ISIS militants attack and take over Iraqi northern city of Mosul

[nik-]

The criticism is because Russia is bombing to assist Assad, not fight ISIS. Whether one thinks this is a valid criticism considering the results of recent dictatorial overthrows is another story.

[peter12]

As in any conflict, there is no real preferable ideal solution. However, Assad is the preferred option. We should be doing our best to support Assad against ISIL. I think the Russians have just applied pretty simple power politics to a situation, and have decided, correctly, that they can't please everyone.

[edslunch]

Originally Posted by nik-

The criticism is because Russia is bombing to assist Assad, not fight ISIS. Whether one thinks this is a valid criticism considering the results of recent dictatorial overthrows is another story.

I don't think Assad is the right answer but ANYONE winning the civil war would be better than the current bloodshed. Well maybe not ISIS. If the West really wants to address the humanitarian crisis they would do whatever is possible to end the war, whether militarily or politically. So far their attempts to support an alternative to Assad have been failures.

[blankall]

Originally Posted by peter12

As in any conflict, there is no real preferable ideal solution. However, Assad is the preferred option. We should be doing our best to support Assad against ISIL. I think the Russians have just applied pretty simple power politics to a situation, and have decided, correctly, that they can't please everyone.

The only reason Assad is a more stable option is that Russia has been feeding him weapons and money, which he uses to destroy and destabilize the rest of the country. If during the Arab Spring, Assad hadn't been propped up by Russia and just stepped down, Syria wouldn't be in this situation.

Basically Russia is saying Assad is the best option, because he has the most military power. However, he only has military power, because Russia is giving it to him.

And if by not "pleasing everyone" you mean that re-installing a brutal dictator from a minority religion onto an 80% Sunni population, then yes you are correct. The ideal situation would have been for Russia to allow the UN to act 5 years ago when Assad was dropping barrel bombs and chemical weapons on civilian protesters.

Instead Russia creates pure chaos by propping up a dictator who was on the way out and had a loose grasp on the country. They then step in - with their own brutal brand of military force - when their dictator is on the ropes and running out of bombs to drop on people.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by blankall

The only reason Assad is a more stable option is that Russia has been feeding him weapons and money, which he uses to destroy and destabilize the rest of the country. If during the Arab Spring, Assad hadn't been propped up by Russia and just stepped down, Syria wouldn't be in this situation.

Basically Russia is saying Assad is the best option, because he has the most military power. However, he only has military power, because Russia is giving it to him.

And if by not "pleasing everyone" you mean that re-installing a brutal dictator from a minority religion onto an 80% Sunni population, then yes you are correct. The ideal situation would have been for Russia to allow the UN to act 5 years ago when Assad was dropping barrel bombs and chemical weapons on civilian protesters.

Instead Russia creates pure chaos by propping up a dictator who was on the way out and had a loose grasp on the country. They then step in - with their own brutal brand of military force - when their dictator is on the ropes and running out of bombs to drop on people.

As I started by saying, there is no ideal situation.

[FlamesAddiction]

I am not advocating Assad or any faction for that matter, but isn't he at least more or less secular in his ideology? At the very least, we should avoid having some religious wing nut taking power one day.

[Ducay]

Originally Posted by blankall

And if by not "pleasing everyone" you mean that re-installing a brutal dictator from a minority religion onto an 80% Sunni population, then yes you are correct.

That is exactly why Russia is in Syria. They are strengthening the Shia rule in the area along with Iran (Shia), to keep the area and its oil on the Russian/Iranian side and not Sunni with the Saudi's.

Its all a big economic / religious powder keg waiting to go off, as it always has been for hundreds of years. This time though, if it does go off, the result is $80 oil! Go Putin!

[blankall]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

I am not advocating Assad or any faction for that matter, but isn't he at least more or less secular in his ideology? At the very least, we should avoid having some religious wing nut taking power one day.

How long will that last for though? How long can Assad hold power?

Having him back in power doesn't address the fundamental flaws in the country. A much better solution would be to redraw the borders, and this is a perfect opportunity to do so.

That's not going to happen as many of the oilfields are located in the Sunni and Kurdish populated areas. I just find it overall baffling how some are treating the Russians as heroes (not saying you or Peter12 but definitely some) when in reality they are just propping up a dictator to secure oil interests.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by blankall

How long will that last for though? How long can Assad hold power?

Having him back in power doesn't address the fundamental flaws in the country. A much better solution would be to redraw the borders, and this is a perfect opportunity to do so.

That's not going to happen as many of the oilfields are located in the Sunni and Kurdish populated areas. I just find it overall baffling how some are treating the Russians as heroes (not saying you or Peter12 but definitely some) when in reality they are just propping up a dictator to secure oil interests.

I think the Russians are being more effective than the Americans. At some point, we have to be upfront about what is the best case scenario in that region. From a standpoint of moral decency, Assad>>>>ISIL.

What do you mean by redrawing the borders?

[nik-]

Effective at what? Assisting Assad? No doubt. Fighting ISIS? ... pretty debatable.

[blankall]

Originally Posted by peter12

I think the Russians are being more effective than the Americans. At some point, we have to be upfront about what is the best case scenario in that region. From a standpoint of moral decency, Assad>>>>ISIL.

What do you mean by redrawing the borders?

By redrawing the borders, I mean splitting the country up along sectarian/ethnic lines so we no longer have a situation where a minority is brutally ruling over a majority.

Iraq is already informally split. Why not do away with the border between Iraq and Syria and create borders that don't involve just lumping random ethnic/religious groups together.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by peter12

I think the Russians are being more effective than the Americans. At some point, we have to be upfront about what is the best case scenario in that region. From a standpoint of moral decency, Assad>>>>ISIL.

What do you mean by redrawing the borders?

The Russians will probably be more effective because their Military Culture is completely different from the American Military Culture for example.

The Russians learned that brutallity and the generation of fear is effective, this did fail in Afghanistan but that was more about ineffective leadership then anything else.

Basically the Russians will bomb everything and then bomb it again no matter what the costs.

Basically with the Russians their military strategy is more mathmatics based then anything else.

[edslunch]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

The Russians will probably be more effective because their Military Culture is completely different from the American Military Culture for example.

The Russians learned that brutallity and the generation of fear is effective, this did fail in Afghanistan but that was more about ineffective leadership then anything else.

Basically the Russians will bomb everything and then bomb it again no matter what the costs.

Basically with the Russians their military strategy is more mathmatics based then anything else.

Seems like they're not messing around now that they're engaged. Air strikes, now cruise missile strikes, attack helicopters, armour and artillery in place and rumours of ground forces on their way. I would imagine a full on assault by combined forces if it comes to that would put the fear of Allah into any of the rebel groups.

[CaptainCrunch]

The Russians strategy wise don't fool around, they're heavy believers in the whole combined arms artform, in other words, they took the German Concept of Blitzkrieg, and enhanced it by adding mass artillary support, and air support and air mobile support.

I would expect that you're also going to be seeing the use of their special forces (Spetznaz) for pathfinding and bomb and artillary guidance now.

I saw in the news today that the American's new air roe is that if they see a Russian plane within 20 miles of their target they're to abort and rtb.

[FlamesAddiction]

My fear is that this is setting up to be another proxy war between world powers. It's dangerous water to be treading in. The occasional friendly fire incident is hard enough to avoid. The longer this goes on, it will only be a matter of time until either Russia strikes NATO or vice versa.

[CaptainCrunch]

I would expect that's why NATO has put in the 20 mile bubble rule, to avoid fire incidences.

I would also expect that in the next few days Nato will put a halt to air strikes and other activities and have a conference to redefine how this thing is going to go.

[2Stonedbirds]

Read an article last night stating that the majority of spetznaz troops that are to be sent in spent a considerable amount of time in Chechnya.

These guys aren't gonna fool around, and their orders are simple.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by 2Stonedbirds

Read an article last night stating that the majority of spetznaz troops that are to be sent in spent a considerable amount of time in Chechnya.

These guys aren't gonna fool around, and their orders are simple.

People tend to forget that while the Russian military had a miserable war in Afghanistant, the Spetznaz actually had (if you can use this term) a very good war.

When you look at the various special operations groups in the world the Spetznaz has quietly become one of the top groups in terms of mission execution.

[blueski]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

My fear is that this is setting up to be another proxy war between world powers. It's dangerous water to be treading in. The occasional friendly fire incident is hard enough to avoid. The longer this goes on, it will only be a matter of time until either Russia strikes NATO or vice versa.

It already was a proxy war with the US trained ISIS and Assad's Russia backed forces. Now it has potential to turn into a direct war between Russia and NATO (US).

[blankall]

Originally Posted by blueski

It already was a proxy war with the US trained ISIS and Assad's Russia backed forces. Now it has potential to turn into a direct war between Russia and NATO (US).

I'm not sure I get the leap in logic here.

The US trained a relatively small amount of rebels, and then a fraction of those rebels defected to ISIS. Somehow that translates into the US training ISIS and using them to fight a proxy war?

IMO the bigger issues will arise when Russian/Syrian forces meet up with Kurdish forces. I'm guessing the US forces will be long gone by the time that happens, and the Kurds will be forced to submit to Assad.