ISIS/ISIL conflict in Syria/Iraq (No OpEd, No Politics)

taxiya

Brigadier
Registered Member
... so:
Russia’s Defense Ministry slams British minister’s allegations on Syria
The UK’s Defense Secretary Michael Fallon in an interview with the BBC said that Russia was determined to prolong the civil war in Syria
source:
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
(my view about the message, not to the messenger)
See my highlight.
From a third party's vantage point, any fighting party in a conflict refusing to surrender is determined to prolong the conflict. UK (and the likes) is one of them, no less.

Now the list of rhetoric artists is increasing.
  • Hillary Clinton
  • John Kerry
  • François Hollande
  • Boris Johnsson
  • Michael Fallon
  • Andrew Mitchell
(to be added...)
 
Last edited:
Yesterday at 8:48 PM
Oct 1, 2016

I looked at coupla Twitter accounts now and it left me with the impression Government got up somewhere to this blue line today:
9lN2B.jpg

(both sides now say Government is in Kawkab; the rest of the red line hasn't changed to the extent I know, and to the extent it has been originally correct :)
and now found
fHAygoY.jpg

(should be "clickable"; it's
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
)​
 

SampanViking

The Capitalist
Staff member
Super Moderator
VIP Professional
Registered Member
By contrast today, we had a former British Ambassador to Russia on R4.
His message in summary regarding protests and no fly zone, was "don't be so b*****y stupid!
 

delft

Brigadier
Turkey changing course, an article by Ambassador Bhadrakumar in Atimes:
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Russia and Turkey plot the endgame in Aleppo
By
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
October 12, 2016 5:28 PM (UTC+8)


The visit by President Vladimir Putin to Istanbul on Monday marks the Russian-Turkish rapprochement taking a leap toward full normalization of relations. Energy cooperation provided the leitmotif.

The signing of the inter-governmental agreement on the proposed Turkish Stream gas pipeline and the consensus to expedite work on the US$20 billion Akkuyu nuclear power plant were important milestones.

Below the radar, Turkey is mooting collaboration in the military-technical field with Russia, NATO’s number one ‘geopolitical enemy’ at the moment. Turkish President Recep Erdogan conveyed to Putin an invitation for Russian companies to bid in a fresh tender on its first long-range air and anti-missile defense system.

It is a strategic call insofar as if Turkey selects a Russian air and anti-missile defense system, it will mean a stand-alone ABM architecture, since there is no ‘inter-operability’ possible between the Russian system and the US and NATO assets deployed in Turkey. Turkey is apparently leaning forward to build an indigenous system.

Subsuming these extraordinary developments, however, what transpired regarding Syria at the Istanbul summit would be what engages the international community.

The talks were held in highly restricted format. The sensitivity is only to be expected, given the surge in US-Russian tensions regarding Syria and Russia and Turkey’s high stakes in the outcome of the ‘Battle of Aleppo.’

On Monday, while Putin was holding talks in Istanbul, French Foreign Minister Jean-Marc Ayrault said Paris will turn to the International Criminal Court for consultations over how an investigation into war crimes in Syria possibly can be launched.

Evidently, Paris is acting on US Secretary of State John Kerry’s allegation that Russia and Syria are committing war crimes.

Again, France snubbed Moscow by scrapping a planned meeting between President Francois Hollande and Putin in Paris on October 19. And all this unfolded amidst the Russian veto of the French resolution in UN Security Council calling for halt to Russian-Syrian campaign in Aleppo.

Nonetheless, there is compelling evidence that the big energy and trade deals and investment plans between Turkey and Russia created a favorable ambience of trust and mutual benefit for Russia and Turkey to work toward harmonizing their differences over Syria.

Four signposts must be noted.

One, Moscow announced its decision to create a permanent naval base in Syria on Monday even as Putin arrived in Istanbul. But Turkey calmly took the announcement, although Moscow’s move underscores that Russia would be expanding not only its military footprint but its military potential in the Middle East. (By the way, Izvestiya newspaper also reported on Monday that Moscow is in talks with Cairo to open an air base in Egypt.)

Two, Turkey is blasé about the Russian veto of the French (western) resolution on Aleppo in the UN Security Council. It has no interest to bandwagon with the US.

Three, Ankara continues to maintain deafening silence over the on-going Syrian-Russian military campaign to take control of Aleppo. Turkey has excellent intelligence presence in the region and estimates that the ‘fall’ of Aleppo is to be expected. It has no appetite to challenge the Russian-Syrian offensive and is already looking ahead.

Finally, Turkey kept mum on the latest Russian deployments of missile defense systems in Syria, which de facto means imposition of a ‘no-fly zone’ over entire Syrian air space and would have implications for the security of the ‘safe zone’ Ankara vows to create in northern Syria.

Safe passage

Interestingly, Putin and Erdogan reached a consensus to build on the proposal of UN Special Envoy for Syria Staffan de Mistura that the rebel fighters trapped in eastern Aleppo could be provided safe passage out of the city.

The Russian and Turkish militaries and intelligence agencies have been directed to step up contacts.

Putin and Erdogan also discussed the modalities of providing humanitarian aid to the civilians in Aleppo, an issue on which Russia faces a barrage of western criticism.

The two countries’ militaries, intelligence and diplomats have been tasked to flesh out details.

Erdogan said, “We thoroughly discussed the Syrian issue. We talked about the Euphrates Shield operation and evaluated ways we can cooperate in this direction. We specifically talked about what strategy we may choose in order to help, from a humanitarian point of view, the inhabitants who are in a dire situation, especially in Aleppo.”

Putin noted, “We have a common stance regarding what must be done to deliver humanitarian aid to Aleppo. The issue is ensuring security for the deliveries of this cargo.”

All in all, the signs are that Russia and Turkey are inclined to develop a blueprint on Aleppo, while leaving the US and its western allies in the cold as mere onlookers.

Quite obviously, all this is not possible without reaching a broad understanding to harmonize the two countries’ differences over the Syrian question. Such an understanding can only be at a nascent stage as of now, but the signal from the Istanbul talks is that there is political will to move forward.

The tenor of the joint press conference in Istanbul by Putin and Erdogan suggests that the Russian-Turkish narrative on Syria has phenomenally changed. There is strong impetus for both sides to work together.

Turkey would see that Moscow has virtually slammed the door shut on any prospect of a US military intervention in Syria. It also would be seeing that Russia is in Syria for the long haul.

Therefore, Russian acquiescence over Euphrates Shield becomes vital. Erdogan can draw satisfaction that Moscow is displaying great reticence as regards Euphrates Shield and Turkish military intervention in Syria. Most importance, it is an existential question for Turkey that Russia is supportive of its staunch opposition to a Kurdish political entity appearing in northern Syria.

Inflection points

Broadly, there are three inflection points today – Aleppo, Raqqa and Mosul. Russia and Turkey are exploring common ground to end the fighting in Aleppo.

On Raqqa, Russia is concerned about any US-led operation to liberate the ‘capital’ of the Islamic State. So is Turkey, but from another angle, given Washington’s refusal to abandon its alliance with Syrian Kurdish militia in any such operation.

As for Mosul, given the defeat in Aleppo and the stalemate over Raqqa, the Obama administration is keen to showcase a ‘victory’ there before the US presidential election.

Not much resistance is expected from the Islamic State fighters numbering around 1000 in Mosul, but then, US and Turkey do not see eye to eye.

The US is not keen on Turkey’s participation in the assault on Mosul and in this, curiously, Baghdad – and, perhaps, Tehran too – happens to share the same view.

Meanwhile, all protagonists understand perfectly well that Mosul is as much a political question of far-reaching consequence as a fight against Islamic State. At stake is the future of Mosul and the wider Nineveh region.

Suffice it to say, for both Turkey and Russia, the fault line running from Aleppo to Mosul (via Raqqa) is important because it is along that fault line that the US strategies in both Iraq and Syria can be expected to develop in the coming period.

Paradoxically, this fault line, which runs parallel to Turkey’s borders with Syria and Iraq, conjoins Syrian and Iraqi conflicts at the hips, as it were.

Russia and Turkey would have a congruence of interests in curbing the US attempts to use Mosul’s future as a pressure point to create a certain balance of power in Iraq and Syria.
Also note that Turkey might buy a Russian air defence and anti-missile system instead of the Chinese one.
 
delft I recall after
Friday at 7:19 PM
for good and worse State Duma ratifies deal on Russian air task force’s indefinite deployment in Syria
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

you asked
Friday at 7:24 PM
I understand the deal was signed a year ago. What was the point of delaying ratification so long? Is this a reaction to the change in attitude of Washington?

which I answered
Friday at 7:30 PM
"Cassad"
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

repeat, "Cassad" basically says it was just a formal thing today (and nothing new)

and now found more about this boring, lengthy procedure:
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

(today it's been approved by
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

after it had been signed in Damascus in August, then submitted by Mr. Putin to
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

etc.; now I can forget about it :)
 
I think I've said this before: I like Propaganda :)

...
...
‘Syrian war is conflict between West & Russia’
The real issue in the Syrian civil war, apart from the important one of Syria itself, is the struggle for power between Russia and the West, says John Laughland from the Institute of Democracy and Cooperation in Paris.
On Tuesday, Russian President Vladimir Putin cancelled a visit to France in a developing diplomatic spat between the two countries.

Last week, France proposed a
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
at the UN Security Council to resolve the Syrian crisis. It was vetoed by Russia on Saturday. Moscow said the main proposal in the French draft - a no-fly zone - could have resulted in an upsurge of violence instead of halting it.

RT: What does this mean for bilateral relations?

John Laughland: It is very serious and it is a reflection of the very serious degradation in relations, which is the result of the massive disagreement about Syria. The disagreement about Ukraine is pretty strong, but Ukraine is a bit on the back burner for the time being, while the Syrian government offensive, supported by Russia in East Aleppo, has blown apart the appearance of cooperation between Russia and the West.

I say appearance, because even though the Americans and the Russians have been trying to bring about a peace agreement for nearly the whole of this year, 2016, the fact is that all those apparent agreements have in fact hidden the big disagreement, which remains between the West and Russia. And that is on the future of Assad in Syria. No amount of half agreements or hidden disagreements can hide that very fundamental difference. The fundamental difference over Assad’s fate is what is causing this terrible fallout. And we may not have reached the bottom yet in relations between the West and Russia.

The fact is that the Russians now have since last week overtly accused the Americans, and by implication also the French and other Western allies, of deliberately wanting to protect the now renamed Al-Nusra Front in eastern Aleppo in order to use it on a future occasion to affect regime change in Syria. That is an absolutely devastating allegation. The Russians in other worlds are alleging that America and its allies are going to use terrorists as their pawns in the fight against Assad. Russia of course does not accept that outcome.

That is why we see this cancellation, because, as I say, no amount of diplomatic finesse can hide the fact that in this very serious war, which is itself an international conflict, because America – on the one hand, and Russia – on the other, are involved in this very serious war, the disagreements could not be greater.

RT: What do you think prompted Hollande to trigger what's become a diplomatic scandal? Was it the veto in the UN?

JL: That was France ratcheting up the disagreement with Russia. … [French politician] Thierry Mariani said that France has become an American “lackey” in this. That is not exactly right. Of course France fully supports the American position, but I don’t think it would be right to obscure the fact that France has taken a very proactive position on the Syrian conflict, ever since the beginning. France after all, was the first country to break off relations with Damascus in 2012. And France went beyond what the Western allies required – the EU and the Americans – by cancelling the sale of the Mistral helicopters ships earlier on …

RT: We also know that n July a French airstrike killed 120 civilians in Manbij in Syria, that's apart from the civilian casualties of French interventions in half a dozen African countries. Is this not a clear contradiction? One rule for one and another for the rest?

JL: This all comes back to the disagreement about Assad and about the Assad regime in Syria. France by breaking off diplomatic relations with Damascus in 2012 clearly took the position long before other countries that “Assad had to go.” These airstrikes and the other things, which, according to the Russians, favor the terrorist rebellion in Syria – all these are part of a coherent policy on the part of France and the other Western countries – which is to overthrow Assad in Syria. No amount of talking in the Security Council or of summitry can overcome this basic disagreement about the future of Syria, a basic disagreement, which of course has being played out in the form of warfare in Syria itself, and which comes on the back of other very fundamental disagreements, particularly on Ukraine.

RT: Is this part of a wider move against Russia over the war on Syria?

JL: …Now that Russia has become a party to the war in Syria, since last year…on the side of the Syrian forces. This aggravated the situation with the West, because not only has Russia successfully prevented Assad from falling, because a year ago there was every chance that he would indeed be overthrown, but Russia has also increased her own position on the international stage. That is something that the Western powers do not like…In some ways we should see this Syrian conflict as a conflict between the West and Russia. Four years ago I said that the real target in Syria was not Assad but Putin. I think we can see this angle coming back again. The real issue in this civil war – apart from Syria itself which is a very important one – is also a struggle for power between Russia and the West.
source:
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
 
...

Also note that Turkey might buy a Russian air defence and anti-missile system instead of the Chinese one.
delft I guess you could've given this link:
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Turkey Invites Russian Bid for Air Defense Contract

Three years after disqualifying a Russian bidder for being too expensive, Turkey invited the same contender into the same contract for the acquisition of the country’s first long-range air and anti-missile defense system.

Turkish diplomatic and procurement sources said that the Russian contender was “invited” to make a bid again after Turkish and Russian presidents, Recep Tayyip Erdogan and Vladimir Putin met in Istanbul Oct. 10 on the sidelines of a global energy conference.

Turkey has been trying to mend fences with Russia after its Air Force shot down a Russian Su-24 fighter last November for violation of the Turkish airspace along Turkey’s border with Syria. After the incident Turkey and Russia froze diplomatic ties and Moscow imposed punishing commercial sanctions on Turkey. Under pressure Erdogan in August had to apologize and asked for détente.

Turkey in September 2013 selected a Chinese manufacturer, China Precision Manufacturing Import-Export Corp (CPMIEC), for its air defense architecture. Ankara said CPMIEC’s offer was priced at $3.44 billion.

The Russian bid was disqualified because it was “too expensive.” Officials familiar with the program said that the Russian solution was “twice more expensive” than the best price. Other contenders were a consortium of US companies Raytheon and Lockheed Martin, maker of the Patriot system, and the European Eurosam, maker of the SAMP-T.

Under pressure from its NATO allies, in November 2015, the Turkish government decided to cancel the Chinese contract and leaned forward building an indigenous system. It commissioned two local defense companies, Roketsan and Aselsan, to develop the system.

But since then Ankara has been negotiating, in parallel talks, with the US and European bidders. Now with the decision to invite a Russian manufacturer into the competition Turkey is opening up a three-way race.

Defense experts say that if Turkey selects a Russian air and anti-missile defense system it will have to limit itself to a stand-alone architecture, like it would when it selected the Chinese system. They say a Russian system, like a Chinese system, will not be made inter-operable with the U.S. and NATO assets deployed in Turkey.
 
Appears Turkey is slowing down Euphrates Shield and leaving IS buffer territory between its sponsored rebel factions and Syrian government forces for now while negotiating with Russia. If Turkey had a completely free hand, don't mind higher casualties all around, and its sponsored rebels are competent, I am sure it could have gone all the way to al-Bab by now.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


WORLD NEWS | Wed Oct 12, 2016 | 6:44am EDT
Turkish army says Islamic State putting up 'stiff resistance' in Syria

Islamic State militants in northern Syria are putting up "stiff resistance" to attacks by Turkish-backed rebel fighters, Turkey's military said on Wednesday, almost two months after it launched an incursion to drive them away from its border.

Supported by Turkish tanks and air strikes, the rebels have been pushing toward the Islamic State stronghold of Dabiq. Clashes and air strikes over the past 24 hours have killed 47 jihadists, the military said in a statement.

"Due to stiff resistance of the Daesh (Islamic State) terror group, progress could not be achieved in an attack launched to take four settlements," it said, naming the areas east of the town of Azaz as Kafrah, Suran, Ihtimalat and Duvaybik.

However, the operation to drive the jihadists away from the Turkish border, dubbed "Euphrates Shield", has allowed Turkish-backed rebels to take control of about 1,100 square km (425 square miles) of territory, the military said.

A Syrian rebel commander told Reuters the rebels were about 4 km (2.5 miles) from Dabiq. He said capturing Dabiq and the nearby town of Suran would spell the end of Islamic State's presence in the northern Aleppo countryside.

A planned major offensive on the Islamic State-held city of al-Bab, southeast of Dabiq and an important strategic target, depended on how quickly rebels could take control of the roughly 35 km (22 miles) in between the two cities, he said.

Al-Bab is also a strategic target for the Kurdish YPG militia, which, like the rebels, is battling Islamic State in northern Syria but is viewed as a hostile force by Turkey.

In a daily round-up on Euphrates Shield's 50th day, the Turkish army said 19 Islamic State fighters had been "neutralized" in clashes and eight rebels were killed. Twenty-two rebels were wounded and Turkish forces suffered no losses.

Turkish warplanes destroyed five buildings used by Islamic State fighters, while U.S.-led coalition jets "neutralized" 28 of the jihadists and destroyed three buildings, it said.

(Additional reporting by Tom Perry in Beirut; Writing by Daren Butler; Editing by Nick Tattersall and Louise Ireland)
 
...
‘Syrian war is conflict between West & Russia’
source:
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

It's more like half-hearted attempts by the West to re-establish colonialism/pseudo-colonialism with divide and conquer but not doing the conquer part right thereby just destroying countries and leaving failed states in their wake. If you dig deeper it is related to the West trying to make up for its own misdeeds and misfortune related to the late 2000's financial crisis at others' expense.

Russia was really forced to block the aggression against the Syrian government to secure its southern flank given Western containment against it is already right up to its doorstep in Europe and it has its own history of being attacked by Islamic terrorists sponsored by the other Middle East factions.
 
Top