War Against ISIS

[gf0012-aust]

there's another arrow in the russians quiver....

ultimately the russians want to maintain their last real footprint in the region - its a geostrategic as well as a military issue

I'd suggest that the Russians will support anyone that they can manage - and if Assads survival politically is unpalatable for them then they will support whoever they can identify as a supporter - Assad will be provided with a new place to spend in exile - be it a Russian enclave, be it Iran - be it wherever is available. Syrian capacity to influence behaviour in Lebanon is still important to them - and important to Iran, so having a "nominal" syrian presence is critical to both countries

at this stage it appears that Assad controls less than 20% of Syria, so the rump and changeover question is rapidly emerging - irrespective of Russian military efforts

OTOH the Saudis and the GCC are more than happy for the Syrians and Iranians to burn money as they can bankroll longer and far more heavily - and they have no concerns about the Russians burning money into something which will also have the potential for radical islamists to have an excuse to ramp up things against the russians on russian soil - hence why I can't see the chinese taking an active role.

and then there are the egyptians and turks.... turkey doesn't want assad in place and certainly doesn't want an iran with idealogically extended borders - (ie not geographical but influenced enough to be Iranian remotely managed)

ultimately to control the enemy you have to be on the ground and have forces prepared to go in and fight a war without the influence of the political "1000km screwdriver" - and the Russians will need to come to the same decision point issue as the west. ie if we are going to deal with this properly do we inject our ground forces so as shift the tipping point properly"

 

[Feanor]

1) The fact that they bulldozed their way into the E Ukraine wrecking the lives of thousands, in a country that largely wanted to be free from the old poverty stricken and corrupt Soviet masters? Without even encouraging a democratic process first?

Right. Out of nowhere. There was no context, nothing, just one day Putin woke up, and said "Let's invade Ukraine". As for "corrupt Soviet masters", the last Ukrainian MinDef (under Poroshenko) bought himself a countryside manor in Lincolnshire. Please don't start that horsesh*t about "Russian corruption" again. Corruption is endemic in Ukraine, it doesn't come from across the border. Poroshenko doubled his personal fortune one year after taking office. And of course, he promised to sell his business empire if he won the election to avoid a conflict of interest. Today his business empire is larger then ever. The current Ukrainian government has no principal distinction from the Yanukovich one. The differences are incidental. Ukraine was going to go down the drain one way or another with the way things were going. Putin's actions were certainly opportunistic and aggressive, but the West played their part too.

2) The fact that they claim that they are in Syria to deal with ISIL when in fact no raids on ISIL have yet been confirmed? Moving in on a false pretense?

Russia makes little distinction between al-Nusra and ISIS. Given the geography of the conflict, bombing al-Nusra makes sense. They're smaller, weaker, and threaten key cities like Aleppo, as well as being fairly close to Latakia itself. Given how little FSA still exists, and how prevalent the tendency is of them to take their western aid, say thank you, and then join the radicals, I think it's time to admit that the project of a pet-opposition to fight ISIS/Assad by proxy is dead.

3) Flying old nuclear bombers close to US and NATO territory with transponders turned off risking mid air collisions with passenger flights?

Erm let me see if what you are claiming is true.:dance2

You compare apples, oranges, and old tires. One might argue the EU brings the world closer to anarchy by having supported an illegal coup d'etat in Ukraine. Or the US by using aid money to influence domestic politics in other countries. Or Saudi Arabia by you know... supporting ISIS? I suggest you think about why Russia is the major power you seem to have the biggest issue with, when plenty have misbehaved over the last decade and a half. I mean Saudi Arabia is intentionally destroying food and water production and distribution facilities in Yemen, to provoke famine. But nobody cares. Russia backs relatively moderate (compared to ISIS) rebels in Ukraine, and suddenly it's a huge deal. Clearly it's not the nature of the act that's the problem the West has, but the political context.

I agree, the Chineses will stand and watch, I can see them sending military observers to take away lessons learned. I cannot find any credible articles defining any chinese movements.

Cannot agree more about the hasty US withdrawal has created this entire situation.


Has anyone heard what ADA systems the Russians have fielded for airbase protection? Pantsir S-1 for close in I understand but anything longer range?

An S-300/400 btln has been deployed. Exact variant and whether it's just one, I'm not sure. I wouldn't be surprised if the more modern Syrian toys were integrated with it too (especially the Buk-M2s and the Pantsyrs).

And thirdly, I would agree that there are no confirmations as to who gets bombed by the Russians. But that brings us back to the question as to who the rebels are. Frankly, given that Assad's army is the only large ground force fighting ISIS, anything which frees up his troops is probably worthwhile.

It's not the only ground force, but it's one of the main ones. Iraq is fighting ISIS on the ground as well, as is Hezbollah. And now it looks like Iranian troops are getting involved in Syria. It's telling that Russia has expressed willingness to conduct air strikes in Iraq, should they request it.

there's another arrow in the russians quiver....

ultimately the russians want to maintain their last real footprint in the region - its a geostrategic as well as a military issue

I'd suggest that the Russians will support anyone that they can manage - and if Assads survival politically is unpalatable for them then they will support whoever they can identify as a supporter - Assad will be provided with a new place to spend in exile - be it a Russian enclave, be it Iran - be it wherever is available. Syrian capacity to influence behaviour in Lebanon is still important to them - and important to Iran, so having a "nominal" syrian presence is critical to both countries

at this stage it appears that Assad controls less than 20% of Syria, so the rump and changeover question is rapidly emerging - irrespective of Russian military efforts

I think this is spot on. They need/want the base, and any managed successor that remains pro-Russia will do the trick. I wonder though, do you think there's room for a deal to be made? The West and Russia coordinate efforts against all rebels actors, in exchange for Assad stepping down and being replaced by a transitional government? The west can pretend to have won by getting rid of Assad, while being left politically free to focus against the bigger threat. Russia can maintain their geopolitical outpost.

 

[Feanor]

Update.

A map of Russian airstrikes. Reliability is questionable.

http://panzerbar.livejournal.com/2860818.html

Russian air strikes continue, with 14 sorties on Sep 2nd. Targets include an IED factory and rebel vehicle park in Idlib, and command bunkers in Hama. A Russian MoD post on Facebook says 18 sorties over the last 24 hours, but this could refer to Oct 1st, or to some other indeterminate 24 hour period. They claim Su-34s are bombing from altitudes of 5000m.

Su-24Ms were used, and an Su-30SM was spotted over Idlib. Su-25s were also involved. It appears that the Su-24Ms in question are the Gefest upgraded variant.

СириÑ. ВечернÑÑ Ñводка Минобороны - Ð”ÐµÐ½Ð¸Ñ ÐœÐ¾ÐºÑ€ÑƒÑˆÐ¸Ð½
ÐарÑд Ñил - Военный Блог
СириÑ. "Люди работают". (Ñ) - Вахтенный журнал Ñтареющего пирата
СириÑ. Сводка Минобороны - Ð”ÐµÐ½Ð¸Ñ ÐœÐ¾ÐºÑ€ÑƒÑˆÐ¸Ð½

An unexploded Russian bomb, north of Homs.

ОÑечка - Военный Блог

Meanwhile Mi-24s are being used to conduct air patrols over Latakia, and Russian military personnel are manning checkpoints together with the Syrians. And the Russian Navy is practicing providing an air-defense umbrella, off the coast of Syria, including the Moskva cruiser.

Патрульный Ми-24 - Военный Блог
Ð›Ð¸Ð½ÐµÐ¹Ð½Ð°Ñ Ð¾Ñ…Ñ€Ð°Ð½Ð° - Военный Блог
О зонтике ПВО над Латакией - Ð”ÐµÐ½Ð¸Ñ ÐœÐ¾ÐºÑ€ÑƒÑˆÐ¸Ð½

A photoreport from the Russian base in Latakia. Nothing revolutionary to see, but the ancient refueling truck did bring a smile to my face. More photos in the second link, scroll down and click to enlarge, and a few new ones (though mostly repeats) in the third.

Фоторепортажи роÑÑийÑких СМИ Ñ Ð±Ð°Ð·Ñ‹ роÑÑийÑких ВКС в районе Латакии - bmpd
Война в Сирии: новоÑти за 03.10.2015, авиаудары — видео, Ñводка, карта #Ð*оÑÑÐ¸Ñ #Ð¡Ð¸Ñ€Ð¸Ñ #ИГ | NEWS-MAIL.BY
http://panzerbar.livejournal.com/2862038.html

Syrian army video. There's a brief, and uninteresting interview with a Syrian Army Officer, but what's more telling are the T-55s and BMP-1s. At this rate T-72s will become a scarcity.

http://panzerbar.livejournal.com/28...âûñòóïàþò ïðîòèâ Àñàäà" ÿâëÿþòñÿ òåððîðèñòàìè

Turks continue operations against the Kurds in Diyarbakir. Tanks and artillery are being used.

Ð¢ÑƒÑ€ÐµÑ†ÐºÐ°Ñ Ð²Ð¾Ð¹Ð½Ð° - Военный Блог

 

[A.V. Berg]

It's not the only ground force, but it's one of the main ones. Iraq is fighting ISIS on the ground as well, as is Hezbollah. And now it looks like Iranian troops are getting involved in Syria. It's telling that Russia has expressed willingness to conduct air strikes in Iraq, should they request it

Feanor, thank you for your diligent updates and commentry in the various threads here.

I was referring to troops in Syria only. Hezbollah and Iranians do not, probably, number in the tens of thousands yet. The Kurdish formations do but are not mechanised at all as evident by their exotic attempts at armouring anything on wheels. From memory, bmpd blog was full of photographs of that kind.

I am somewhat uneasy with the argument suggesting that Syria is Russia's last foothold in the region, except in reference to the Tartus base. Russia has, for now, good relations with Iran. It is mending bridges with Iraq and Egypt. It was always on good terms with moderate groups in Palestine and after 2006 war, in Lebanon. And lastly, gets on well with Algeria. More than anything, it's the US that finds itself alienated from non-Gulf Arab states.

 

[John Fedup]

I almost think now that leaving Iraq, was a greater crime than occupying it in the first place.

It is a case of one mistake followed by another mistake, it's what pollies excel at.

 

[Capt. Ironpants]

I agree, the Chineses will stand and watch, I can see them sending military observers to take away lessons learned. I cannot find any credible articles defining any chinese movements.

Cannot agree more about the hasty US withdrawal has created this entire situation.


Has anyone heard what ADA systems the Russians have fielded for airbase protection? Pantsir S-1 for close in I understand but anything longer range?

Agree they'll stand and watch. Although they're mightily ticked at Turkey (that nifty little Uyghur-running operation they've got going) and of course cheer on any degradation of ISIS forces. They may quietly nibble around the edges (including important edges like Lemonnier), but no, I cannot envision them taking an active role.

Oh, and thank you all for the excellent information and thoughtful commentary (especially grateful for Feanor's tireless reporting and stellar analysis)..

 

[Feanor]

Feanor, thank you for your diligent updates and commentry in the various threads here.

I was referring to troops in Syria only. Hezbollah and Iranians do not, probably, number in the tens of thousands yet. The Kurdish formations do but are not mechanised at all as evident by their exotic attempts at armouring anything on wheels. From memory, bmpd blog was full of photographs of that kind.

I am somewhat uneasy with the argument suggesting that Syria is Russia's last foothold in the region, except in reference to the Tartus base. Russia has, for now, good relations with Iran. It is mending bridges with Iraq and Egypt. It was always on good terms with moderate groups in Palestine and after 2006 war, in Lebanon. And lastly, gets on well with Algeria. More than anything, it's the US that finds itself alienated from non-Gulf Arab states.

It even has good relations with Greece and Cyprus. And yet they've failed to secure a base anywhere outside of Syria. Telling, isn't it? Almost as telling as the fact that an air operation involving ~3 smallish squadrons of jets, and 2+ squadrons of helos not engaged in combat, requires tankers from 3 separate fleets to maintain.

Anyways, the best they could do was some sort of resupply agreement with Cyprus.

 

[A.V. Berg]

It even has good relations with Greece and Cyprus. And yet they've failed to secure a base anywhere outside of Syria. Telling, isn't it?

This is true, of course. Russia is unable to translate its positive relatioships into bases. But at the same time, is the presence of a base in another country the ultimate sign of a good relationship? What I am asking is whether, lack of an air-strip or a pier necessarily excludes a country from being a player in a particular region.

Most countries, generally don't like hosting foreign militaries unless there is extreme need.

Has Russia seriously tried to find a base in the Middle East apart from Syria? There were murmurrings of building one in Venezuela and Nicaragua but I must have missed reports regarding negotiations with Arab states.

 

[Feanor]

This is true, of course. Russia is unable to translate its positive relatioships into bases. But at the same time, is the presence of a base in another country the ultimate sign of a good relationship? What I am asking is whether, lack of an air-strip or a pier necessarily excludes a country from being a player in a particular region.

Well yes and no. Russian elites see military force as a key part of their foreign policy. And they don't have the naval assets to project it. Which means they have to count on friendly regimes providing local bases.

Most countries, generally don't like hosting foreign militaries unless there is extreme need.

Not necessarily true. A number of countries host foreign bases without extreme need. In fact the Soviets had a number of bases and depots around the world. Not nearly as many as the US, but many many more then Russia today.

Has Russia seriously tried to find a base in the Middle East apart from Syria? There were murmurrings of building one in Venezuela and Nicaragua but I must have missed reports regarding negotiations with Arab states.

They need a Mediterranean base, for their future Mediterranean squadron. Syria is a good candidate, but ultimately internally unstable Something more reliable is desirable. The problem of course is that most of Eastern Mediterranean is engulfed in war. And in the west you either have lukewarm partners like Algeria or Western countries like Italy. So not many options.

 

[gazzzwp]

Right. Out of nowhere. There was no context, nothing, just one day Putin woke up, and said "Let's invade Ukraine". As for "corrupt Soviet masters", the last Ukrainian MinDef (under Poroshenko) bought himself a countryside manor in Lincolnshire. Please don't start that horsesh*t about "Russian corruption" again. Corruption is endemic in Ukraine, it doesn't come from across the border. Poroshenko doubled his personal fortune one year after taking office. And of course, he promised to sell his business empire if he won the election to avoid a conflict of interest. Today his business empire is larger then ever. The current Ukrainian government has no principal distinction from the Yanukovich one. The differences are incidental. Ukraine was going to go down the drain one way or another with the way things were going. Putin's actions were certainly opportunistic and aggressive, but the West played their part too.

The west only played a role in political support of the Ukraine in those early days. Talk of the west sponsoring armed snipers was just pure conspiracy nonsense. A nation wants to break away from the iron strangle hold of Russia towards a western economic model so naturally the west will support them.

That is totally natural and in accordance with humanistic and decent principles. What Russia did was not. If the Russian speaking people of the East wanted to remain with Russia then that is where dialogue and political process should have taken place. Instead Russia sent in masked troops, missiles and tanks. You decide.

Russia makes little distinction between al-Nusra and ISIS. Given the geography of the conflict, bombing al-Nusra makes sense. They're smaller, weaker, and threaten key cities like Aleppo, as well as being fairly close to Latakia itself. Given how little FSA still exists, and how prevalent the tendency is of them to take their western aid, say thank you, and then join the radicals, I think it's time to admit that the project of a pet-opposition to fight ISIS/Assad by proxy is dead.

Then maybe it should put aside it's political objectives for one minute and recognise that there is a difference between the extremists and the opposition instead of trying to claim that they are all one grey mass of the same. Think first and act later. Isn't that right?

You compare apples, oranges, and old tires. One might argue the EU brings the world closer to anarchy by having supported an illegal coup d'etat in Ukraine. Or the US by using aid money to influence domestic politics in other countries. Or Saudi Arabia by you know... supporting ISIS? I suggest you think about why Russia is the major power you seem to have the biggest issue with, when plenty have misbehaved over the last decade and a half. I mean Saudi Arabia is intentionally destroying food and water production and distribution facilities in Yemen, to provoke famine. But nobody cares. Russia backs relatively moderate (compared to ISIS) rebels in Ukraine, and suddenly it's a huge deal. Clearly it's not the nature of the act that's the problem the West has, but the political context.

There was zero evidence of an EU supported coup d'etat in Ukraine. Just unsupportable conspiracy theories to justify a mass Russian invasion. I've tried to find evidence. If you can find it then please share it.

 

[Feanor]

The west only played a role in political support of the Ukraine in those early days. Talk of the west sponsoring armed snipers was just pure conspiracy nonsense. A nation wants to break away from the iron strangle hold of Russia towards a western economic model so naturally the west will support them.

What economic model? What economic model is being implemented in Ukraine, other then the time honored "take what you can, and move to the west with your ill-gotten gains"? And what iron strangle hold did Russia have on Ukraine? Not in perception but in reality? Even Poroshenko's foreign policy included objectives (on paper) of moving towards EU and NATO membership. So what strangle-hold did Russia have? What were they breaking free from? Who was the Maydan actually aimed at? It wasn't aimed at Russia that's for sure. That came later.

There are linguistic, cultural, historic, and geographic ties. But obliterating those clearly involves destroying the cultures and identities of a large portion of the population. There are economic ties, but obliterating those would have (and did) destroy the livelihood of a large chunk of the population. So what strange-hold do you speak of?

That is totally natural and in accordance with humanistic and decent principles.

Whose principles? Or is there one set for all, and they better toe the line?

What Russia did was not. If the Russian speaking people of the East wanted to remain with Russia then that is where dialogue and political process should have taken place.

Right. So when there were mass protests in the East and South, why didn't the west urge the Kiev government to hold dialogue with the protesters? Why didn't the Kiev government try to talk to them? Perhaps because Yatsenyuk and Turchinov knew how non-existent their mandate was? Or perhaps because representatives of a neo-Nazi group (Svoboda) didn't share your humanistic principles? What did happen? How have you forgotten so soon?

Instead Russia sent in masked troops, missiles and tanks. You decide.

Yes. First there was a revolution, and then Russia sent in tanks. Nothing happened in between.

Then maybe it should put aside it's political objectives for one minute and recognise that there is a difference between the extremists and the opposition instead of trying to claim that they are all one grey mass of the same. Think first and act later. Isn't that right?

What opposition? Where do you see a viable opposition? Between al-Nusra, ISIS, and various Islamic brigades, where do you see a liberal-democratic opposition movement in Syria?

That point aside, they've conducted plenty of air strikes against al-Nusra targets. If you want to call them liars for equating al-Nusra with ISIS, fine. But as is their stated goal is anti-terrorist operations, without any distinction on the ideological grounds of the terrorist movement.

There was zero evidence of an EU supported coup d'etat in Ukraine. Just unsupportable conspiracy theories to justify a mass Russian invasion. I've tried to find evidence. If you can find it then please share it.

Uh. What did the EU do after the coup d'etat? Declare the putchists government illegal? Condemn their disregard for democratic due process? Condemn their racist ideology and violent methods of seizing power? No. Welcomed them with open arms. Because they were anti-Russian, and wanted western support. Conspiracy theories? This all happened in plain sight. Stop arguing with some mythical "pro-Russian" viewpoint, and try responding to the specific points I'm making.

 

[gazzzwp]

Opinion expressed on Fox News:

US is abandoning the middle east. Could this be true? A few air strikes a day now with no over-arching policy?

KT McFarland: Obama is walking away from the Middle East | On Air Videos | Fox News

 

[gazzzwp]

What economic model? What economic model is being implemented in Ukraine, other then the time honored "take what you can, and move to the west with your ill-gotten gains"? And what iron strangle hold did Russia have on Ukraine? Not in perception but in reality? Even Poroshenko's foreign policy included objectives (on paper) of moving towards EU and NATO membership. So what strangle-hold did Russia have? What were they breaking free from? Who was the Maydan actually aimed at? It wasn't aimed at Russia that's for sure. That came later.

.

Feanor it's about a country being allowed to decide it's future free of historic imprisonments. That's what the Ukraine wanted to do. The EU will always assist a nation trying to do that wherever it is.

The west did not rush arms into the arena: Russia did.

The early 'protests' we saw in the East were agent provocateurs. We know who funded them , armed them and sponsored them. We have no evidence that the people of the east would have taken to arms without interference from Russia.

Now thousands dead, livelihoods destroyed, and generations of conflict lie ahead. That is down to Russia not the West.

The middle east will now turn into a proper inferno with possibly millions dead in the next few years.

Yes the US was indecisive, had a weak unclear strategy which Russia capitalised on. Yes they were at fault for that.

At least the US targeted the real evil; ISIL. Russia is not.

 

[Feanor]

Opinion expressed on Fox News:

US is abandoning the middle east. Could this be true? A few air strikes a day now with no over-arching policy?

KT McFarland: Obama is walking away from the Middle East | On Air Videos | Fox News

Is there a transcript somewhere? I'm having trouble playing the video.

Feanor it's about a country being allowed to decide it's future free of historic imprisonments. That's what the Ukraine wanted to do. The EU will always assist a nation trying to do that wherever it is.

The west did not rush arms into the arena: Russia did.

The early 'protests' we saw in the East were agent provocateurs. We know who funded them , armed them and sponsored them. We have no evidence that the people of the east would have taken to arms without interference from Russia.

Now thousands dead, livelihoods destroyed, and generations of conflict lie ahead. That is down to Russia not the West.

The middle east will now turn into a proper inferno with possibly millions dead in the next few years.

Yes the US was indecisive, had a weak unclear strategy which Russia capitalised on. Yes they were at fault for that.

At least the US targeted the real evil; ISIL. Russia is not.

Instead of answering specific statements, you've retreated to re-asserting the generalities. Very well, we'll leave it at that. As for ISIS, the two recent air strikes in Raqqah province targeting a command post and a training camp were in ISIS territory.

 

[gazzzwp]

Is there a transcript somewhere? I'm having trouble playing the video.



Instead of answering specific statements, you've retreated to re-asserting the generalities. Very well, we'll leave it at that. As for ISIS, the two recent air strikes in Raqqah province targeting a command post and a training camp were in ISIS territory.

Feanor it does play I just tried it. Try Chrome browser perhaps?

Are Russia targeting ISIL now to deflect international criticism? One never knows where Russian tactics are concerned.

F22's coming to a Middle East near you?

F-22 Raptors deploy to Middle East - UPI.com

Feanor I'll try and get you a transcript.

 

[A.V. Berg]

The early 'protests' we saw in the East were agent provocateurs. We know who funded them , armed them and sponsored them. We have no evidence that the people of the east would have taken to arms without interference from Russia.

I think photos/videos of the grossly amateurish fighters from the first days of the Sloviansk siege would indicate that mostly locals were involved, initially. Also, remember that East Ukrainians had grievances going back years prior to Maidan and it was not news to anyone with access to non-Western media.

Two examples will suffice. During presidential debates between Yanukovich and Yuschenko, Yanukovich said that if Yuschenko wins and promotes some of his nationalistic policies, he will end up ruling only a part of the Ukraine.
That was in 2010. Of course, Yuschenko lost the election but the warning was quite prophetic.

The other example is from the heady autumn of 1991 when Yeltsyn sent his vice president Rutskoi to Kiev to talk it out of declaring independence. Rutskoi's arguments were very similar to concerns aired by anti-Maidan movement. He basically asked Kravchuk's henchmen whether they could afford market price for gas, whether they could find new markets for Ukraine's hi-tech industries which were exclusively geared for Russian markets and whether they were certain that millions of Russian speaking Ukrainians would accept a Russophobe Ukraine.

From the vantage point of 2015, the answer to these questions is a resounding no. Ukraine can only buy gas at discount and through Western loans. Antonov, Uzhnoe, Zarya and possibly even Motor Sich - the captains of Ukrainian industry are laying off workers due to lack of exports to Russia. And the East speaks for itself.

Back to Syria...

 

[gazzzwp]

Interesting how we are not hearing about meetings between the US and Israel.

Of all the concerns with this unholy mess I would think the dangers to Israel from Russian and Iranian presence would be uppermost.

What can we read into this?

 

[Ranger25]

Interesting how we are not hearing about meetings between the US and Israel.

Of all the concerns with this unholy mess I would think the dangers to Israel from Russian and Iranian presence would be uppermost.

What can we read into this?

That Obama and Netinyahu and not close and the Obama administration has done severe damage to the US/Israeli relationship

 

[Ranger25]

USAF comments on Russian Airstikes no targeting ISIL

“There is an incongruency between what president [Vladimir] Putin is saying and what his forces are doing,” said Lt. Gen. Robert Otto, the Air Force’s deputy chief of staff for intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance. “One of the things we’re asking is, ‘Well, what are Putin’s intentions?’ His stated intentions and what I saw in airstrikes yesterday are not congruent.”

Russia, a long time ally of the Bashar al-Assad regime, has indicated that it intends to enter the fight against the Islamic State by providing air support for Syrian forces. However, U.S. leaders have questioned that assertion and believe Russia may target other Syrian rebels.

Otto reviewed unclassified imagery of airstrikes conducted Sept. 30 and that based on his assessment they were “not anti-ISIS strikes, he said during an Oct. 1 breakfast meeting with defense reporters in Washington, D.C.

Russian warplanes, like the SU-30, have been dropping “dumb bombs” over Syria, he said.





http://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/blog/Lists/Posts/Post.aspx?ID=1974

 

[gazzzwp]

“There is an incongruency between what president [Vladimir] Putin is saying and what his forces are doing,” said Lt. Gen. Robert Otto, the Air Force’s deputy chief of staff for intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance. “One of the things we’re asking is, ‘Well, what are Putin’s intentions?’ His stated intentions and what I saw in airstrikes yesterday are not congruent.”

Russia, a long time ally of the Bashar al-Assad regime, has indicated that it intends to enter the fight against the Islamic State by providing air support for Syrian forces. However, U.S. leaders have questioned that assertion and believe Russia may target other Syrian rebels.

Otto reviewed unclassified imagery of airstrikes conducted Sept. 30 and that based on his assessment they were “not anti-ISIS strikes, he said during an Oct. 1 breakfast meeting with defense reporters in Washington, D.C.

Russian warplanes, like the SU-30, have been dropping “dumb bombs” over Syria, he said.





http://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/blog/Lists/Posts/Post.aspx?ID=1974

Further to this here is what I believe to be the most up to date position by the President regarding the whole situation. A 12 minute press conference by Obama.

He discusses Putin, Russian strategy, the current US position regarding supporting the rebels, as well as other Middle East commitment.

Well worth listening to imho,

Obama: World not fooled by Putin's strategy in Syria| Latest News Videos | Fox News