Russian airstrikes in Syria

[San Verucia]

Deleted.

[Lordieth]

Well, if we thought the migration crisis was bad before, I fear this is going to lead to an exodus.

[Imperializt Russia]

Well, if we thought the migration crisis was bad before, I fear this is going to lead to an exodus.

In pro-government areas at least, the Russian presence is being received very well. It might encourage some to stay, though I assume pro-government citizens would be less inclined to leave in the first place.

[Lordieth]

Well, if we thought the migration crisis was bad before, I fear this is going to lead to an exodus.

In pro-government areas at least, the Russian presence is being received very well. It might encourage some to stay, though I assume pro-government citizens would be less inclined to leave in the first place.

I suppose it depends on how discriminatingly Russia's attacks are, and whether or not it makes the situation better or worse. If Russia is indeed targeting other militia groups, it might in fact play into ISIS' favour.

[Imperializt Russia]

In pro-government areas at least, the Russian presence is being received very well. It might encourage some to stay, though I assume pro-government citizens would be less inclined to leave in the first place.

I suppose it depends on how discriminatingly Russia's attacks are, and whether or not it makes the situation better or worse. If Russia is indeed targeting other militia groups, it might in fact play into ISIS' favour.

Well from the Russian perspective, all rebel groups are the enemy and IS is just a particularly prolific one.
Not sure what you're getting at though.

[Lordieth]

I suppose it depends on how discriminatingly Russia's attacks are, and whether or not it makes the situation better or worse. If Russia is indeed targeting other militia groups, it might in fact play into ISIS' favour.

Well from the Russian perspective, all rebel groups are the enemy and IS is just a particularly prolific one.
Not sure what you're getting at though.

I suppose what I'm getting at is that if Russia's primary aim is to support the Assad regime, rather than to rid the region of ISIS, then targeting other rebel groups could shift the balance of power in the region. We've seen what power vacuums can do to the middle-east before, and the situation in Syria is more complex than most. If one rebel group is wiped it who is attacking Assad and ISIS, it might actually be in ISIS' favour.

[Imperializt Russia]

Well from the Russian perspective, all rebel groups are the enemy and IS is just a particularly prolific one.
Not sure what you're getting at though.

I suppose what I'm getting at is that if Russia's primary aim is to support the Assad regime, rather than to rid the region of ISIS, then targeting other rebel groups could shift the balance of power in the region. We've seen what power vacuums can do to the middle-east before, and the situation in Syria is more complex than most. If one rebel group is wiped it who is attacking Assad and ISIS, it might actually be in ISIS' favour.

It doesn't change anything for the government forces though. They're fighting in the same places as before, just against one group in those areas and not two in two areas.

[Lordieth]

I suppose what I'm getting at is that if Russia's primary aim is to support the Assad regime, rather than to rid the region of ISIS, then targeting other rebel groups could shift the balance of power in the region. We've seen what power vacuums can do to the middle-east before, and the situation in Syria is more complex than most. If one rebel group is wiped it who is attacking Assad and ISIS, it might actually be in ISIS' favour.

It doesn't change anything for the government forces though. They're fighting in the same places as before, just against one group in those areas and not two in two areas.

True, however it does change the situation on the ground, surely? If other Rebel groups have been holding back ISIS advances, then the Syrian army isn't exactly in the strongest position to defend additional territories, is it?

[Imperializt Russia]

It doesn't change anything for the government forces though. They're fighting in the same places as before, just against one group in those areas and not two in two areas.

True, however it does change the situation on the ground, surely? If other Rebel groups have been holding back ISIS advances, then the Syrian army isn't exactly in the strongest position to defend additional territories, is it?

IS becomes functionally stronger, yes, since its attention isn't diverted between Assad and other groups.
The rebellion on a whole probably won't change because IS has destroyed all the groups that were neatly working interference for them with the government forces.

[Conserative Morality]

It doesn't change anything for the government forces though. They're fighting in the same places as before, just against one group in those areas and not two in two areas.

But that one replacing those two would be free to focus their attention on the Syrian army rather than having to split it between other rebels and the Syrian army.

[Kalifati Arab shqiptar]

Russia's interest is to preserve Assad's murderous regime, not combating ISIS. But hey screw the Syrians, Assad-Putin is the Lesser Evil(tm) and we'll allow them to massacre as many civilians as they desire as long as it's not the IS/American intervention!

Hush no tears, only dreams now

[Rio Cana]

"It can't", or "I've never heard of them doing it"?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Huawei
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lenovo
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hisense
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haier

Chinese brands are fucking shit.

You have just insulted the Chinese (see photo)

Photo - http://tse3.mm.bing.net/th?id=OIP.M07c2 ... 0&pid=15.1

[Imperializt Russia]

It doesn't change anything for the government forces though. They're fighting in the same places as before, just against one group in those areas and not two in two areas.

But that one replacing those two would be free to focus their attention on the Syrian army rather than having to split it between other rebels and the Syrian army.

Which had to focus itself against functionally one opponent in two factions in two areas.
Now, it's focused against one opponent in one faction in two areas.

[Shofercia]

Since you mentioned that article, let me ask you this: when Al Qaeda brutally attacked the US on 9/11, that article is titled the War in Afghanistan; it's not titled the US-Afghan War, right?

However, when Georgia brutally attacking a civilian city with GRAD rocket launchers and Dana howitzers, and Russia responded, well, for the longest time it was called the Ossetian War; however, the anti-Russian Cabal, Wikipediametric, worked hard to change that title to the Russia-Georgia War. Then a mod, with Neo-Nazi leanings showed up, banned some people and changed the title. Bit hard to argue that's unbiased, eh?

The entire premise of Wikipedia is horseshit primarily when it comes to contentious articles on current events of historical revisionism. I can write a wonderful article on Prednestrovie, completely NPOV, (TransDneistr,) but why the fuck would I was hours laboring on something that I don't get paid for, while fighting off attacks from biased editors? Would anyone sane do that?

And thus on current and contentious articles with a political/propagandist slant, Wikipedia becomes a utterly pathetic shouting match on who can shout the loudest and can rally the most admins to their side. The winning side then gets to instill their utterly pathetic and completely useless propaganda into said article, while pretending that it's "oh, like so NPOV!"

Not to mention that for quite a while Wikipedia listed Russia as the attacker, despite the fact that Georgia attacked on August 7th, and the Russian came in on August 8th. Not that I expect the Wikipedians in that article to have a sense of sequential numbering. Oh, and in the very same article, someone tried blaming the Russians for taking Vladikavkaz. Perhaps that was Klichko.

Moving on from that, when it came to Ukraine, Wikipedia again tried to proudly move the line of the anti-Russian propagandist industry, by linking the Bloodless Annexation of Crimea to the Bloody Annexation of Austria. Apparently to some, killing people and not killing people are the same thing. And they edit Wikipedia too, which is why some articles on Wikipedia would most certainly be worthy of the title: "Britannica on the Bathroom Wall".

Sorry, was there a point here, other than the fact you can apparently write wonderful articles?

I don't expect us to agree on anything other than Kurdish autonomy. Your incoherency here (somehow trying to link half-a-dozen separate events in an anti-western narrative concerning wikipedia's grand anti-Russianess surprisingly comes across as muddled instead of damning) rather adds to that impression. I would have been happy to agree to disagree, but since you put so much passion here (in lieu of valid points), I felt compelled to post in return.

Wikipedia's system of bias is no surprise. But it goes both ways, and it doesn't discredit the fact that there was a Russian military action in Georgia (though I have never heard of it being called the Ossetia war; I wonder on how widespread that actually was). I made no comment on whether it was provoked, just the fact that it occurred, so much of this spirited mess is rather unnecessary. Not that this will stop you, I have no doubt.

Though I shall eagerly the coming 'stabilisation of Syria within a year' due to Russian military action that you predict. I have to admit, I did not expect you to believe your own propaganda, so kudos for boldness. Less kudos for anything else.
inb4 "oh it was obviously the strikes that caused a political deal"

There were points there and actual examples, all of which you missed. I cited several specific examples, like Wikipediametric, which you chose to ignore, since they didn't fit into your narrative. Since your response doesn't actually add anything to the discussion, other than the claim that I allegedly believe my own propaganda, there's not much there that I can respond to. If you haven't heard the title Ossetian War, you can simply google it, although I realize that it's harder to do for some than for others. Also, I didn't mention Syria in that post. If you want to talk about Syria, at least have the decency to quote posts where I mentioned it, since my prediction contained a lot more than a claim which you simplify into absurdity.

For the record in the UK we tended to call it the South Ossetia war, as was reflected in its wikipedia title.

I tend to refer as "Russia swings its dick and hits another Slavic Man in the face."

Its funny that way, because implications.

I didn't realize that the Georgians were Slavic. Neither did the Georgians. What's funny, Balk, is that in your attempt to bash Russia yet again, you manage to, yet again, show us your ignorance of the situation.

For the record in the UK we tended to call it the South Ossetia war, as was reflected in its wikipedia title.

You're right, my mistake. Should've said South Ossetia(n) War. Thank you for the clarification!

For the record in the UK we tended to call it the South Ossetia war, as was reflected in its wikipedia title.

I hear variations, though the most common is just the Russo-Georgian conflict.

If Wikipedia simply reflects what's stated the most, irrespective of accuracy, I'd rather watch Fox News.

Russia counterattacked in Georgia. If you wish to engage me on this topic, you might want to ask other NSGers how it went for them.

Russia counterattacked in Georgia after their "peacekeepers" successfully provoked a response. Or was supplying Ossetian separatists, and beating up police officers part of their job?

The Russian Peacekeepers, armed with hand held weaponry, provoked the response of Georgian missile launchers and howitzers? Excuse me:



On August 4th, Georgia threatened South Ossetia. On August 5th, the Russians responded by saying that Georgia shouldn't militarily invade South Ossetia. This came after Saakashvili's military spending skyrocketed, after he bought numerous tanks from Ukraine; the militarization of Georgia happened after 2004, after Georgian Special Forces failed in the 2004 assault on South Ossetia. On August 7th, right before the Chinese Olympics on August 8th, Saakashvili invaded South Ossetia. Even the EU Report stated that there wasn't necessary provocation to justify a full blown invasion. A company of Peacekeepers left the JKPF after seeing Georgian tanks in South Ossetia.

[Shofercia]

Russia's declining demographics? If by declining you mean growing beyond the UN's wildest predictions, then yes, declining...

Immigration from Russia certainly has increased, mostly among those who are educated.

That article's funny, specifically this part: the number of Russians who emigrated in 2014 will likely surpass the record high of 1999, when the country officially “lost” around 215 thousand people.

The record high of 1999 when roughly 215,000 people emigrated? I'm sorry, but those emigration numbers are way too low to be the record high of the 1990s, then again, with the way that Drunky's (Yeltsin's) Administration kept records, I'm not surprised. Let's look at actual records kept by the European Union. I find that sober administrations are better at keeping record than drunk ones, don't you?

http://www.migrationpolicycentre.eu/doc ... Russia.pdf

Looks like 676,000 to Europe alone in 1991. I think that 676 is higher than 215, don't you? Because you see, if that claim is destroyed, (which it just was,) then your entire article is crap. It's best not to rely too much on information from Drunky's Administration. Oh, I'm sorry, was I not supposed to find that factoid?

What? Foisted by the US on Russia? Didn't know that the US dictated the Russian interior ministry. Also can I get a citation on how exactly did the US install a government in Georgia.

Did Saakashvili hijack those American military advisers on American military jeeps?

At least the Americans man up to their mistakes and admit them.

Like the ethnic cleansing of Serbs from North Kosovo? Or the Libyan Fiasco? And Iraqi women must be loving all those apologies while being raped by ISIS, something that wouldn't happen if Dubya didn't remove Saddam.

And then they shot it down using missile systems given to them by Russia.

Actually German intel claims that they captured it. So does common sense. If the Russians gave them the weaponry, why the fuck would they take pictures with said weapons claiming "look at what we captured from Ukraine's military?"

It might be mere speculation but I wonder why did Russia veto the international tribunal.

Russia vetoed a kangaroo court. There's already a UN Resolution regarding MH 17: http://www.un.org/press/en/2014/sc11483.doc.htm

Actually, the US provoked Russia by installing a government in Georgia against the wishes of the Georgian people

I wonder what the whole Rose Revolution shtick was about then? The Georgians must have been bribed by usaid to elect a leader they didn't want several times, or perhaps he was popular?

then supplying weapons to this government for the sole purpose of a military assault against Russia and its allies.

Oh sure, the Georgian military definitely made Medvedev lose sleep at night. Who knows what they could have been capable of.

Or perhaps Shevardnadze was an idiot, and they wanted anyone but Shevardnadze. As for the latter, when there's a giant military build up in the Caucasus, that tends to affect Russia, because if there's military escalation, guess where the refugees go, and where the fighting starts? That's right, Russia. The Nagorno-Karabakh conflict, (not on Russia's soil,) started by Gorbafool, transitioned into Georgian-Ossetian War, which transitioned into the Georgian-Abkhaz War, which transitioned into the First Chechen War, which was on Russia's soil. Why do you think Russia commits more resources to that region than any other?

[DBJ]

Immigration from Russia certainly has increased, mostly among those who are educated.

That article's funny, specifically this part: the number of Russians who emigrated in 2014 will likely surpass the record high of 1999, when the country officially “lost” around 215 thousand people.

The record high of 1999 when roughly 215,000 people emigrated? I'm sorry, but those emigration numbers are way too low to be the record high of the 1990s, then again, with the way that Drunky's (Yeltsin's) Administration kept records, I'm not surprised. Let's look at actual records kept by the European Union. I find that sober administrations are better at keeping record than drunk ones, don't you?

http://www.migrationpolicycentre.eu/doc ... Russia.pdf

Looks like 676,000 to Europe alone in 1991. I think that 676 is higher than 215, don't you? Because you see, if that claim is destroyed, (which it just was,) then your entire article is crap. It's best not to rely too much on information from Drunky's Administration. Oh, I'm sorry, was I not supposed to find that factoid?

Please, someone tell me he's a troll. The arrogance combined with the over the top stupidity just can't be real. It's pretty funny though.

[The balkens]

That article's funny, specifically this part: the number of Russians who emigrated in 2014 will likely surpass the record high of 1999, when the country officially “lost” around 215 thousand people.

The record high of 1999 when roughly 215,000 people emigrated? I'm sorry, but those emigration numbers are way too low to be the record high of the 1990s, then again, with the way that Drunky's (Yeltsin's) Administration kept records, I'm not surprised. Let's look at actual records kept by the European Union. I find that sober administrations are better at keeping record than drunk ones, don't you?

http://www.migrationpolicycentre.eu/doc ... Russia.pdf

Looks like 676,000 to Europe alone in 1991. I think that 676 is higher than 215, don't you? Because you see, if that claim is destroyed, (which it just was,) then your entire article is crap. It's best not to rely too much on information from Drunky's Administration. Oh, I'm sorry, was I not supposed to find that factoid?

Please, someone tell me he's a troll. The arrogance combined with the over the top stupidity just can't be real. It's pretty funny though.

Lives in the US getting a western education, must be useful.

[Shofercia]

Actually, it was very close to the conflict zone and anyway, it was most likely a Ukrainian air force jet that shot it down.

You must be kidding me.

You're deliberately lying at this point.

We know that a Buk rocket launcher shot it down, not a jet.

Some are still pretending that Russians supplied it. If some can pretend that, why can't he pretend that it was a jet?

When you need strategic airport, oil or rare kind of metal, there is no longer any principle, I guess.

Of course not. That's geopolitics in a nutshell. Why do you think Putin is intervening in the first place? Because he genuinely cares about the Syrian people...or because he cares about the port in Tartus?

Could be because he genuinely doesn't want ISIS to overrun Syria.

Isn't this still really all about centuries long Anglo-French obsession to not ever let Russia liberate Anatolia and Constantinople?

Too bad that Constantinople doesnt exist.

When you change a city's name, you don't wipe it out from existence. You do realize that, right?
It exists, it's just temporarily renamed to Istanbul, for a few centuries or so

Except when those minorities are Ukrainians and Tatars in a region with a Russian majority.

Ahh yes, the famed propaganda of Kurltai Rukh still works.

Anyway.

Apparently no one died in the first bombing. Either Russian targeting systems are that shitty or....

Or they're targeting supply depots, communication hubs, headquarters, etc. If only there was a post on it...

Russia attacked 8 locations, specifically targeting supply depots, oil depots, storage depots, communication hubs, transport depots and [regional] headquarters of ISIS.

They're not targeting recruits, because there's an abundance of them. They're targeting weaponry and communications equipment, of which there's a shortage. "Hey, AK-47, your bro was killed in an airstrike, want to avenge him" doesn't really work.

Chinese brands are fucking shit.

This is the first time I've heard of Lenovo being shit.

Russia airstrikes ISIS! NSGers debate, "Is Lenovo shit?"

Well, if we thought the migration crisis was bad before, I fear this is going to lead to an exodus.

In pro-government areas at least, the Russian presence is being received very well. It might encourage some to stay, though I assume pro-government citizens would be less inclined to leave in the first place.

Interesting point, I agree.

That article's funny, specifically this part: the number of Russians who emigrated in 2014 will likely surpass the record high of 1999, when the country officially “lost” around 215 thousand people.

The record high of 1999 when roughly 215,000 people emigrated? I'm sorry, but those emigration numbers are way too low to be the record high of the 1990s, then again, with the way that Drunky's (Yeltsin's) Administration kept records, I'm not surprised. Let's look at actual records kept by the European Union. I find that sober administrations are better at keeping record than drunk ones, don't you?

http://www.migrationpolicycentre.eu/doc ... Russia.pdf

Looks like 676,000 to Europe alone in 1991. I think that 676 is higher than 215, don't you? Because you see, if that claim is destroyed, (which it just was,) then your entire article is crap. It's best not to rely too much on information from Drunky's Administration. Oh, I'm sorry, was I not supposed to find that factoid?

Please, someone tell me he's a troll. The arrogance combined with the over the top stupidity just can't be real. It's pretty funny though.

Is there a specific part of that post that you disagree with? Let's see here:

1. Article posted by the guy I was responding to claimed 215k was highest. EU Report I found claimed 676k. 676k > 275k.
2. Yeltsin was a drunk. This isn't really a state secret: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldne ... pants.html
3. The article that he posted implied that there's a deadly brain drain in Russia. However, Russia survived the brain drain of the 1990s, and this one is much less. The article claimed that it was more, not less. Hence it was incorrect. Since Russia survived the much bigger brain drain of the 1990s, Russia can easily survive the current minor brain drain, if that can even be called a brain drain. 20k "extra" emigrants leaving Russia won't change the dynamics much.

Lives in the US getting a western education, must be useful.

It's very useful, danke

[Rio Cana]

According to a CNN news show, the key to Syria is Damascus. And all the groups that are after Damascus are not supported by the US. They also said that it is now likely that Syria will be split since the different groups still living there will not want to work together.

[Frisbeeteria]

Please, someone tell me he's a troll. The arrogance combined with the over the top stupidity just can't be real. It's pretty funny though.

If you have nothing more to contribute to the argument than "he must be a troll", then you're the one trolling and spamming. Knock it off.

[Chossudovsky]

You must be kidding me.

You're deliberately lying at this point.

We know that a Buk rocket launcher shot it down, not a jet.

Some are still pretending that Russians supplied it. If some can pretend that, why can't he pretend that it was a jet?

Why don't you actually provide some evidence that I'm "pretending" if you're going to make that claim?

[Socialist Czechia]

I must ask directly: why some people in west thinks, that so called 'Free Syrian Army' is better option than Assad?

During Spanish Civil War, both sides committed atrocities and neither side could be considered 'good', be it carlists or anarchists. Syrian Civil War is same in that.
So, when everyone is bloodthirsty and war criminal already, why it's so bad to support autocratic a**hole, still widely recognized as legit head of state?

Seriously, when West have no problem to be allied with Saudi regime, crucifying people for opinions, like, every day...

[Uxupox]

I must ask directly: why some people in west thinks, that so called 'Free Syrian Army' is better option than Assad?

During Spanish Civil War, both sides committed atrocities and neither side could be considered 'good', be it carlists or anarchists. Syrian Civil War is same in that.
So, when everyone is bloodthirsty and war criminal already, why it's so bad to support autocratic a**hole, still widely recognized as legit head of state?

Seriously, when West have no problem to be allied with Saudi regime, crucifying people for opinions, like, every day...

Have you heard the phrase of realpolitik?

[Imperializt Russia]

Some are still pretending that Russians supplied it. If some can pretend that, why can't he pretend that it was a jet?

Why don't you actually provide some evidence that I'm "pretending" if you're going to make that claim?

Well that's impossible because we can't discern whether or not you genuinely believe this. You're not here and we don't know who you are, it's literally impossible.

But the shooting down is entirely incongruent with air attack and entirely congruent with SAM attack, including public statements by rebel forces in the area and how those statements were managed (namely their timely deletion from social media).

[The balkens]

I must ask directly: why some people in west thinks, that so called 'Free Syrian Army' is better option than Assad?

During Spanish Civil War, both sides committed atrocities and neither side could be considered 'good', be it carlists or anarchists. Syrian Civil War is same in that.
So, when everyone is bloodthirsty and war criminal already, why it's so bad to support autocratic a**hole, still widely recognized as legit head of state?

Seriously, when West have no problem to be allied with Saudi regime, crucifying people for opinions, like, every day...

Its not like they have oil or anything.