Syrian Civil War: News #8

There is rumor, Hezbollah killed several SAA soldiers after an argument erupted. SAA was ordered by Russia to retreat in southern Aleppo. Hezbollah refused to retreat. If Russia does not fight, fine, but Russia should not order SAA to retreat. Russia may genuinely want ceasefire and peace in Syria, as demonstrated by the deal with America, but Russia should remember, Americans never respect any deal based on verbal agreement. When Gorbachev dissolved USSR, did NATO stop expanding to Russia's border? No. Russia should learn to not trust the US.

Resistance wrote:There is rumor, Hezbollah killed several SAA soldiers after an argument erupted. SAA was ordered by Russia to retreat in southern Aleppo. Hezbollah refused to retreat. If Russia does not fight, fine, but Russia should not order SAA to retreat. Russia may genuinely want ceasefire and peace in Syria, as demonstrated by the deal with America, but Russia should remember, Americans never respect any deal based on verbal agreement. When Gorbachev dissolved USSR, did NATO stop expanding to Russia's border? No. Russia should learn to not trust the US.

Russia do not have a lot of planes in Syria and cannot provide air cover in many places
at same time. So i think Russia prefer that Syrian army work together with Russia and not
lose too many soldiers. This apparently will change soon , when IRAN bring its big army to Syria
about 150,000 soldiers rumored will come to help. and Russia aircraft carrier deployed in Russia coast.with many planes,  that is rumored will enter by the end of summer.

SO i don't think is a trust issue , what you think the problem is. Russia knows that it will be a long war and americans can continue sending waves of thousands of terrorist. So Russia is playing an attrition war on Americans and Turkey and little by little capturing all territory
which is what matters. Russia airforce is fighting in RAqqa also and cannot be in southern aleppo too at same time. So possibly Russia prefer that the SYrian army do not over extend
in too many fronts at same time and wait for them.

meanwhile in Latakia front the Syrian army liberated a lot of new territory.
Apparently something strange is happening there ,that terrorist fleeing from the the
latakkia front.



IDLIB City have to be now withing 10km to Syrian army positions. ..
But someone can correct me with the distances. not 100% sure. but if correct.
it means terrorist positions can be bombed with light mortars easy to mobilize 24 hours a day. and have visual distance of their movements.


Syrian army needs to move in northern Syria with a lot of care ,when so close to Turkey
border. Because will be at artillery range and visual range of Turkey army positions and turkey airforce too.

Vann7 wrote:Apparently something strange is happening there ,that terrorist fleeing from the the
latakkia front.

Putin made a deal with Erdogan most likely. Turkey can keep Idlib, Aleppo is for Iran to sort out and Russia will support the push to Raqqa.

These are my assumptions, wild I might add.

higurashihougi wrote:The Story of Patience, chapter 3

https://www.rt.com/news/347062-state-department-dissent-syria-bombing/

Bucking current US policy, dozens of State Department officials have reportedly signed an internal document calling for military action and regime change in Syria, claiming it is the only way to defeat Islamic State and end the war.

The dissenting document was transmitted internally and signed by about 50 mid- to high-level department officials, according to the Associated Press. The agency said it has since been classified.

The Wall Street Journal report said that the document repeatedly called for “targeted air strikes” against the Syrian government in light of the collapse of the ceasefire brokered earlier this year.

These guys never learn

Barbara Starr – Verified account ‏@barbarastarrcnn

Breaking: Pentagon says Russian warplanes bombed US backed Syrian rebels near Jordanian border. US querying Moscow

LOL did Putin just bomb Al Tanf crossing?

Putin gave Americans a warning not to attack SAA, saying doing so will be bad for peace in the region and call more turmoil. I hope Americans listen to his wise words but I doubt Hillary will listen. At this point, Obama is doing all his can holding back the hawks.

At this point, the important thing is ending the war and ending the killing. Yes I understand the Khmeimim airbase is doing all it can monitoring ceasefire daily BUT its info is vastly inaccurate. For example, it did not even report the rebel offensive in Aleppo AT ALL. Yes I understand Russians have good heart and wish for peace and friendship in Syria, but at this point it is wishful thinking. It is precisely Russia's refusal to fight in Syria that has allowed the war and the killing to prolong. Russia air force has been invited by Syria to bomb terrorists. That lasted for a few months then completely stopped following the peace agreement on February 27. I understand Putin means good, but war will not end by itself. Every war ends when one side is defeated, not before that.

KiloGolf wrote:

Barbara Starr – Verified account ‏@barbarastarrcnn

Breaking: Pentagon says Russian warplanes bombed US backed Syrian rebels near Jordanian border. US querying Moscow

LOL did Putin just bomb Al Tanf crossing?

Nope, they didn't. It's the US covering its mistake bombing there and ISIS recent SVBIED. Russia however bombed NAZ convoy.

"Hawks rising: Dozens of State Dept officials call for US strikes against Assad in Syria".

https://www.rt.com/news/347062-state-department-dissent-syria-bombing/


"Russia: US strikes on Assad will plunge Mideast into chaos".

http://www.presstv.com/Detail/2016/06/17/470856/Russia-Syria-US-attack-on-Syrian-government

par far wrote:"Hawks rising: Dozens of State Dept officials call for US strikes against Assad in Syria".




"Russia: US strikes on Assad will plunge Mideast into chaos".

Obama won't do it. BUT Hillary will. Tick tock. Tick tock. Time is near January 3 2017 when Hillary is in office. All hell break loose by then. Many people will die, unfortunately.

Resistance wrote:

par far wrote:"Hawks rising: Dozens of State Dept officials call for US strikes against Assad in Syria".




"Russia: US strikes on Assad will plunge Mideast into chaos".

Obama won't do it. BUT Hillary will. Tick tock. Tick tock. Time is near January 3 2017 when Hillary is in office. All hell break loose by then. Many people will die, unfortunately.

so it is so bad with US economy that Hitlery would risk nuclear war?

d_taddei2 wrote:Syrian Army closes on the Turkish border

https://www.almasdarnews.com/article/syrian-army-closes-turkish-border-map/

is it just me or sudden progress is being made in Latakia and rebels fleeing towns i am sure something is going on and the rebels and Turkey cant be trusted.

if the deal with Putin says no extensive help to Kurds in Turkey...maybe Turks can be trusted in this case? otherwise suddenly Iglas and Kornets appear in Krudish hands

Regarding US position to promote strikes against Assad and SAA

There is still a couple of hurdles they would have to go through - mainly UNSC agreement like in Libya. Medvedev isn't in power so they wont get that agreement. So if they go in, they go in illegally in terms of international law and they could very well be dealt with by Russia as well and they cannot reciprocate without going into an actual world style war. As well, Assad hasn't asked the UN to kick America out of its country in its bombings so they can attempt to do that as well and US cant bitch about it unless they attack illegally - which they may very well do. But that will create a political fallout with US and many other countries and throws the whole UN thing to the curb.

It will also give time for Russia to transport and transfer air defense systems to SAA to protect them from strikes. Hopefully Russia still has some backbone to do that.

GunshipDemocracy wrote:so it is so bad with US economy that Hitlery would risk nuclear war?

Russia did nothing after Turkey shot down a Russian plane. That has emboldened the US. Putin gave a very weak warning today, saying there will be turmoil if the US invades Syria without UNSC resolution. That has emboldened the US. This is election year. Next year all hell will break lose.

SeigSoloyvov wrote:

Resistance wrote:Poland is deploying F-16s and troops to Syria. I do fear, NATO will attack the Khmeimim air base and destroy it. They know Russia does not dare retaliate just like Russia did not dare retaliate after Turkey shot down a Russian plane.  The Khmeimim air base is left with a reconciliation phone center. It is weakly guarded. Russia's actions have emboldened NATO.

......? I am sorry but no. There is no way in hell that would happen.

Also can you show where Poland has stated they are sending the PLF in.

Poland is not sending anything to Syria.


It cannot even defend itself.

Heavy battle raging in southern Aleppo. Syria and Iran requested Russia to provide air support. Russia refused. Looks like Iran will have to deploy its own air force to Syria

sepheronx wrote:Regarding US position to promote strikes against Assad and SAA

There is still a couple of hurdles they would have to go through - mainly UNSC agreement like in Libya.  Medvedev isn't in power so they wont get that agreement.  So if they go in, they go in illegally in terms of international law and they could very well be dealt with by Russia as well and they cannot reciprocate without going into an actual world style war.  As well, Assad hasn't asked the UN to kick America out of its country in its bombings so they can attempt to do that as well and US cant bitch about it unless they attack illegally - which they may very well do.  But that will create a political fallout with US and many other countries and throws the whole UN thing to the curb.

It will also give time for Russia to transport and transfer air defense systems to SAA to protect them from strikes.  Hopefully Russia still has some backbone to do that.

The UN is irrelevant. Don't forget, it was with Russian help that Donbas rebels survived. Ukraine is a UN member state, not Donbas rebels. UN is useless. UN is an NGO. Any country can invade any country these days. You can be sure Hillary will bomb SAA and kill Assad. Question is, how will Russia respond? Will Russia shoot down American planes?

sepheronx wrote:Regarding US position to promote strikes against Assad and SAA

There is still a couple of hurdles they would have to go through - mainly UNSC agreement like in Libya.  Medvedev isn't in power so they wont get that agreement.  So if they go in, they go in illegally in terms of international law and they could very well be dealt with by Russia as well and they cannot reciprocate without going into an actual world style war.  As well, Assad hasn't asked the UN to kick America out of its country in its bombings so they can attempt to do that as well and US cant bitch about it unless they attack illegally - which they may very well do.  But that will create a political fallout with US and many other countries and throws the whole UN thing to the curb.

It will also give time for Russia to transport and transfer air defense systems to SAA to protect them from strikes.  Hopefully Russia still has some backbone to do that.

USNC is just formality Iraq or Afganistan were not on UNSC agenda...then only language USA understands is force. I do not think Putin backs up...not ure if I need to be happy tho...even in Korea or Vietnam there was no official war between USSR and USA. JNot it would mean direct Konfrontation

Odin of Ossetia wrote: Poland is not sending anything to Syria.


It cannot even defend itself.

True with second sentence, but it does not mtter. They are seding F-16 in framework of NATO.
US mastas ordered slave obeyed

Today Putin announced he is willing to compromise as long as a new Cold War can be avoided. I assume, Putin is willing to sacrifice Assad and get out of the Middle East in exchange for peace and ending the war and suffering of the people in Syria. Too many people have died in Syria. The war is going nowhere unless something drastic breaks up this stalemate. One side has to give. Otherwise, the war and suffering will not end 100 years from now.

Reports of Qaeda took over Khalsa and Zaytan and Birnah. The Aleppo highway is about to be cut. That would put millions of civilians in Aleppo under siege. If Aleppo falls, then Damascus falls. Russia refuses to bomb Qaeda. Don't forget who is next if Syria falls. Russia is next if Syria falls.

Resistance wrote:Reports of Qaeda took over Khalsa and Zaytan and Birnah. The Aleppo highway is about to be cut. That would put millions of civilians in Aleppo under siege. If Aleppo falls, then Damascus falls. Russia refuses to bomb Qaeda. Don't forget who is next if Syria falls. Russia is next if Syria falls.

Are you a provocationist? So what if Russia is next after Syria? at least when a nuclear war happens your house gets obliterated first



going back on topic:

Neocons Attempt to Hijack US Policy in Syria Via Diplomatic Memo

On Friday, US State Department spokesperson John Kirby told Sputnik that an internal memorandum was under review urging the United States to take military action against the Syrian government. A draft of the memo, signed by 51 diplomats, was obtained by The New York Times from a State Department official on Thursday.

So, when Assad breaks ceasefire, attacking him is = Okay. Rightful action by the Civilized world
but when Poroshenko breaks ceasefire, attacking him is = Crime against humanity! Attack against Freedom and Democracy!
Im getting tired of this BS

I am suspecting Russia is staying quiet to see what happens. Because then if they decide to actually attack at SAA formations and what not, then Russia has every legal ground then to attack at Ukraine if they decide to strike at Novorussia. We all know US is all talk at the moment. With Russian assets around, I doubt they will attempt it outright cause then Putin can't sit around due to the population demands (which he is very concerned about) if many of their troops die to US hands. Not just 1 guy due to Turkey's efforts. But a whole group of Russians and a couple of jets shot down.

As well, not like Putin can outright stop his military firing back if they are fired upon. So this is something that US is posturing about, but may lead to nothing. Remember the chemical weapon strikes and how US threatened that they are going to strike Assad?

The other wild card here is Iran. Iran is embedded among many units in the SAA and other groups. Thousands of them. So that also raises a good question on what Iran would do, and currently, they are still quite against US.

So I wouldn't worry about this just yet. US loves to talk a lot, like how they were going to bomb Iran.

GunshipDemocracy wrote:
so it is so bad with US economy that Hitlery would risk nuclear war?

Turkey already shot down a Russian plane. Russia did nothing.

The problem with the Russian policy of not retaliating is that Russia's enemies get bolder and bolder. They see Russia not responding and they think they can get away with more and more.

Karl Haushofer wrote:

GunshipDemocracy wrote:
so it is so bad with US economy that Hitlery would risk nuclear war?

Turkey already shot down a Russian plane. Russia did nothing.

The problem with the Russian policy of not retaliating is that Russia's enemies get bolder and bolder. They see Russia not responding and they think they can get away with more and more.

I shouldn't be quoting you since you are probably on most people's ignore list, including my own, but Russia responded: They attacked Turkey economically. And Turkey got hit quite hard because of that. As well, others are turning away from them after the ordeal cause they find Turkey quite unsafe and unreliable.

Striking at Turkey inside the country isn't going to do much other than probably invoke chapter 5 of NATO and causing a major war. Turks inside Syria have gotten blasted as well, also Turks inside the country by Kurds using Russian gear also blasted them too.

sepheronx wrote:

Karl Haushofer wrote:

GunshipDemocracy wrote:
so it is so bad with US economy that Hitlery would risk nuclear war?

Turkey already shot down a Russian plane. Russia did nothing.

The problem with the Russian policy of not retaliating is that Russia's enemies get bolder and bolder. They see Russia not responding and they think they can get away with more and more.

I shouldn't be quoting you since you are probably on most people's ignore list, including my own, but Russia responded: They attacked Turkey economically.  And Turkey got hit quite hard because of that.  As well, others are turning away from them after the ordeal cause they find Turkey quite unsafe and unreliable.

Striking at Turkey inside the country isn't going to do much other than probably invoke chapter 5 of NATO and causing a major war.  Turks inside Syria have gotten blasted as well, also Turks inside the country by Kurds using Russian gear also blasted them too.

The sanctions hurt both ways, both Turkey and Russia. The appropriate response would have been an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth. The appropriate response would have been shooting down a Turkish F-16. What Russia has done has emboldened NATO.