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

SampanViking said:

My reply to both you and Siege is that if China were to join the fight , it would no longer be a Russian led operation but an SCO led operation.
It would be a very convenient banner for other countries to rally too, perhaps easier for some than simply the Russian banner.
The other side of the coin is that it would be a very high stakes situation for an initial outing and there is always the danger of too many Cooks.
My guess is that Moscow would love the extra diplomatic cover but fear possible negative operational effectiveness. It would boil down to the precise calculation as to which of the two factors are regarded as the most important.

Click to expand...

SCO would be a very good banner, but that would be huge. Essentially SCO will become effectively and officially a new "Warsaw Pact". So far China, at least, is avoiding the equalization of SCO to a military pact. This is another hindrance to the SCO banner at this point.

Besides, even if China is joining, other central Asian SCO members may not be willing to. The new member Pakistan will surely be in an embarrassing position for many reasons.

Even if only China and Russia provide material action in Syria, while other SCO member only provide the SCO banner, it is still a too big political statement for the other members.

To sum up, SCO is far from ready to conduct a joint action even only as a banner at this point of time.

taxiya said:

As I have said, I don't think China is going to get that far yet, so everything about China's direct involvement (boot on the ground) is still too early to talk.

That said, however, I don't think what you mentioned above are any issue in the hypothetical scenario of China being there.

1. Integration to the "coalition". What coalition do you mean? The coalition with west? That will not happen in the foreseeable future, say 10 years or more from now. The coalition that China is going to join will be the Russian-Syrian-Iranian coalition, not the western one.
2. Usable bases. If China agrees to join at the invitation of Russia, Syria and Iran, don't you think China will naturally use the Syrian and Iranian bases that Russia are using? So no issue either.

I think you should never take the default position that China want to or has to join camp of the west. If you drop that default thinking, everything regarding China will be much easier to understand.

Click to expand...

Ok
1/ Yes, Combined Joint Task Force – Operation Inherent Resolve (CJTF–OIR)
10 years at less...exact, i don' t want going for things less pleasant... but for some reasons especialy SCS...not for tomorrow...
And very franckly i think things in this area don' t going in the common sense, mainly for a reason much enegy in this disputed zone with in more an economy growing, a sensitive spot...

2/ Exact.

And yes

Jura said:

well, if the above had been happening north to Hamadan, Iran
https://www.sinodefenceforum.com/is...no-oped-no-policis.t6913/page-405#post-410459
(and I don't know where this was happening, as the source didn't identify the location, but it shows a Russian bomb and a Russian ordnance specialist under a Backfire), it would've been more than guests provided with weapons, don't you think?

Click to expand...

Let me try to answer you.

No, I don't see you highlighting of guest bringing in own weapon means not guest. Being guest or not is determined by the ownership of the base and who has the jurisdiction over that piece of land, not determined by where the things that the user of the base bring so long as the guest and host agree.

If you invite a friend to a dinner in your house, he or she can bring anything so long as you agree. What ever he or she brings do not make him more than a guest or yourself less of the owner of the house, does it?

4 Tu-22M3, normaly based in Iran can be also in Russia ? same weapons load always 3 t : 12 x 250 kg and carpet bombing.

FORBIN said:

Ok
1/ Yes, Combined Joint Task Force – Operation Inherent Resolve (CJTF–OIR)
10 years at less...exact, i don' t want going for things less pleasant... but for some reasons especialy SCS...not for tomorrow...
And very franckly i think things in this area don' t going in the common sense, mainly for a reason much enegy in this disputed zone with in more an economy growing, a sensitive spot...

2/ Exact.

And yes

Click to expand...

I didn't know that you meant SCS by "recent event". Now after your saying it, It makes your points clearer to me.
While SCS is a good example of the many road blocks, it is only one of many, there are much more deeper reasons why China would not join.

Let's talk frankly better but correct, with decision of 12 july there are some problems btw ofc ASEAN countries and mainly USA but also ofc her main allies with China, but in fact this situation is only more clear now but now new.

China joins RIMPAC but just, limit mainly coz yet planned but no sure a nex time...

So now each get her opinion, OK

FORBIN said:

Let's talk frankly better but correct, with decision of 12 july there are some problems btw ofc ASEAN countries and mainly USA but also ofc her main allies with China, but in fact this situation is only more clear now but now new.

China joins RIMPAC but just, limit mainly coz yet planned but no sure a nex time...

So now each get her opinion, OK

Click to expand...

I think by bringing in SCS, we are verging near the boarder of OT of this thread, in the title "no policis (policies)". But I think it worth the risk as I learn from reading and replying your posts.

You are right (and I must revise my previous notion in post 4075) about the impact of recent development in SCS dispute. There are many news and BBS sites siting the recent actions by U.S. and her allies in SCS and ECS as the main reason of China revealing (or making it louder) the visit by Chinese military delegation to Damascus. And their assertion do make good sense from Chinese perspective.

Regarding RIMPAC, I have made my point in a separate thread in length, so no more words.

Jura said:

• what Iran says:
  
  ISIL Days Numbered: China Joins Iran-Russia Anti-Terrorism Efforts in Syria
  
  source:
  Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
• 
  
• and what Russians say: "China Rushes To Help Assad"
  Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
  is the top story at gazeta.ru right now, and at first glance the points are pretty similar to the Iranian above, plus possible real-world deployment of Special Forces is mentioned (as those from Russia; USA; UK; France already in Syria) to test their weapons, tactics ...

Click to expand...

if this is true, then it represents fundamental strategic change for China. strategically China has always been on the receiving end, passively responds to whatever stirring-ups by the US at its door steps, it's time to take the game to your opponent.

yes, China has nothing at stake in Syria, and it seems unwise to jump into a savage islamic sect war, but if your strategic opponent has a big stake in a quagmire, certainly you can take advantage of it.

Jura said:

some time ago
Apr 23, 2016

... and now even "Cassad" says

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

today Mr. Assad bombed Kurds in

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

...

Click to expand...

... and the fights were going on during tonight, between

• YPG/Asayish (that's how I now saw Kurdish forces identified in a pro-Government tweet); it's
  Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
  slash
  Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
  AND
  
• NDF
  Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
  plus the Government Army

in Al-Hasakah, so I tried to look more closely, found:

and reportedly Kurds shelled the Artillery Base (highlighted below):

(I don't have time right now to draw approximate positions there)

LesAdieux said:

... if your strategic opponent has a big stake in a quagmire, certainly you can take advantage of it.

Click to expand...

this has reminded me I owe this Thread one thing, in less than two months:

Dec 16, 2015

Jura said:

... I'll check them after one year since the beginning of Russian intervention (September 30, right?), so that in the beginning of October, 2016 I will be able to say I was wrong when

Dec 15, 2015

Jura said:

So I'm sorry to disagree with you, Jeff, but I also think the intervention in Syria becomes Russian "quagmire".

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

EDIT
let's wait, I just dug it up now