What's everyone's opinion on the current conflict in Syria?

ngatimozart

Super Moderator
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
Taken from news.com.au just now.

Any word on what this attack was about? The press is speculating that it was the Israeli's.
This is first part fo story from todays NZ Herald:
Israel strikes Russian weapons shipment in Syria

10:51 AM NZDT Friday Nov 1, 2013.

Israeli warplanes attacked a shipment of Russian missiles inside a Syrian government stronghold, officials said Thursday, a development that threatened to add another volatile layer to regional tensions from the Syrian civil war.

The revelation came as the government of President Bashar Assad met a key deadline in an ambitious plan to eliminate Syria's entire chemical weapons stockpile by mid-2014 and avoid international military action.

The announcement by a global chemical weapons watchdog that the country has completed the destruction of equipment used to produce the deadly agents highlights Assad's willingness to cooperate, and puts more pressure on the divided and outgunned rebels to attend a planned peace conference.

An Obama administration official confirmed the Israeli airstrike overnight, but provided no details. Another security official said the attack occurred late Wednesday in the Syrian port city of Latakia and that the target was Russian-made SA-125 missiles.

The officials spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to publicly discuss the attack.

There was no immediate confirmation from Syria.

Since the civil war in Syria began in March 2011, Israel has carefully avoided taking sides, but has struck shipments of missiles inside Syria at least twice this year.

The Syrian military, overstretched by the civil war, has not retaliated, and it was not clear whether the embattled Syrian leader would choose to take action this time. Assad may decide to again let the Israeli attack slide, particularly when his army has the upper hand on the battlefield inside Syria.

Israel has repeatedly declared a series of red lines that could trigger Israeli military intervention, including the delivery of "game-changing" weapons to the Syrian-backed Lebanese Hezbollah group.

Israel has never officially confirmed taking action inside Syria to avoid embarrassing Assad and sparking a potential response. But foreign officials say it has done so several times when Israeli intelligence determined that sophisticated missiles were on the move.

In January, an Israeli airstrike in Syria destroyed a shipment of advanced anti-aircraft missiles bound for Hezbollah, according to U.S. officials. And in May, it was said to have acted again, taking out a shipment of Iranian-made Fateh-110 missiles at a Damascus airport.

The Fateh-110s have advanced guidance systems that allow them to travel up to 200 miles (300 kilometers) per hour with great precision. Their solid-fuel propellant allows them to be launched at short notice, making them hard to detect and neutralize.

Israel has identified several other weapons systems as game changers, including chemical weapons, Russian-made Yakhont missiles that can be fired from land and destroy ships at sea, and Russian SA-17 anti-aircraft missiles. Israel's January airstrike is believed to have destroyed a shipment of SA-17s.

Syrian activists and opposition groups reported strong explosions Wednesday night that appeared to come from inside an air defense facility in Latakia. They said the cause of the blasts was not known.

Read more: Israel strikes Russian weapons shipment in Syria - World - NZ Herald News

SA 125 Missile: SA-3 Goa S-125 Neva Pechora ground to air missile system technical data sheet specifications UK*-*Army Recognition*-*Army Recognition
Looks like the Israelis carrying on their standard strike first policy. The rest of the story is about the Syrian chemical weapons destruction and the meeting of the deadline which has been done.
 

alexkvaskov

New Member
IIRC the Moskva's deployment is over soon with the Varyag replacing it. I wonder how long Peter will remain in the Med. Dead curious as to whether there's any VMF SSN/SSK in the Med.
 

Feanor

Super Moderator
Staff member
Yeah it's not an actual taskforce, just a snapshot. There is always one cruiser or destroyer or frigate serving as the flagship. The Varyag is replacing the Moskva, and Petr Velikiy is just on a long-range cruise, passing through. In late November-December we'll see the Admiral Kuznetsov there too.
 

Feanor

Super Moderator
Staff member
Not to play necromancer, but some interesting news out of Syria. Russia has just delivered 75 trucks to Syria, including 50 Kamaz transport trucks and 25 armored Urals. These vehicles are intended for use in evacuating the Syrian chemical weapons arsenal, through the port of Latakiya. The VVS flew a total of 38 flights, using Il-76 aircraft, to deliver the vehicles. Also delivered were army tents, field kitchens, and water cisterns.

There's some interesting footage here: [nomedia="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bRh9c84PIj8"]Сирии предоÑтавлено оборудование Ð´Ð»Ñ ÑƒÐ½Ð¸Ñ‡Ñ‚Ð¾Ð¶ÐµÐ½Ð¸Ñ Ñ…Ð¸Ð¼Ð¾Ñ€ÑƒÐ¶Ð¸Ñ - YouTube[/nomedia]

At 2:42-2:55 you can see a soldier in full PPE walking around in the background. He's part of the security forces that arrived with the VVS.

And the basic info here: bmpd -

After this Dutch, Norwegian, and American ships will be used to evacuate the chemical weapons from Latakiya before Nov. 5th of next year, for subsequent destruction.
 

Berkut1

New Member
Hi everyone.

I hope there would be a discussion on "Why" there is a civil war in Syria. I hope to hear some expert opinion on the very basic issues of this conflict.
 

swerve

Super Moderator
Why? Because the Assad family & its backers didn't want to compromise, & risk losing their impunity & some of their wealth, so crushed the open, democratic opposition when it started demanding free votes, civil rights, etc. As usually happens in such cases, this led to supporters of the democratic opposition joining those already willing to fight, & thus strengthening & emboldening them enough to take up arms. And the war started . . .

The Assads et al decided to try to discredit & divide their opponents, & strengthen their support among their own people & the other non-Sunni groups, by pretending the rebels were all Sunni extremists (some were, but at that point probably not many) & turning the war into a sectarian struggle. This gave Islamic militants the perfect opportunity to join in, thus turning the war into what the Assads had claimed it was from the start, & guaranteeing it would become much bloodier & more ghastly than before.
 

StobieWan

Super Moderator
Staff member
Hi everyone.

I hope there would be a discussion on "Why" there is a civil war in Syria. I hope to hear some expert opinion on the very basic issues of this conflict.
Broadly speaking, similar reasons to the rest of the Arab Spring revolutions - living for decades under a brutal and repressive regime with poor representation, which awarded power and wealth along the lines of a fiefdom. Other than that, they never had it so good.
 

Feanor

Super Moderator
Staff member
Why? Because the Assad family & its backers didn't want to compromise, & risk losing their impunity & some of their wealth, so crushed the open, democratic opposition when it started demanding free votes, civil rights, etc. As usually happens in such cases, this led to supporters of the democratic opposition joining those already willing to fight, & thus strengthening & emboldening them enough to take up arms. And the war started . . .

The Assads et al decided to try to discredit & divide their opponents, & strengthen their support among their own people & the other non-Sunni groups, by pretending the rebels were all Sunni extremists (some were, but at that point probably not many) & turning the war into a sectarian struggle. This gave Islamic militants the perfect opportunity to join in, thus turning the war into what the Assads had claimed it was from the start, & guaranteeing it would become much bloodier & more ghastly than before.
The sad irony is, that when NATO interfered in Libya, I thought it was a pretty pathetic example of great power politics, with a much stronger case for intervention in Syria ignored, while Gaddafi was removed from power because he lacked a patron state. Now we're looking at a situation where the less crazy side in the war is Assad.

Anyways, another BDK leaves Novorossiysk to go to Tartus. If you note how deep in the water it sits, we can estimate it's carrying ~500 tonns of cargo. The first photo is the loaded ship, the other photos are empty BDKs of the same class. Note the difference.

Флот открытого океана: Ð¢Ñ€ÐµÑ‚ÑŒÑ Ð¿Ð¾Ð¿Ñ‹Ñ‚ÐºÐ° - Один из Ñимволов уходÑщего гоочередной Ñ€ÐµÐ¹Ñ ÐовороÑÑийÑк-Ð¢Ð°Ñ€Ñ‚ÑƒÑ 21.12.2013
 

StobieWan

Super Moderator
Staff member
This is why the affair has dragged on as long - keeping Assad in power looks the most attractive option to both Syria's nearest neighbours (Turkey and Israel) and there's no mood for any foreign adventurism without either very good access by sea or a land bordering neighbour with warm fuzzy feeling's about intervening.


In the main, there are no happy endings listed as options in this theatre of blood.
 

Feanor

Super Moderator
Staff member
Depressing, isn't it?
More or less, to be expected. Arab spring was a clusterf*ck to begin with. I have no hope that somehow a western style liberal democracy will spring up in the Middle East, short of recolonizing the place. And even then it would be a question of demographics. Leave the place alone, and trade with them to your benefit, seems to me, to be the best policy.

What I really want to know, is if Russia is selling to Assad, or just propping him up with free gear.
 

SolarWind

Active Member
Why? Because the Assad family & its backers didn't want to compromise, & risk losing their impunity & some of their wealth, so crushed the open, democratic opposition when it started demanding free votes, civil rights, etc. As usually happens in such cases, this led to supporters of the democratic opposition joining those already willing to fight, & thus strengthening & emboldening them enough to take up arms. And the war started . . .

The Assads et al decided to try to discredit & divide their opponents, & strengthen their support among their own people & the other non-Sunni groups, by pretending the rebels were all Sunni extremists (some were, but at that point probably not many) & turning the war into a sectarian struggle. This gave Islamic militants the perfect opportunity to join in, thus turning the war into what the Assads had claimed it was from the start, & guaranteeing it would become much bloodier & more ghastly than before.
I would think of democracy as means to an end. When democracy becomes the goal justifying any means the outcome it is not. In many circumstances it is not possible to build a democracy. If you look at the existing democracies, they mostly came about by means of evolution, not revolution. Whereas if you look at the results of revolutions, the result is almost never a democracy.
 

Berkut1

New Member
Why? Because the Assad family & its backers didn't want to compromise, & risk losing their impunity & some of their wealth, so crushed the open, democratic opposition when it started demanding free votes, civil rights, etc.... This gave Islamic militants the perfect opportunity to join in, thus turning the war into what the Assads had claimed it was from the start, & guaranteeing it would become much bloodier & more ghastly than before.
It was a very hot day at Bashar's father's funeral. In Syria the common joke was: "God has opened up the gates of hell to invite him in." He was a hated dictator, and for good reasons.

I am not a fan of Bashar and his lavish lifestyle or his wife's pomp and spending habits. Arab spring, shmarab spring, two things are noticeable here:

1. They snubbed the world from very early in the conflict.
2. They have survived thus far.

I had observed an interesting fact: Among the neighbors of Israel, Syria had made steady intelligent and strategic defense purchases in the past 10 years.

(Sorry, I don't have the counts to post links yet, I will give you the references once I have 10 posts)

Their buildup overshadowed that of Egypt and some weapons were strategically better than even turkey. Now, they are being cut down to size.

I had once heard a story from a foreign flying instructor of Libyan Air Force. He was on his way out after finishing a few years training Libyan fighter pilots. Gaddafi was trying to turn some uneducated desert nomads in to a polished fighting force. This gentleman had worked very hard to help out. Days before leaving, he was asking his base commander about the huge warehouses and hundreds of crates that were all around the base. As a matter of fact, there were just so many of these warehouses with massive unopened crates. The commander angrily responded: "Why don't you ask Gaddafi himself? He's the one that made all them weapons purchases. We don't know how much of them work. We don't have personnel and training to operate and use them. Many of these boxes are sitting there for a long time. Don't ask me about them." Well, out of curiosity, the instructor had peeked in one of them, it had a disassembled MiG25 in it. There were thousands of such stockpile all over Libya. During the "Spring" we saw pictures of thousand of cases, crudely opened and weapons snatched away. Today, Libya is neutralized.

If we follow this pattern, its' easy to predict where the next "Spring" is gonna be. Turkey and Iran. As for Bashar being able to last this long against the so-called popular world view, I think they must have some bright military strategist for making purchasing decision over the last decade. Bright enough to make decisions that would cause concerns. The same people must be leading and/or helping out with the war effort in Syria today. Bashar himself seems to be shrewd strategist to not have fallen yet.

We'll see.
 

My2Cents

Active Member
If we follow this pattern, its' easy to predict where the next "Spring" is gonna be. Turkey and Iran.
Other common denominator that you have to factor in include the degree of tribal politics or religious factioning, a despotic ruler, and general lack of non-religious education. Basically you need ready supply of multiple opponents unwilling to cooperate with each other, but willing to engage in violence, a cause for revolt and no other means of effecting change, and an inability for either side to gain a decisive edge by deploying significant numbers of advanced weapon systems.

Toss those into the mix and Turkey looks very unlikely. Iran is also not a very good candidate. Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and the rest of the Gulf Emirates would be my picks.
As for Bashar being able to last this long against the so-called popular world view, I think they must have some bright military strategist for making purchasing decision over the last decade. Bright enough to make decisions that would cause concerns. The same people must be leading and/or helping out with the war effort in Syria today. Bashar himself seems to be shrewd strategist to not have fallen yet.
Nope, it a general lack of leadership on the side of Assad’s opponents. Early on, when it looked like they were winning, their leadership spent almost as much time bickering and backstabbing as leadding the fighting against Assad’s troops. Later when Hezbollah joined they started to get their act together. But then the ISIS (Sunni terrorist fanatics) arrived and seems more intent on conquering the Sunni rebels and converting them to a Caliphate, and only then going after Assad. Now the rebels are stuck with choosing between 2 devils and the west is trying to avoid a decision to throw support behind Assad.
 

Feanor

Super Moderator
Staff member
I think "none of the above" is the best pick. I think the Arab spring has spent itself, and even the West has lost faith in the rebels. The continuing conflict in Syria makes the rebels look uglier and uglier. And of course the dictators take notes on how to respond to something like this. Remember when the color revolutions went across the ex-USSR? After the first few, the rest learned their lesson. The result was that similar conditions and movements in Azerbaijan and Belarus had no chance.
 

swerve

Super Moderator
I would think of democracy as means to an end. When democracy becomes the goal justifying any means the outcome it is not. In many circumstances it is not possible to build a democracy. If you look at the existing democracies, they mostly came about by means of evolution, not revolution. Whereas if you look at the results of revolutions, the result is almost never a democracy.
The original Syrian protestors were trying to start a movement towards democracy, not jump straight to it.

The problem with narrowly-based dictatorships like the Assads is that they lock down social & political evolution. Eventually, the system becomes moribund, & there's a revolution.

Broad-based populist dictatorships can be just as brutal (though usually only initially), but because they cultivate the support of a large part of the population, & recruit into the ruling group from across that large support base, can afford to let civic society develop more (albeit often under the aegis of the state), thus making a peaceful transition to democracy (or a different authoritarian regime) easier. We've seen this in some Latin American, East Asian, & Central & East European states.

But to the Assads & their associates, that threatened the end of clan rule & their gravy train, so they wouldn't allow it.
 

Berkut1

New Member
Other common denominator that you have to factor in include the degree of tribal politics or religious factioning, a despotic ruler, and general lack of non-religious education. Basically you need ready supply of multiple opponents unwilling to cooperate with each other, but willing to engage in violence, a cause for revolt and no other means of effecting change, and an inability for either side to gain a decisive edge by deploying significant numbers of advanced weapon systems.

Toss those into the mix and Turkey looks very unlikely. Iran is also not a very good candidate. Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and the rest of the Gulf Emirates would be my picks.

Nope, it a general lack of leadership on the side of Assad’s opponents. Early on, when it looked like they were winning, their leadership spent almost as much time bickering and backstabbing as leadding the fighting against Assad’s troops. Later when Hezbollah joined they started to get their act together. But then the ISIS (Sunni terrorist fanatics) arrived and seems more intent on conquering the Sunni rebels and converting them to a Caliphate, and only then going after Assad. Now the rebels are stuck with choosing between 2 devils and the west is trying to avoid a decision to throw support behind Assad.
I was trying to point out that the relatively smart collection of weapons is the sole determining factor for the countries on whom the fortune of the arab spring is showering it's blessings (sarcasm intended). Quatar, KSA, and the Gulf Emirates do not qualify in that criteria. Syria's weapons acquisition list and Libya's (now gone) collection of weapons made them the subject of a so-called popular uprising. Shia, Sunni, democracy, Caliphate are all part of this disarmament master plan.
 
Top