Sirija

[iDemo]

Moskva -- Rusko ministarstvo odbrane je suspendovalo sporazum sa SAD o bezbednosti na nebu iznad Sirije i objavilo da će tretirati letelice koalicije kao mete.

 

Послато са D6503 уз помоћ Тапатока

 

Sve letelice koalicije 's ovu strane Eufrata', tako bar pishe u lokalnim novinama... 

[hazard]

Rusija je jedno 5x ponistavala ovaj sporazum i nijednom ga zaista nije ponistila nego se nastavila saradnja on the ground.. Sa druge strane Amerikanci su porazeni u Siriji i sto pre to shvate bolje. Ovo sad sto rade je opet bez nekog strateskog cilja, potreba da bar zauzimanjem Rake sacuvaju obraz. Salju dodatnih 15k u Avganistan btw.

 

Amerikanci i dalje itekako imaju interes (kao i svi zapadnjaci) da ID bude proteran iz svojih fizickih uporista i tako bude oteran skroz u ilegalu. To je nevezano sa tim da li u Siriji (ili delu Sirije) Asad ostaje na vlasti. Deluje mi je da je Tramp (i ekipa oko njega) u fazonu "we gotta destroy ISIS" a za Asada i sirijske pobunjenike ih generalno zabole. Mislim da je Amerima stalo pre svega zbog PRa da Raka padne u kurdske (SDF) ruke uz veliku pomoc "koalicije" a ne da u nju umarsira trijumfalno Asad s Rusima. Sve posle toga im, cini mi se, nije preterano bitno

[iDemo]

Jednom kad satru ISIS (zajdnickim snagama a svako za sebe) opet ce se naci pred istim pitanjem kao i kad je ovaj narastao - od koga ce i po kojoj ceni kupovati naftu i ostalo sto je ISIS prodavao zadnjih godina. I kome ce prodavati ono sto su - do kol'ko sutra - prodavali ISISu. Sve ostalo nije preterano bitno, ponajmanje sam PR - ono 'nije lose ako je dobro ali nije strasno ni ako je losho™'.

[vathra]

Хазарде,

прескочио си и Ал-Каиду у Сирији, како год да се сад зову.

Заправо то и јесте следеће питање како ће се решити. Нека аутономија у Идлибу никоме не одговара док тамо коло воде терористи.

Или ће морати да прогутају да Асад почисти и то, или да доведу прихватљиву екипу.

[iDemo]

[Weenie Pooh]

Šta im znači pro-režimski dron? Zvuči kao da dron ima politički stav pa podržava Asadov režim.

 

Ili je to možda neki novogovor da se kaže "iranski"?

[theanswer]

Amerikanci i dalje itekako imaju interes (kao i svi zapadnjaci) da ID bude proteran iz svojih fizickih uporista i tako bude oteran skroz u ilegalu. To je nevezano sa tim da li u Siriji (ili delu Sirije) Asad ostaje na vlasti. Deluje mi je da je Tramp (i ekipa oko njega) u fazonu "we gotta destroy ISIS" a za Asada i sirijske pobunjenike ih generalno zabole. Mislim da je Amerima stalo pre svega zbog PRa da Raka padne u kurdske (SDF) ruke uz veliku pomoc "koalicije" a ne da u nju umarsira trijumfalno Asad s Rusima. Sve posle toga im, cini mi se, nije preterano bitno

 

To sam i ja napisao vezano za PR, saving face.

[ObiW]

Ameri nikako da shvate da su izgubili, pa samo skidaju Asadovcima igracke sa neba. Jel' Lavrov opet ostro osudio? Jel se makar Putin namrstio?

[mackenzie]

Jebi ga nema vise Obame i njegovog ustrucavanja da se mesa i pregovaranja. 

 

 

 

West 'ignored Russian offer in 2012 to have Syria's Assad step aside'

Russia proposed more than three years ago that Syria’s president, Bashar al-Assad, could step down as part of a peace deal, according to a senior negotiator involved in back-channel discussions at the time.

Former Finnish president and Nobel peace prize laureate Martti Ahtisaari said western powers failed to seize on the proposal. Since it was made, in 2012, tens of thousands of people have been killed and millions uprooted, causing the world’s gravest refugee crisis since the second world war.

 

Ahtisaari held talks with envoys from the five permanent members of the UN security council in February 2012. He said that during those discussions, the Russian ambassador, Vitaly Churkin, laid out a three-point plan, which included a proposal for Assad to cede power at some point after peace talks had started between the regime and the opposition. 

But he said that the US, Britain and France were so convinced that the Syrian dictator was about to fall, they ignored the proposal.

 

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/sep/15/west-ignored-russian-offer-in-2012-to-have-syrias-assad-step-aside

 

 

[hazard]

Ameri nikako da shvate da su izgubili, pa samo skidaju Asadovcima igracke sa neba. Jel' Lavrov opet ostro osudio? Jel se makar Putin namrstio?

 

Mnogo skidanja dronova s neba (koliko moze da kosta iranski dron? $100k?) menja cinjenicu da americki ,,ljubimci" vise ne drze Alepo npr.

[Eraserhead]

Nema u tom ratu pobednika. Asad nikad vise nece imati situaciju koju je imao, opozicija nije pobedila, narod izginuo, Rusi su se zaglavili tamo na duzi rok (jos jedna "pobeda" poput one u Ukrajini) i izlozili se terorizmu. Ameri nisu nista dobili. Mozda su jedino Kurdi u plusu.

Edited June 20, 2017 by Eraserhead

[theanswer]

Nema u tom ratu pobednika. Asad nikad vise nece imati situaciju koju je imao, opozicija nije pobedila, narod izginuo, Rusi su se zaglavili tamo na duzi rok (jos jedna "pobeda" poput one u Ukrajini) i izlozili se terorizmu. Ameri nisu nista dobili. Mozda su jedino Kurdi u plusu.

 

Zaslepljuje ti mržnja prema Rusiji racionalan stav. Ču, izloženi terorizmu. Ko da do sad nije bilo terorizma u Rusiji. 

[ObiW]

Mnogo skidanja dronova s neba (koliko moze da kosta iranski dron? $100k?) menja cinjenicu da americki ,,ljubimci" vise ne drze Alepo npr.

U poslednje vreme se ruski "ljubimci" sunjaju oko americkih "ljubimaca", pa pnda nicim izazvani popiju po picqui iz vazduha. A Rusi se onda mrste, ulazu ostre proteste, i obecavaju da nece to vise da trpe. Dokle bre vise ovako, kad ce Rus da pocne da ih brani od Amera, m?

[Lord Protector]

After the ISIS War, a US-Russia Collision?

by Patrick J. Buchanan Posted on June 20, 2017

Sunday, a Navy F-18 Hornet shot down a Syrian air force jet, an act of war against a nation with which Congress has never declared or authorized a war.

Washington says the Syrian plane was bombing U.S.-backed rebels. Damascus says its plane was attacking ISIS.

Vladimir Putin’s defense ministry was direct and blunt:

"Repeated combat actions by U.S. aviation under the cover of counterterrorism against lawful armed forces of a country that is a member of the U.N. are a massive violation of international law and de facto a military aggression against the Syrian Arab Republic."

An ABC report appears to back up Moscow’s claims:

"Over the last four weeks, the U.S. has conducted three air strikes on pro-regime forces backed by Iran that have moved into a deconfliction zone around the town of Tanf in southwestern Syria, where there is a coalition training base for local forces fighting ISIS."

Russia has now declared an end to cooperation to prevent air clashes over Syria and asserted an intent to track and target aerial intruders in its area of operations west of the Euphrates.

Such targets would be U.S. planes and surveillance drones.

If Moscow is not bluffing, we could be headed for U.S.-Russian collision in Syria.

Sunday’s shoot-down of a hostile aircraft was the first by U.S. planes in this conflict. It follows President Trump’s launch of scores of cruise missiles at a Syrian airfield in April. The U.S. said the airfield was the base of Syrian planes that used chemical weapons on civilians.

We are getting ever deeper into this six-year sectarian and civil war. And what we may be witnessing now are the opening shots of its next phase — the battle for control of the territory and population liberated by the fall of Raqqa and the death of the ISIS "caliphate."

The army of President Bashar Assad seeks to recapture as much lost territory as possible and they have the backing of Russia, Iranian troops, Shiite militia from Iraq and Afghanistan, and Hezbollah.

Assad’s and his allied forces opposing ISIS are now colliding with the U.S.-backed Syrian Democratic Forces opposing ISIS, which consist of Arab rebels and the Syrian Kurds of the PYD.

But if America has decided to use its air power to shoot down Syrian planes attacking rebels we support, this could lead to a confrontation with Russia and a broader, more dangerous, and deadly war for the United States.

How would we win such a war, without massive intervention?

Is this where we are headed? Is this where we want to go?

For, again, Congress has never authorized such a war, and there seems to be no vital U.S. interest involved in who controls Raqqa and neighboring lands, as long as ISIS is expelled. During the campaign, Trump even spoke of U.S.-Russian cooperation to kill ISIS.

While in Saudi Arabia, however, he seemed to sign on to what is being hyped as an "Arab NATO," where the U.S. accepts Riyadh as the principal ally and leader of the Gulf Arabs in the regional struggle for hegemony with Shiite Iran.

Following that Trump trip, the Saudis — backed by Egypt, the UAE and Bahrain — sealed their border with Qatar, which maintains ties to Iran. And though Qatar is also host to the largest U.S. air base in the region, al-Udeid, Trump gave the impression its isolation was his idea.

President Trump and his country seem to be at a decision point.

If, after the fall of ISIS in Raqqa, we are going to use U.S. power and leverage to solidify the position of Syrian rebels and Kurds, at the expense of Damascus, we could find ourselves in a collision with Syria, Russia, Hezbollah, Iran and even Turkey.

For Turkish President Erdogan looks on our Kurdish allies in Syria as Kurdish allies of the terrorist PKK inside his own country.

During the campaign, candidate Trump won support by pledging to work with Russia to defeat our common enemy. But if, after ISIS is gone from Syria, we decide it is in our interests to confront Assad, we are going to find ourselves in a regional confrontation.

In Iraq, the U.S. and Iran have a common foe, ISIS, and a common ally, the government in Baghdad. In Syria, we have a common foe, ISIS. But our allies are opposed by Assad, Russia, Iran, and Hezbollah.

The question before us: After Raqqa and Mosul fall and the caliphate disappears, who inherits the ISIS estate?

The U.S. needs now to delineate the lines of advance for Syria’s Kurds, and to talk to the Russians, Syrians and Iranians.

We cannot allow our friends in the Middle East and Persian Gulf to play our hand for us, for it is all too often in their interests to have us come fight their wars, which are not necessarily our wars.

 

 

Edited June 20, 2017 by slow

[Lord Protector]

‘The war after Isis’: has Trump opened the door to conflict with Iran?

 

As US forces strike Syrian militias backed by Tehran, many fear delegation to the Pentagon and the looming defeat of the Islamic State could fuel a fiercer fire

 

Not all the increasing tension is of Trump’s making, however. The evolving battlefield in Syria and Iraq is drawing Iran and US towards a collision. A tacit understanding based on mutual non-aggression during the campaign against a common enemy, Isis, is expected to fray once Isis strongholds in Mosul and Raqqa have fallen.

“As Isis disappears off the map,” said Ilan Goldenberg, a former state and defense official, “this tolerance that Shia Iranian-supported groups and American-supported groups have shown for each other – there is a danger that will that will go away. You can see it all going haywire pretty quickly.”

Jennifer Cafarella, an expert on the conflict at the Institute for the Study of War, said: “The larger picture here is the war after Isis, the war to dominate the security sphere after the recapture of Mosul. Iran is already preparing for that next phase and has begun to take steps to win that next phase. The US is still fixated on Isis as if it’s the only strategic priority in the region.”

The US decision to open a new counter-Isis front in the south-eastern Syrian desert, and set up an outpost at al-Tanf, is a challenge to Iranian aspirations to control an east-west corridor from Tehran to Damascus to Lebanon. That corridor would run through al-Tanf.

“It looks as if the Iranians, Assad, the Iranian-mobilised Iraqi militias have made a determination that they will not allow the US to have free rein to gain more territory in the Syrian desert,” said Nicholas Heras, an expert on the region at the Centre for a New American Security.

 

 

So far, the US has bolstered its position in the area by deploying a Himars mobile rocket system. But it is unclear how far the US will go to keep control. Defense secretary James Mattis was a hawk on Iran as a general, when his troops came under sustained attack from Iranian proxies in Iraq. In his new role, however, he has prioritised the struggle with Isis and the looming threat of North Korea. Foreign Policy reported on Saturday that Mattis had resisted pressure from White House officials to go on the offensive against Iranian-backed forces in southern Syria.

Such decisions, like the setting of troop levels in Afghanistan, have been delegated to the Pentagon. In the absence of an overall strategy from the White House, some worry that tactical decisions could lead to an unintended wider conflict.

“It is my understanding,” Goldenberg said, “from talking to people in the US government who are working these issues, that there is not much substantive material or deliberation on any of this, which is a huge problem. That’s the thing that scares me.”

 

 

Edited June 20, 2017 by slow