"Russian Air Force fighters operating over Syria" off topic

[pjotrtje]

And of course, the internet is full of true stuff, no lies to be found there...?

[Fishbed_9307]

And of course, the internet is full of true stuff, no lies to be found there...?

Also there are no Russian troops in Crimea or Ukraine!

[ehusmann]

And now the Russians are apparantly also delivering AA installations:

Moscow will reportedly provide Russian troops in Syria with an advanced antiaircraft missile system as part of its military support for Syrian president Bashar Assad.

Source: http://finance.yahoo.com/news/just-got- ... 00769.html

How many fighters do the rebel groups in Syria have again?

Erwin

[Glidepath]

That AA bit, that's NOT really news!

FACT
Russia and Syria are friendly nations doing business for decades and include arms. (the USA does not like that 'obviously')
FACT
Western air forces were very afraid of Assad's Anti-Aircraft missiles. Why, Syria was even before the civil war erupted, supposed to have the very best Russian made Modern Air Defecence Missile System that is available.
FACT:
Yet, US a/c and allies can fly over Northen Iraq and Syria for offensive ops, without being blasted out of the sky.
FACT:
Other countries followed suit and some others are considering doing likewise.
FACT:
All without specific UN mandate and without exit strategy
FACT:
In case you missed this
The terrorist-or rebel groups have taken over several (air)bases now, so they may have very well airworthy air assets (and perhaps even pilots.)
They may even have captured such AA-missiles.
FACT:
Politicians are using That Cold War rhetoric all over again: "Russia against the USA and the 'West' ".

plse No discussion here. For that go to Praethuys.

[John Rambo]

That AA bit, that's NOT really news!

FACT
Russia and Syria are friendly nations doing business for decades and include arms. (the USA does not like that 'obviously')
FACT
Western air forces were very afraid of Assad's Anti-Aircraft missiles. Why, Syria was even before the civil war erupted, supposed to have the very best Russian made Modern Air Defecence Missile System that is available.
FACT:
Yet, US a/c and allies can fly over Northen Iraq and Syria for offensive ops, without being blasted out of the sky.
FACT:
Other countries followed suit and some others are considering doing likewise.
FACT:
All without specific UN mandate and without exit strategy
FACT:
In case you missed this
The terrorist-or rebel groups have taken over several (air)bases now, so they may have very well airworthy air assets (and perhaps even pilots.)
They may even have captured such AA-missiles.
FACT:
Politicians are using That Cold War rhetoric all over again: "Russia against the USA and the 'West' ".

plse No discussion here. For that go to Praethuys.

I guess the Syrian army doesn't need to shoot planes out of the sky, assuming that IS and the FSA aren't flying. They won't hit coalition planes since these are targeting their enemies and they don't want =censored= to hit the fan. Besides that the Syrian army only controls a small part of the country. The major part is under IS control, and some of it under FSA control.

I don't see why Russia wouldn't be allowed to help out it's friends. After all I think it is partially the west to blame for the situation in Syria (and other countries). Also think about what happened in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya maybe.

[ehusmann]

@Glidepath ok, so the West is bad, Russia is good. And not to mention Syria of course. Of course we don't need to post the facts about the attrocities commited by Syria (or Russia), nor do we need to say that Syria is in fact a failed state by now. Without the help by the way of the West. In fact, Syria should be in some way thankful for the West fighting IS. Because without the attacks of the West (whether those attacks are sufficient or not), the situation for Assad in his own country would most likely be much, much worse. Also, of course we do not have to mention the border incursions and bombings in Turkey. Which, as you know, is a NATO member. All of that, is just not important, to you, right?

Also it is totally unimportant that thousands of men from countries in the West have travelled to Syria, have been fighting there and some are returning. And as such, becoming a serious threat to security here (proven already several times). So even if you feel this is totally and solely a problem of Syria, then also you'll need to come up with a better solution for that problem. One that affects the West directly.

Yet, US a/c and allies can fly over Northen Iraq and Syria for offensive ops, without being blasted out of the sky.

Duh... they are not overflying Syrian forces, they are overflying IS forces.

In case you missed this
The terrorist-or rebel groups have taken over several (air)bases now, so they may have very well airworthy air assets (and perhaps even pilots.)
They may even have captured such AA-missiles.

And they haven't used them by now.... makes sense.

Politicians are using That Cold War rhetoric all over again: "Russia against the USA and the 'West' ".

Or was it the opposite in fact..... Russia using the Cold War rhetoric of everyone against Russia....

Erwin

[pjotrtje]

And we're forgetting that there are multiple rebel factions active in Syria, aside from IS. The rebels are the ones 'we' support, while Russia is supporting Assad's forces and as such, there is a conflict of interest. Currently, business is conducted as in "my enemy's enemy is my friend" but the moment IS is out of the game, Assad's forces and 'our' rebels are head to head again.

[ehusmann]

Absolutely, and that's where Russia entering the game can be good, or very, very bad. From the first statements it seems Russia will support Assad's forces battling the non-IS rebels. The rebels, like you say, the West more or less supports. If the West and Russia can keep interests separated it may in the end mean a stabilization of the conflict, though with Assad still in power probably. However, if at some point those rebels will ask for more support from the West because they get beaten up by the Russians/Syrians, then it will be completely different.

By the way, don't forget Iran is also in the game. Supposedly now running the show instead of the Syrian generals. There are uncomfirmed reports that all of the Syrian high command is already replaced by Iranian generals....

Erwin

[Richard from Rotterdam]

Russian assets are first and foremost there to protect their own interests, meaning the port of Tartus. That has been their mediterranean naval base for decades. Protecting Assad is thus in their own interest. Any AA-systems are only there to protect against the assumed attack (by US led air coalition) on Assad's forces and possibly their mixed assets surrounding Latakia/Tartus.

As long as IS is still in control of major parts of Syria, the Coalition will be able to operate uninterrupted in Syrian airspace, but as soon as the balance on the ground swings against IS, then we'll have to pay attention to Syria's air defence.