Iran depends on the Kremlin diplomatically, particularly after Russia helped broker July’s historic nuclear accord, Alani said.

 

Chancellor Angela Merkel of Germany, which also negotiated the Iran deal and is the top destination for Syrian refugees, said Saturday that “there’ll be no resolution” to the conflict without cooperation from Russia and the U.S.

 

While the former Cold War foes have different priorities in Syria, they haven’t always been at loggerheads. Putin averted U.S. airstrikes on Syria in 2013 by convincing Assad to hand over his chemical weapons. In March, Secretary of State John Kerry gestured toward the Russian position when he said the U.S. and its allies would have to negotiate with Assad.

 

Arms Flow

 

But the signs that Putin is hedging its bets are still ringing alarm bells in Washington. Russia’s naval facility is just down the coast from the Assad family’s heartland, Latakia, which has seen an influx of Russian materiel and advisers in recent weeks. Two Russian planes carrying 80 tons of humanitarian aid arrived in Latakia on Saturday, Syria’s official Sana news agency said.

 

Putin will do everything he can to avoid Syria being partitioned because it would be impossible to defend a rump state of Assad’s Alawite sect around Latakia from attack by Islamic State forces, according to Alexei Malashenko, who studies the Middle East at the Moscow Carnegie Center.

 

President Barack Obama said Russia’s deepening involvement will make it harder to dislodge Assad and find a political solution to the war.

 

“The strategy they’re pursuing now, doubling down on Assad, I think is a big mistake,” Obama said at Fort Meade, Maryland, on Friday.

 

Russia insists its personnel are only in Syria to help government troops operate the weapons being supplied, though it doesn’t rule out taking unspecified “additional measures” as required.

 

“The Russians are laying the groundwork for some kind of transition,” said Theodore Karasik, a U.A.E-based geopolitical analyst. “It’s just not going to match what the U.S. envisions.”

 

[Prospero]

Kerry says Russia proposed U.S.-Russia military talks on Syria

 

 

 

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Russia has proposed military talks with the United States on Syria and the United States is considering next steps, U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry said on Wednesday.

 

Kerry said he was talking to the White House and Pentagon about the proposal following recent conversations with Russian counterpart Sergei Lavrov.

 

via TT Edited September 16, 2015 by Prospero

[Prospero]

Bućkali su 4 godine i našli za početak 90 vojnika pogodnih za trening, sada je to 1200 ljdui.

 

Zapamtite NSF, they're going places :D

 

 

Biće da je 4-5 vojnika ostalo na terenu  

 

Only four or five U.S-trained Syrian fighters remain on the battlefield against militants with the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria, the top U.S. commander in the Middle East acknowledged Wednesday in the face of withering criticism from senators who dismissed the training program as a "total failure" and demanded a change of strategy.

 

[Prospero]

ECFR Syria expert gives evidence to parliament

 

Julien Barnes-Dacey 

11th September, 2015

• On 8 September Julien Barnes-Dacey, a senior policy fellow at ECFR, appeared before the UK parliament's foreign affairs committee inquiry on Syria policy. The following is a brief edited extract of his comments. You can watch the appropiate extract from the parliamentary session below and the full transcript can be viewed here.

Regional politics, Iran and the Assad question

 

This is a Syrian uprising. But if there is going to be any shift in a positive trajectory it has to now come from the outside. It has to come from the regional players, even if there will be a long transition from that to the domestic actors on the ground—the Ahrar al-Shams, the Jabhat al-Nusras and so on. The alleged recent visit of the Syrian intelligence chief to Saudi Arabia was interesting and it is very positive that finally there are some new diplomatic channels. The Russians are talking to the Iranians. There was a tripartite Saudi, Russian and US meeting in Qatar. It is clear that there is new momentum. But, for the moment, everyone is hoping that the other side will blink. There is not yet a situation whereby the regional actors in particular are prepared to enter into a zone of compromise. Particularly from a European perspective, that is where the focus needs to be —advancing these channels and creating movement.

 

I think Iran is certainly looking to now be constructive. The question one poses to Iran in terms of what is constructive is critical. If it remains pivoted on the person of Assad, it will continue to fail. That is what it boils down to. For the Iranians, as for the Russians, he continues to be a non-negotiable. He is the guarantor.

 

But I would say that there is a lot of room to work around that. I have argued before that the Assad question is problematic. If one can move away from that, Iran, much like the Russians, would probably be willing to do much more in terms of pressuring the regime, in terms of serious compromises, in terms of some of the power sharing we have been talking about. It is clear after four years that a military attempt to depose him is not going to bear fruit. The question is, how do you enter a diplomatic process that bears fruit? I would say that taking the Assad question off the table is one way of forcing significant compromises, including, for instance, the ending of barrel bombs, via the Iranians and Russians.

 

 

Based on facts on the ground, Assad will never be the ruler he once was: he has lost control of most of the country in a way that he can never recover. In terms of a centralised Syrian state, I think that is an impossibility now. Power has been seized at the local level, whether it be the Kurds, the Alawite militias or Sunni opposition groups, and Damascus is never going to recover that. If Assad was out of the equation, of course everything would be a lot easier, particularly if that involved some kind of transition that maintained the structures of power of the state, but I do not think that is a likely scenario. I think that the regime supporters, who are still numerous, see Assad as a guarantor of what is holding it together: he is, in a sense, the glue. If Assad was to go, that could precipitate a faster move towards that implosion and fragmentation.

 

 

The anti-ISIS fight

 

One of the critical elements here is that so long as the West is willing to assume responsibility for the fight against ISIS, there is very little reason for regional states to prioritise it. So long as US and European jets are the ones bombing them, the likes of Turkey, Saudi Arabia and Iran can say, “Well, the ISIS problem is being dealt with. We can concentrate on our geopolitical regional problems. We can even see how we can use the fight against ISIS to further those regional ambitions.”

 

In terms of the critical necessity of engendering further regional ownership, the question of how much the West assumes that ownership and what that does to regional motivation and threat perceptions is key. Clearly, if bombs are going off in Kuwait and Saudi Arabia, that is upping the ante, but I think it will be some time before the response is not to say, “This is a justification of a narrative that Assad must go,” as opposed to what I think is needed: a more consensual approach that recognises that the zero-sum vision is actually beginning to threaten them, in terms of not just the security consequences but the shaping of the region. So long as we protect them and watch their backs, they are not necessarily going to step up to the plate.

 

The Saudis and the Turks and others are of course hoping that Western intervention against ISIS leads towards action against Assad, whereas the Iranians are hoping that anti-ISIS action leads towards working with Assad. For all the regional countries, it is entrenching their zero-sum positions and entrenching the sense that the West will come to their aid, so it is a dangerous dynamic.

 

In terms of the Uk's anti-ISIS air strikes, they risk making the threat from ISIS worse. Air strikes feeds a sense of radicalisation within Syria, because Sunnis say, “Look, the West is not helping us against Assad, but they are fighting ISIS.” It also makes us more of a direct threat. We become direct parties, all the while contributing nothing meaningful, in terms of military numbers or capability.

[Prospero]

Biće da je 4-5 vojnika ostalo na terenu

Scratch that, broj je dupliran

 

https://twitter.com/cbsMcCormick/status/644914299601846272

[Eraserhead]

Iran je dužan primiti sirijske izbjeglice

 

Piše: Hamid Dabashi

 

Fotografija Aylana Kurdija, trogodišnjeg dječaka iz Sirije, čije je tijelo otkriveno na plaži blizu turskog grada Bodruma, poznatog po odmaralištima, progonit će svijet još dugo godina. Aylan, njegov brat Galip i majka Rehan su najnovije žrtve globalne tragedije u Siriji, katastrofe za koju je odgovorno više strana no što se može pobrojati. Budući da nisu uspjeli pobjeći do slobode, njihova mrtva tijela su vraćena da se sahrane u rodnom gradu Kobaniju.

 

U jednom izvještaju piše da zbog rata sirijskih izbjeglica van države ima oko četiri miliona (interno raseljenih je još više), od ukupnih 22 miliona stanovnika Sirije. Države van regije su obećale da će smjestiti manje od dva posto izbjeglica. Ako ste i vi , kao i ja, ostali zaprepašteni pred prizorima na TV ekranima dok ste gledali kroz šta prolazi dio izbjeglica koji prelazi evropske granice iz Mađarske u Njemačku, iskusit ćete samo nagovještaj užasa s kojima su suočeni Sirijci.

 

Krvavi ratni zločini

 

Evropa tvrdi da je suočena s najozbiljnijom izbjegličkom krizom od Drugog svjetskog rata. Pitanje koje se nameće je šta države koje su u neposrednoj blizini Sirije rade kao odgovor na krizu? Od oko četiri miliona sirijskih izbjeglica, gotovo pola, najveći broj njih je otišao u Tursku. Osim Turske, i kamp Zaatari u Jordanu je primio desetke hiljada sirijskih izbjeglica. Sirijske i druge izbjeglice raštrkane su po arapskom i muslimanskom svijetu, posebno u Libanu.

 

Primjetan je jedan slučaj muslimanske države koja je uključena u sukobe u Siriji, ali još nije prihvatila nijednu sirijsku izbjeglicu, a to je Islamska Republika Iran. Island, koji ima nešto više od 300.000 stanovnika, prihvatio je desetke Sirijaca, ali nijedna izbjeglica nije primljena u Iran. Zašto?

 

Iran ima dalekosežan i direktan utjecaj na sukob u Siriji. Vladajući iranski režim uporno podržava sirijskog predsjednika Bashara al-Assada, bez obzira koliko su krvavi njegovi ratni zločini protiv sirijskog naroda. I mnoge druge države su direktno ili indirektno odgovorne za katastrofu u Siriji. Od Turske do Saudijske Arabije i njenih saveznika iz Perzijskog zaljeva, do SAD-a do drugih evropskih i regionalnih saveznika gotovo ne postoji država koja je izuzetak.

 

Ali, kako ta činjenica ne bi postala tek očigledna istina, moramo određene države držati odgovornim za njihove postupke. Ako je Iran tako direktno uključen u pomaganje zlodjela sirijskog režima koja su uzrokovala ovu humanitarnu katastrofu, zašto onda Iran ne bi prihvatio svoj dio sirijskih izbjeglica?

 

Politička iluzija

 

Iran baš i nema ružičastu historiju gostoljubivosti prema ljudima koji su tražili utočište unutar granica ove države. Afganistanske izbjeglice dočekao je rasistički pristup, kako vladajućeg iranskog režima, tako i određenih segmenata iranskog društva. Čim Iranci otputuju u Evropu ili SAD, ubrzo kritiziraju naznake islamofobije i rasizma, ali rijetko kad bace kritički pogled na vlastito ponašanje. Činjenica da Iran štiti krvoločni Assadov režim ali nije spreman prihvatiti nikakvu odgovornost za svoju ulogu u Siriji povlači za sobom još jednu dilemu.

 

Sirijske i druge izbjeglice iz arapskog i muslimanskog svijeta u Evropu, a posebno u Njemačku, privlači čar političke iluzije koju pokreće više od društvene zbilje, ekonomskih sila i političke nepopustljivosti. Privlači ih Evropa, kontinent u kojem nekada zaživi desničarska nervoza, jer na svoje neposredne susjede, od Turske, preko Irana do Saudijske Arabije gledaju kao na one koji su odgovorni za krvavu nevolju od koje bježe.

 

Arapski i muslimanski svijet danas je suočen s iscrpljujućom moralnom krizom, dodatno pogoršanom zbog perioda nakon Arapskog proljeća, koje je na početku pobudilo velike nade. Ti ideali sada su u očajnom stanju zbog postupaka grupe Islamska država Irak i Levant. Evidencija o vladajućem režimu u Iranu - koji pomaže Assadov režim, a ipak odbija preuzeti odgovornost za posljedice - ukazuje na antipatičnu političku kulturu, u kojoj ljudski život veoma malo znači, a opstanak tiranije znači sve.

[Prospero]

Zar će sunitske izbeglice (a cenim da su velika većina) uopšte hteti da idu u Iran?

[Gandalf]

Scratch that, broj je dupliran

 

https://twitter.com/cbsMcCormick/status/644914299601846272

:0.6:

[Tutankamon]

Ti su ljudi trebali da navode NATO udare na položaje ISIS-a 

[Gandalf]

ljudi koji su organizovali sušu i pobunu.

 

 

www.nytimes.com/2015/09/18/world/finger-pointing-but-few-answers-after-a-syria-solution-fails.html
 

In effect, Mr. Obama is arguing that he reluctantly went along with those who said it was the way to combat the Islamic State, but that he never wanted to do it and has now has been vindicated in his original judgment. The I-told-you-so argument, of course, assumes that the idea of training rebels itself was flawed and not that it was started too late and executed ineffectively, as critics maintain.

...

Ryan C. Crocker, a retired career diplomat who was an ambassador to Afghanistan under Mr. Obama, said the president was right to think a train-and-arm program would not work. But the president, Mr. Crocker added, should have either continued to resist it or at least taken ownership of it rather than blame others for its failure.

 

“How un-presidential that sounds — ‘We didn’t want to do it, we thought it was unsound but you made us do it,’ ” said Mr. Crocker, now dean of the George Bush School of Government and Public Service at Texas A&M University. “It’s just indicative of their whole approach to Syria, which is not to have a policy. This is the worst thing they could say.”

[Prospero]

Ovo je Kenedi trebao da kaže posle Bay of Pigs-a

 

 

 

Sa druge strane, ako Obama namerno troluje ratoborni Beltway ne nudeći nikakvu smislenu vojnu opciju i puštajući da ovi dink and dunk programi propadaju, pomerajući društveni konsenzus još više ka "to nije naš rat" poziciji, onda mu svaka čast kako za malu cenu ućutkuje ratne trube.

[Prospero]

US and Russia hold Syria talks as Moscow hints at combat role

 

Geoff Dyer in Washington and Kathrin Hille in Moscow

 

 

US secretary of state John Kerry said on Saturday that the US was prepared to negotiate the timing and conditions for Syrian president Bashar al-Assad to step down from power.

 

Speaking in London, Mr Kerry repeated the US position that Mr Assad needed to step down as part of any effort to bring the country’s civil war to an end, but he indicated greater US flexibility about the way that the Syrian leader might leave office.

 

Mr Kerry also called on Iran and Russia, which has significantly stepped up its military presence in Syria in recent weeks, to push Mr Assad to the negotiating table.

 

“We’ve said for some period of time that it doesn’t have to be on day one or month one or whatever,” he said. “We’re not being doctrinaire about the specific date or time. But right now, Assad has refused to have a serious discussion.”

 

He added: “Is Assad prepared to negotiate? Really negotiate? Is Russia prepared to bring him to the table and actually find the solution to this violence?”

 

His comments came after Ashton Carter, US secretary of defence, held direct talks with his Russian counterpart Sergei Shoigu on Friday to discuss the war in Syria, amid mounting concern in the west over Russia’s growing military support for the Assad regime.

 

The talks started as Moscow indicated it could send combat troops to Syria to support the Syrian military.

 

The flurry of communications and diplomatic messaging follows a sharp build-up of Russian military presence in Syria in recent weeks that has put the Obama administration on the back foot at a time when its own strategy in Syria is coming under renewed criticism.

 

However, amid the uncertainty over Russia’s plans in Syria there is also the possibility that Moscow’s increased intervention could also open space for an international effort at finding a political settlement to the four year-old civil war.

 

The Friday phone call with Mr Shoigu was the first time Mr Carter had spoken to the Russian defence minister since he assumed office in March and ended a long period of almost no communication between the two militaries as the result of the conflict in Ukraine.

 

The Pentagon said the two ministers talked about ways to “deconflict” their respective operations in Syria, including the risk that planes from both countries could be flying in close proximity, and that both nations were focused on defeating the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, the jihadi group known as Isis.

 

The Kremlin said on Friday that Russia was prepared to consider supporting the Assad regime with troops in combat if the Syrian government asked for that, in the clearest indication so far that it is prepared to step up its military involvement in the Syrian conflict.

 

“If such a request comes, then it will, in the framework of our bilateral contacts and our bilateral dialogue, naturally be discussed and looked at,” said Dmitry Peskov, spokesman of President Vladimir Putin.

 

He was commenting on remarks by Syria’s foreign minister, Walid Muallem, that Damascus would request Russian troops to fight alongside the Syrian army if the need arose.

 

In an interview with Syrian television on Thursday, Mr Muallem said there were no Russian combat troops in Syria at the moment but confirmed that Russia had “escalated the pace of supplies to our army with weapons and ammunition”.

 

According to US military officials, however, Russia has significantly ramped up its presence of both support and combat troops in Syria in the past few days. The Pentagon estimates Russia to have troop numbers in the “high hundreds” or “low thousands” in the country. Analysts say they appear to be deployed primarily for defensive purposes so far.

 

Russia has long co-operated militarily with the Assad regime, supplying arms and experts who help with installation and training. It also has a radio-electronic listening post to gather intelligence on the Middle East and eastern Mediterranean. The Kremlin insists that Russian soldiers now in Syria continue to be advisers linked to arms supplies.

 

But satellite pictures, Syrian battle footage and Russian social media posts as well as US intelligence suggest that Moscow has been drastically stepping up those supplies since late August and could be preparing for more.

 

In the latest sign of increased Russian involvement, a US official said, Russian fighter jets had been observed in recent days at the airfield in western Syria nearLatakia where the Pentagon believes Moscow is developing a forward-operating air base.

 

Dmitri Trenin, head of the Moscow Carnegie Center, said that while Russia had no intention of deploying ground combat forces to Syria, it might consider sending pilots and flying air attacks.

 

The Russian government presents its increased military involvement as part of an effort to build a broad coalition against Isis. Despite its denials of combat forces on the ground, the Kremlin has been much less secretive about Syria than its involvement in the Ukraine war.

 

But as the US launches air attacks as part of its own coalition against Isis, military experts fear a separate Russian involvement could lead to dangerous incidents, especially as western governments doubt whether Moscow, in a potential air campaign, might target opposition forces other than Isis which are also fighting Mr Assad’s army.

 

On Friday, two Russian news outlets reported that contract soldiers from the eastern military district were being sent to Syria on secret missions, and some were refusing to go after finding out about their destination.

 

Mr Peskov said the Kremlin was not aware of this. The military district command denied that some of its servicemen were being sent to Syria.

 

[hazard]

Ideja da će Rusi da ulete vojno u Siriju mi se čini nadrealnom. S druge strane, oni opušteno mogu da kažu da ID nije njihova tvorevina i rezultat njihovih ratova po regionu, već da su došli zaista samo da rasčiste sranje. Naravno, nisu uopšte neutralni, s obzirom na podršku koju su davali Asadu. Da li je ovo neki gambit Putina da pokaže zube - da se vidi da može da odradi intervenciju u Siriji, kako bi pokazao da je tek u Ukrajini spreman da napravi kuršlus? Ili umesto toga (ili pak istovremeno sa tim), pošto neki tumače američko mešanje u Ukrajini i podršku puču protiv Janukoviča kao odgovor na rusko mešanje u Siriji, želi da umesto Zapada ,,reši" problem ID kako bi dobio neke ustupke u Ukrajini?

 

Ne znam, i dalje mi to zvuči nadrealno.

[Prospero]

Dobro, i meni je neko jače slanje borbenih trupa SF, ali mi nimalo nije SF da kada saberemo instruktore, pomorsku pešadiju koja obezbeđuje luku i možda već aerodrom, pojedine specijaliste/savetnike viših činova pri Asadovoj vosjci, verovatno FSB/SVR ekipu koja obaveštajno pokriva čečensku ekipu pri ISISu, itd itd, da lako možemo doći do 2-3000 vojnika u nekom trenutku.  

 

A ako se u Idlibu nastavi napredovanje (al Nusre, ako se ne varam) protiv SAA, nije isključeno ni da recimo mornarička pešadija u jačini čete a možda i bataljona sa modernijim naoružanjem (T-90, BTR-82 itd) direktno učestvuje u borbama.