Russian Jet Crash in Egypt

[Vangelovski]

That is very true. No one it seems is too concerned about actually defeating ISIS.

What do you think, do you think ISIS has the potential to grow, take over more territory, and actually become a governing force (within their sharia system)?

I've seen documentaries and reports that in many towns they capture, they do actually act as a governing body. They are already minting their own coins, distributing food and supplies to sympathizers in captured areas. How dangerous of a prospect is it if they gain support within the captured areas?

They're establishing a very rudimentary state and they definitely control a lot of territory, but how much support they might gain is hard to tell. From the looks of the refugee crisis in Europe, a lot of people have decided to leave.

[George S.]

Guys they are muslims why didn't some of their kind take them eg sausi arabia etc why do they go to eu they are Christians,Tom what do you think the muslims see us as the infidels that must be killed.

[Vangelovski]

Guys they are muslims why didn't some of their kind take them eg sausi arabia etc why do they go to eu they are Christians,Tom what do you think the muslims see us as the infidels that must be killed.

I find it interesting that the first real crisis (one the EU couldn't buy its way out of) led to the breakdown of its external borders. I think national interests still rule over the idea that you could make anything more than a trade zone out of Europe.

[Tomche Makedonche]

In my personal opinion, I think what we are witnessing here with this story is an example of the execution of both information and disinformation in what is undoubtedly the propaganda war designed to influence public perception towards each side’s agenda (much like what I believed happened in RoM a few months ago). In this instance we have a terrible event occur, whatever the truth behind it may be, the “West” (just like any other party involved) have sought to capitalise on it to further strengthen public perception towards their agenda. In this respect, the “West’s” goals are ultimately for Russia to capitulate to their interests (predominantly to withdraw their active involvement in the Syrian conflict), just as Russia wants the “West” to not interfere with their direct and longstanding geo-political strategic interests. By the West promoting this event as being linked to a terrorist act, it primarily seeks to influence the Russian public to urge a response from their government. In my opinion, there are two primary natural responses that a terrorist act would evoke within the Russian public, which is that of fear that Russia’s involvement in Syria would bring into jeopardy the general safety of the Russian people (bringing the conflict home) and therefore encourage momentum towards the public demanding Russia to withdraw from Syria; OR to interpret this as a direct attack on Russia’s own sovereignty, and hence encourage the government, who would then likely be able to consider themselves to be within their legal rights, to respond with force (i.e. drawing Russia to commit ground troops in Syria) which is undoubtedly something Russia is unlikely to sustain in the long run (taking into account the existing front in Ukraine), hence crippling and depleting the country and ultimately forcing a withdrawal.

Either response from the Russian public produces a favourable result towards the “West’s” interests at minimal expense. In light of this liability, Russia’s interest would be to disassociate the event with anything to do with Syria or Ukraine, or any kind of security or military threat to retain maximum public trust and support towards the government’s current strategy.

Whatever the truth to such a tragedy (which in this instance, although not outside the realms of possibilty, I personally highly doubt had anything to do with foreign intelligent services), the “machines” are clearly hard at work.

[Phoenix]

...I'm not sure what you mean by 'the western forces will be out and that would end the war'...

Only boots on the ground can bring an end, one way or the other to the conflict in Syria.

At the moment the pro-Assad bloc consists of Iranian and Hezbollah troops, along with Assad loyalists on the ground backed by Russian air power.

The anti-Assad bloc is dependent on a ragtag coalition of 'moderate terrorists' organisations on the ground backed by US, Australian and some NATO airforces.

If the pro-Assad bloc can gain the ascendency it will strengthen Assad's rule in Syria.
Remember the 'Western' forces are essentially illegally involved in Syria, their justification for action, is that Syria is dysfunctional with no acting leadership or government, a rather contentious argument.

On the other hand, Assad has asked (invited) Russia and Iran for help and as I understand from a purely international law perspective, the actions of Assad, Russia and Iran are 'legitimate'.

Now, let's assume the Russians eliminate large swathes of ISIL and the 'moderate terrorists' that are doing America's bidding...lets assume Assad's forces are taking back large parts of the country again and are meeting less resistance...all of a sudden, the politics takes on a different legitimacy...now we have the situation in which a sovereign nation has been 'invaded' by a foreign power(s) (i.e. USA).

Next step, the Assad forces (with Russian supplied missiles) start shooting down the invading Western coalition aircraft, who are there illegally remember...?

Could get extremely nasty, very quickly...and as the 'West' has been fatigued by decades of Middle Eastern wars, I reckon the Syrian conflict would quickly end if it came to that.

I think this is the reason the Russians have acted so brutally in their air campaign, they see an opportunity to change the balance of power on the ground, I see Iran, Hezbollah and the pro-Assad Syrians all on the same page...I don't see that with the 'moderate terrorists' and ISIL...that why I believe the Russians have outsmarted Obama...that's why I think it could end very quickly and doesn't need to be a protracted affair.

[DraganOfStip]

There were media reporting that Russian air attacks aren't directed against ISIS at all,but against rebel strongholds and (particularly) CIA bases and training camps in the territory.Practically now western forces in the conflict are in a situation where they're being pounded from the air but their governments must keep quiet about it because CIA isn't supposed to be there in the first place.

Something like the U2 incident over the Soviet Union during the cold war era,the US kept quiet about the shooting down because the vessel wasn't supposed to be in Soviet air space in the first place.But then Nikita blew the whistle and they had to come forward.

[Vangelovski]

Now, let's assume the Russians eliminate large swathes of ISIL and the 'moderate terrorists' that are doing America's bidding...lets assume Assad's forces are taking back large parts of the country again and are meeting less resistance...all of a sudden, the politics takes on a different legitimacy...now we have the situation in which a sovereign nation has been 'invaded' by a foreign power(s) (i.e. USA).

Its possible, but I don't think its very likely at all. Assad won't be able to do it - the Alawites are too small of a group to take Syria militarily. The only reason they obtained control of the state in the first place is because the French established their Syrian mandate as an Alawite state after the end of the First World War and they've held power ever since.

I think TM hit the nail on the head - the Russian public will react to this plane attack and generally they have responded with hostility towards terrorists (until now Chechens and Islamists from Dagestan). I think the Russians will be drawn in on the ground because it will become an issue of political survival for Putin and it will end badly for the them from this point on, even though it might be a drawn out process.

Next step, the Assad forces (with Russian supplied missiles) start shooting down the invading Western coalition aircraft, who are there illegally remember...?

I don't think the Russians would risk being seen to directly engage the Americans in this way (or vice-versa). It would betray the deterrence measures between them. Besides, if the Russians go in on the ground, it will probably end Western bombings (though not the supply of opposition forces). It will be Russia vs the US by proxy. That never ends well for the side that goes in on the ground.

I think this is the reason the Russians have acted so brutally in their air campaign, they see an opportunity to change the balance of power on the ground, I see Iran, Hezbollah and the pro-Assad Syrians all on the same page...I don't see that with the 'moderate terrorists' and ISIL...that why I believe the Russians have outsmarted Obama...that's why I think it could end very quickly and doesn't need to be a protracted affair.

They may or may not be moderate terrorists, but the opposition has the support of the Sunni Arab majority and the other minorities that suffered at the hands of Assad's Alawite regime. The Alawite, at best, only make up around 16 per cent of the population (though could be half of that, depending on the estimates). Further, the Alawites live along the Syrian coast, which is really only a small part of the whole country. Much of the territory Assad currently holds is Sunni or Druze and he doesn't have any real long-term prospects on holding onto anything outside of the Alawite heartland.

In terms of international law, I haven't checked to see the status of the Assad regime at the UN, but given that the Gulf Cooperation Council, Arab League, EU, the US and the 100 countries of the 'Friends of Syria' group recognise the opposition as the legitimate government of Syria, its very easy for the General Assembly (which holds responsibility for recognising the credentials of the legitimate governments of member states and is outside of the reach of a Russian Security Council veto) to accept the opposition as the legitimate government of Syria. This will put Russia, legally speaking, on the 'wrong' side of the conflict at the stroke of a pen. And they'll be left fighting a losing war on behalf of a small minority that has no hope of winning against the Sunni majority and its Arab allies.

I agree that Obama is an idiot, but I think getting involved in the Middle East only serves to outsmart oneself and Putin has given himself a checkmate.

[Gocka]

Lol, I love that line. Its funny but at the same time, pick up a history book, and tell me which European force EVER, went to the middle east, and didn't come back with their tails between their legs? Since the Roman empire, no one has been able to control that region. The people are just unruly, they are stubborn and patient, the topography is a nightmare. They have been fighting western attempts of intervention since the crusades, they have this whole thing down to a science. Anyone who has been arrogant enough to try has failed miserably.

If Russia gets drawn in on the ground, they are finished.

Why do you think despite all common sense the US has taken the cuffs off of Iran? Have you seen the price of oil lately? China will continue to decline in demand, Iran will flood the market with more oil, Russia's economy is already teetering because of this. Their currency has tanked, the last nail in the coffin would be to get dragged into an unwinnable war.

The reason its unwinnable as the USA found out, is because you can defeat what ever rag tag group you see today, tomorrow, the second you turn your back, there is another one. These people do not think like Western's, they are in it for the long haul. They are more than happy to drag this out for a 1000 years if they have to.

ISIL, Al Qaeda, the Taliban, these are not armies, these are ideas. You can't defeat an idea with bombs. In the west our wars were very different and our tolerance for pain and suffering is low. If you ever want a positive outcome in the middle east, it will be because the people reject these ideologies, not because you won a skirmish. By that logic, Russia will never win, it can't.

I agree that Obama is an idiot, but I think getting involved in the Middle East only serves to outsmart oneself and Putin has given himself a checkmate.

[Macedonian]

I feel that a few of the replies/responses/points of view on the situation in Syria may be a little skewed from some of the participants in this thread. My awareness of this situation, based on the industry I am involved in and people working in and around there and also people from that immediate area and the surrounds allow me to hopefully shed a little more light upon some 'truths', of the matter if you will. The 'truths' are objective in nature from both micro and macro perspectives and take into consideration zero feelings/emotion/bias of my sources.

Firstly, Assad and a smaller number of his ministers are Alawite, the majority of his party are shi'ite. This majority represents the majority of the populace which also are shi'ite. That is one of the reasons Hez'bollah are so adamantly involved. If the populace were Sunni, neither they nor the Iranians would be in there 'guns blazing'. They would provide material support still however.

Assad and Syria in general have housed the Russian Latakia base for decades. The Russians have major stakes there. One being their base and only representation in the Mediterranean basin and two, the area being free of external influence to allow pipelines for natural gas to remain under Syrian control. Should Syria fall then the encroachment of the Sunni/Zion/Western machinery is smack bang embedded in the Russian underbelly and MENA region without challenge. Should that occur then you will see the same BS occur in Iran. Then Russia directly...not via proxy as we see now. Put $ on that.

Downing Syria will also ensure the New Silk Road project is shelved for the time being and billions will be wasted in investment thus far and will go a long way to constraining both Russia and China and their potential.

Al Nus'ra, ISIS, FSA (White Helmets) and the like are all different faces of the same front. There are no 'moderates' or 'our guys'. It's all BS and smokescreen. The refugee crisis allows/forces Syrian brains and muscles to be exited and also allows for further de-stabilization (weakening) of Europe and is a great fulcrum-lever for Turkey over Europe. Remember should Turkey enter the EU, 150 million out of 450 million will be Turkish. How do think politics, sway, influence from a constituency that large will affect the layperson in Europe??? There are 70 million Turkish nationals/citizens outside the current 80 million within its' borders. They will automatically gain EU citizenship.

It is the interests of a 'balanced' and thus fairer/prosperous/survival with sovereignty world that Syria stands with its' current power structure in place. Syria is another domino that is still standing on the Anglo/Zionist path to the Russo/Chinese lock down. Syria's power structure may not be 'model' but then tell me whose is?

[Tomche Makedonche]

I think the Russians will be drawn in on the ground because it will become an issue of political survival for Putin and it will end badly for the them from this point on, even though it might be a drawn out process

This would be the most favourable outcome for the “West”, to draw Russian troops into Syria. As you pointed out, they would then effectively be able to engage in a proxy war with Russia. I could envisage the “West” to likely heavily invest their resources behind opposing forces such as the FSA, Gulf states, Turkey, etc, to ultimately force Russia to commit a significant offensive on ground. Once that has been achieved, and the Russians become bogged down in the conflict, the “Wests” next logical move would be to launch a second offensive through the Ukrainian front, bringing the actual conflict to Moscows front doorstep, and forcing Russia to divide its depleting resources in order to engage on two fronts. Add to this heavier trade sanctions and an unrelenting propaganda campaign resulting in diminished public and international support, if drawn out long enough, its hard not to see such a course of events eventually conclude with revolt in Moscow. Evidently it stands to reason that through such a pursuit, the odds are Russia would undoubtedly stand to lose more than it could possibly gain, and personally I think Putin is aware of this and hence will resist falling for it, even if that risks political backlash in Moscow.

The events in Ukraine have essentially forced Russia on a defensive which it now has no choice but to commit itself to, however, it is fortunate that the current international political climate has effectively provided a favourable platform for it to launch its campaign from (by that I mean in the wake of depleted US resolve whose favour has been running in decline in the international domain due to their prolonged involvement in Afghanistan and contestable involvement in Iraq). I think this can be evidenced by the success of the campaign launched in response to the events of Kumanovo, from the inference of CIA espionage, contrived coloured revolutions, to geopolitical plays on the supply of energy resources, Russia appeared to pretty much dominate public influence and wipe the floor with anything the “West” could conjure up in response.

More importantly though, the “Wests” reluctance to seriously engage against the ISIL/Daesh Caliphate ,which is rightly globally condemned, has opened up an opportunity for Russia to assert itself as an alternative leader in the international arena (which effectively further undermines US/Wests prominence and credibility in this respect) whilst at the same time also enabling it to pursue securing its own longstanding geo-political interests in the region. So far Russia’s moves can be relatively seen as succeeding in the arena of public influence, with generally just as many supporting its moves in Syria as those opposed. However, in my opinion, what Russia needs to do is avoid getting bogged down with pursuing Assad’s interests in Syria and start showing significant results against the ISIL/Daesh Caliphate. Clearly Assad’s interests primarily lie in quashing the FSA and majority Sunni opposition so that he may re-assert the rule of his regime and is what I can only assume formed the basis of the initial role of Russian involvement. However the “Wests” information campaign has already sought to capitalise on this and the longer Russia primarily targets Assad’s interests as opposed to the ISIL/Daesh Caliphate, the more their presence in Syria will run out of public and international favour and consequently damage their credibility and perception in the Global arena. Like I said, in my opinion, they need to start directing the offensive away from Assad’s interests and start to empirically show some solid and significant results against the ISIL/Daesh Caliphate to the international community if they want their involvement in Syria to pay geopolitical dividends, which will no doubt act to help assert their standings as a legitimate alternate global leader (consequently further damaging the US/”Wests” international standing, credibility and public perception) and ultimately serve as a basis to help garner acceptance/support for their moves/interests in Ukraine (and Europe).

Otherwise this could just be considered as predominantly an exercise in futility, and only serves to further question their relevance as a major geopolitical power

Again just my personal opinion

[Vangelovski]

Claims that Russian ground forces are already in Syria and possibly fighting alongside Assad's army:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3309468/Further-proof-Russian-soldiers-ground-Syria-planes-intensify-airstrikes-against-ISIS-56-attacks-eight-days.html

http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2015/11/activists-geolocate-russian-soldiers-ground-syria-151108135416902.html

I think this will be inevitable if the Russians want to achieve their goals - which I think is to secure at least Western Syria for Assad and Russia's naval/air force bases.

[Gocka]

If you bomb these people all you are doing is driving them underground, so in order to keep them at bay, you either need to go in on the ground, or bomb them indefinitely. All you have to do is look at Afghanistan. Even with a heavy US ground troop forces, the second the US turned its back, they recaptured a major city. As long as the Russians want to keep Assad in power, they will eventually have to commit to ground troop, or keep up bombing for ever.

Sometimes I wish Macedonians could have been as committed to a cause as the Taliban. These people have been outnumbered and out gunned since the the 80's, and the second the pressure is let off, they regain control. If you want to win, you need to want it more than they do.

[Vangelovski]

Putin announces that he will send 150,000 troops to Syria:

http://www.express.co.uk/news/world/609757/Putin-ISIS-Islamic-State-Syria-Raqqa-troops-soldiers-air-strike-jets-military