Home
Latest images
Register
Log in
CIA says US is protecting its oil, errrr killing "ISIS".
+72
Godric
KiloGolf
KoTeMoRe
sheytanelkebir
higurashihougi
Bidoul
JohninMK
PapaDragon
Neutrality
Kadmos45
Vann7
Alex555
whir
kvs
Kyo
Zivo
ultron
Solncepek
max steel
Dima
Rodinazombie
OminousSpudd
ExBeobachter1987
HUNTER VZLA
Flyboy77
Book.
Russophile
collegeboy16
iraqidabab
ShahryarHedayatiSHBA
Walther von Oldenburg
Honesroc
George1
NationalRus
Stealthflanker
F-15E
magnumcromagnon
crod
sepheronx
par far
AlfaT8
Flyingdutchman
etaepsilonk
Sujoy
Mike E
Werewolf
RTN
As Sa'iqa
Behrooz
Max Italy
Asf
GarryB
Strizh
Morpheus Eberhardt
dino00
BlackArrow
mack8
thesaint
macedonian
Hannibal Barca
arpakola
Viktor
TR1
mutantsushi
Russian Patriot
Cyberspec
nemrod
fragmachine
zg18
medo
TheArmenian
flamming_python
76 posters
IRAQ - Fight on Islamic State: News #1
Mike E- Posts : 2619
Points : 2651
Join date : 2014-06-19
Location : Bay Area, CA
Werewolf- Posts : 5927
Points : 6116
Join date : 2012-10-24
Mike E wrote:CIA says US is protecting its oil, errrr killing "ISIS".
ISIS is not a terrorist organisation without an organized head. ISIS is the thug that is ordered to break into someones shop after the shop owner has refused the insurence the US tried to "sell" him. Now they know it better.
US will not target ISIS but Assads vital tactical and strategic points to weaken his position, while the US already has the so called "Opposition" instructed to take their chances when the time comes.
Mike E- Posts : 2619
Points : 2651
Join date : 2014-06-19
Location : Bay Area, CA
Couldn't of said it better...Werewolf wrote:Mike E wrote:CIA says US is protecting its oil, errrr killing "ISIS".
ISIS is not a terrorist organisation without an organized head. ISIS is the thug that is ordered to break into someones shop after the shop owner has refused the insurence the US tried to "sell" him. Now they know it better.
US will not target ISIS but Assads vital tactical and strategic points to weaken his position, while the US already has the so called "Opposition" instructed to take their chances when the time comes.
iraqidabab- Posts : 316
Points : 331
Join date : 2014-05-31
http://en.ria.ru/military_news/20140922/193173741/Iraqi-Army-Uses-Russian-Anti-Tank-Guided-Missile-Systems-Against.html
BAGHDAD, September 22 (RIA Novosti) – The Iraqi army have used the Russian anti-tank guided missile (ATGM) system Kornet for the first time, destroying five Islamic State (IS) armored vehicles in the central province of Diyala, Alsumaria TV channel reported on Monday.
BAGHDAD, September 22 (RIA Novosti) – The Iraqi army have used the Russian anti-tank guided missile (ATGM) system Kornet for the first time, destroying five Islamic State (IS) armored vehicles in the central province of Diyala, Alsumaria TV channel reported on Monday.
iraqidabab- Posts : 316
Points : 331
Join date : 2014-05-31
http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/isis-terror/putin-considers-throwing-russia-isis-fight-report-n208776
Putin Considers Throwing Russia Into ISIS Fight: Report
Putin Considers Throwing Russia Into ISIS Fight: Report
GarryB- Posts : 40487
Points : 40987
Join date : 2010-03-30
Location : New Zealand
Would be an interesting chess move to send aircraft to Syrian bases to attack ISIS/ISIL with a small ground force to protect them from rebel attack and the air defences to "ensure" Syrian airspace in certain areas.
Would be a serious gamble, but also an excellent training and practise opportunity for Russian personnel and Russian weapons manufacturers.
Likely too risky... but some Su-24Ms and Su-25s with new upgrades could be tested... at the same time helping Iraq, Syria, and Iran.... and hurting all of the Syrian insurgents.
I am sure US attacks on ISIS will include attacks on Assads forces where it is useful for the local resistance... which clearly violates the US agreement not to bomb Syria in return for the removal of WMDs...
Would be a serious gamble, but also an excellent training and practise opportunity for Russian personnel and Russian weapons manufacturers.
Likely too risky... but some Su-24Ms and Su-25s with new upgrades could be tested... at the same time helping Iraq, Syria, and Iran.... and hurting all of the Syrian insurgents.
I am sure US attacks on ISIS will include attacks on Assads forces where it is useful for the local resistance... which clearly violates the US agreement not to bomb Syria in return for the removal of WMDs...
iraqidabab- Posts : 316
Points : 331
Join date : 2014-05-31
Use SU-34
NationalRus- Posts : 610
Points : 611
Join date : 2010-04-11
iraqidabab wrote:http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/isis-terror/putin-considers-throwing-russia-isis-fight-report-n208776
Putin Considers Throwing Russia Into ISIS Fight: Report
we have a great opportunity, fighting ISIS and whipping out FSA, staying neutral wont help, ISIS is not somebody you can make agrements with, we should join the fight, operating from a base in maybe Latakia Syria
then we can jointly fight ISIS and bomb FSA, i mean ther strongest group jabhat al nusra is litterly al quida, hitting some others while at it wont do bad also, and with a air force base in Syria we will finally secure Syria from USA and destroy ther FSA cronys while being a official allie of them so they cant even complain, killing 3 flys with one move
time to act
flamming_python- Posts : 9516
Points : 9574
Join date : 2012-01-30
NationalRus wrote:iraqidabab wrote:http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/isis-terror/putin-considers-throwing-russia-isis-fight-report-n208776
Putin Considers Throwing Russia Into ISIS Fight: Report
we have a great opportunity, fighting ISIS and whipping out FSA, staying neutral wont help, ISIS is not somebody you can make agrements with, we should join the fight, operating from a base in maybe Latakia Syria
then we can jointly fight ISIS and bomb FSA, i mean ther strongest group jabhat al nusra is litterly al quida, hitting some others while at it wont do bad also, and with a air force base in Syria we will finally secure Syria from USA and destroy ther FSA cronys while being a official allie of them so they cant even complain, killing 3 flys with one move
time to act
It's tempting to have our boys in the fighter jets get some target-practise.
But you know - it's the West's mess, so let them deal with it - I'm sure they'll manage.
Russia is already doing plenty with its support of Assad and arming of Iraq.
GarryB- Posts : 40487
Points : 40987
Join date : 2010-03-30
Location : New Zealand
I respect your opinion NationalRus, but I have to agree with FP in this.
Dont dip your toe in the water if you aren't going to have a swim... this river is full of crocs who would love to drag Russia into a costly and largely pointless war.
I would say equip the Syrians and train them to use the new equipment... against insurgents it simply makes no sense to use expensive modern aircraft... the Su-34 would not be the best choice for most roles Syrian forces will need it for.
An upgraded Tu-22M3M with a Gefest&T upgrade to allow CCCIP (continuously computer calculated impact point) and just load up 24 tons of 250kg bombs and just blow the crap out of them from 10,000m all day every day. For targets in valleys and hard to reach places pull out the FAB-1500 and FAB-3000, and even FAB-5000.
Of course if you want the big girl... FAB-9000 you will need an old Tu-16... actually chuck a couple of new MiG-31 engines in a Tu-16 and you would have quite a good little bomber.
Dont dip your toe in the water if you aren't going to have a swim... this river is full of crocs who would love to drag Russia into a costly and largely pointless war.
I would say equip the Syrians and train them to use the new equipment... against insurgents it simply makes no sense to use expensive modern aircraft... the Su-34 would not be the best choice for most roles Syrian forces will need it for.
An upgraded Tu-22M3M with a Gefest&T upgrade to allow CCCIP (continuously computer calculated impact point) and just load up 24 tons of 250kg bombs and just blow the crap out of them from 10,000m all day every day. For targets in valleys and hard to reach places pull out the FAB-1500 and FAB-3000, and even FAB-5000.
Of course if you want the big girl... FAB-9000 you will need an old Tu-16... actually chuck a couple of new MiG-31 engines in a Tu-16 and you would have quite a good little bomber.
par far- Posts : 3496
Points : 3741
Join date : 2014-06-26
.GarryB wrote:I respect your opinion NationalRus, but I have to agree with FP in this.
Dont dip your toe in the water if you aren't going to have a swim... this river is full of crocs who would love to drag Russia into a costly and largely pointless war.
I would say equip the Syrians and train them to use the new equipment... against insurgents it simply makes no sense to use expensive modern aircraft... the Su-34 would not be the best choice for most roles Syrian forces will need it for.
An upgraded Tu-22M3M with a Gefest&T upgrade to allow CCCIP (continuously computer calculated impact point) and just load up 24 tons of 250kg bombs and just blow the crap out of them from 10,000m all day every day. For targets in valleys and hard to reach places pull out the FAB-1500 and FAB-3000, and even FAB-5000.
Of course if you want the big girl... FAB-9000 you will need an old Tu-16... actually chuck a couple of new MiG-31 engines in a Tu-16 and you would have quite a good little bomber.
Russia does not have to go knee deep, it can just be a 2-3 month campaign, where the Russian Air Force bombs the terrorists and helps Assad to victory. Don't send in ground troops, just bombing missions to help the Assad army advance in Al-Raqq and other terrorist strong holds.
Hannibal Barca- Posts : 1457
Points : 1467
Join date : 2013-12-13
Russia can send and should send troops. Unlike Americans the modus operanti is completely different and will not cost much.
The experience would be important though and the flag projection immense.
The experience would be important though and the flag projection immense.
Werewolf- Posts : 5927
Points : 6116
Join date : 2012-10-24
par far wrote:.GarryB wrote:I respect your opinion NationalRus, but I have to agree with FP in this.
Dont dip your toe in the water if you aren't going to have a swim... this river is full of crocs who would love to drag Russia into a costly and largely pointless war.
I would say equip the Syrians and train them to use the new equipment... against insurgents it simply makes no sense to use expensive modern aircraft... the Su-34 would not be the best choice for most roles Syrian forces will need it for.
An upgraded Tu-22M3M with a Gefest&T upgrade to allow CCCIP (continuously computer calculated impact point) and just load up 24 tons of 250kg bombs and just blow the crap out of them from 10,000m all day every day. For targets in valleys and hard to reach places pull out the FAB-1500 and FAB-3000, and even FAB-5000.
Of course if you want the big girl... FAB-9000 you will need an old Tu-16... actually chuck a couple of new MiG-31 engines in a Tu-16 and you would have quite a good little bomber.
Russia does not have to go knee deep, it can just be a 2-3 month campaign, where the Russian Air Force bombs the terrorists and helps Assad to victory. Don't send in ground troops, just bombing missions to help the Assad army advance in Al-Raqq and other terrorist strong holds.
What and giving USA the snake the opportunity to blame all bombs that wipe out Syrian government buildings and Syrian soldiers, on Russia?
There is no purpose, the only thing Russia should do and get their fucking head out of Jews arses, is delivering S-300 systems, but it failed now Syria will have big problems and yes for this Russia is actually to blame for not acting against US aggression.
AlfaT8- Posts : 2488
Points : 2479
Join date : 2013-02-02
Correct, as i have said before they're desperately trying to avoid an arms-race, a race that they will inevitably have to fight anyway, and by that time they will most likely have little to no allies left, the FOOLS!!!Werewolf wrote:
What and giving USA the snake the opportunity to blame all bombs that wipe out Syrian government buildings and Syrian soldiers, on Russia?
There is no purpose, the only thing Russia should do and get their fucking head out of Jews arses, is delivering S-300 systems, but it failed now Syria will have big problems and yes for this Russia is actually to blame for not acting against US aggression.
GarryB- Posts : 40487
Points : 40987
Join date : 2010-03-30
Location : New Zealand
Even if Syria had 1,000 S-300 batteries in operation... do you think the US will stay away, or do you think they will send some F-16 flying at medium altitude to attack?
They are not idiots and this is not their first rodeo.
The best way to attack 2-3 S-300 sites is with ground based terrorist attacks... 120mm Mortars, adn cruise missiles all at once with lots of unmanned drones pretending to be aircraft to keep the air defence system busy.
You couldn't overwhelm 1,000 systems, but Syria can't afford 1,000 systems... what ever they get will be immediately attacked in "self defence" and was always going to be.
Rather more important that Syria takes back control of its ground.
So fly missions from Russia? Or have Russian air power on a base in Syria defended by Syrian troops...
And sorry, but 2-3 month campaign... you mean like the week it would take to get Serbia out of Kosovo?
Even Cameron said the fight against ISIS will be years not months.
Excuse me... what exactly does Russia owe to the Syrian people?
Russia is not the worlds police. Assad was actually looking west for investment and rearmament when he got stabbed in the back for breaking one of their little rules... Russia has no moral obligation to get involved.
Having said that Assad has been an ally in the past, and certainly Syria does not deserve what the west is putting it through just because Assad now no longer meets their high ideals of a perfect leader... ie does as told when told.
The middle east with another sunni run shit hole is not an improvement for anyone... whether the west sees that or not... they just have the hate blinkers on for Iran because Iran nationalised its oil industry like Syria and Libya and very unlike Saudi Arabia.
They are not idiots and this is not their first rodeo.
The best way to attack 2-3 S-300 sites is with ground based terrorist attacks... 120mm Mortars, adn cruise missiles all at once with lots of unmanned drones pretending to be aircraft to keep the air defence system busy.
You couldn't overwhelm 1,000 systems, but Syria can't afford 1,000 systems... what ever they get will be immediately attacked in "self defence" and was always going to be.
Rather more important that Syria takes back control of its ground.
Russia does not have to go knee deep, it can just be a 2-3 month campaign, where the Russian Air Force bombs the terrorists and helps Assad to victory. Don't send in ground troops, just bombing missions to help the Assad army advance in Al-Raqq and other terrorist strong holds.
So fly missions from Russia? Or have Russian air power on a base in Syria defended by Syrian troops...
And sorry, but 2-3 month campaign... you mean like the week it would take to get Serbia out of Kosovo?
Even Cameron said the fight against ISIS will be years not months.
There is no purpose, the only thing Russia should do and get their fucking head out of Jews arses, is delivering S-300 systems, but it failed now Syria will have big problems and yes for this Russia is actually to blame for not acting against US aggression.
Excuse me... what exactly does Russia owe to the Syrian people?
Russia is not the worlds police. Assad was actually looking west for investment and rearmament when he got stabbed in the back for breaking one of their little rules... Russia has no moral obligation to get involved.
Having said that Assad has been an ally in the past, and certainly Syria does not deserve what the west is putting it through just because Assad now no longer meets their high ideals of a perfect leader... ie does as told when told.
The middle east with another sunni run shit hole is not an improvement for anyone... whether the west sees that or not... they just have the hate blinkers on for Iran because Iran nationalised its oil industry like Syria and Libya and very unlike Saudi Arabia.
Werewolf- Posts : 5927
Points : 6116
Join date : 2012-10-24
GarryB wrote:
Excuse me... what exactly does Russia owe to the Syrian people?
Russia is not the worlds police. Assad was actually looking west for investment and rearmament when he got stabbed in the back for breaking one of their little rules... Russia has no moral obligation to get involved.
Having said that Assad has been an ally in the past, and certainly Syria does not deserve what the west is putting it through just because Assad now no longer meets their high ideals of a perfect leader... ie does as told when told.
The middle east with another sunni run shit hole is not an improvement for anyone... whether the west sees that or not... they just have the hate blinkers on for Iran because Iran nationalised its oil industry like Syria and Libya and very unlike Saudi Arabia.
It is in russian interest to keep Syria stable. Syria is the junction for oil market to the world, they are transit country via land pipelines and junction for sea trade routes. Russia has Tartus base and also that gives bigger access to the Suez canal.
The US always have and will have the same policy not to show weakness, meaning they will hesitate to invade Syria if they have a capable Air Defense, the useless warmonger US already got ass kicked by littler serbia with S-125 New Systems, what you will get by using S-300 is out of question a disaster air campaign. This not about Syria but about a god damn chess game, less chess pieces around the sooner comes the King (Russia) as the target, weakening the Kings defense means nothing good. Further it will always break down to this "Pardon one Offence and you encourage the commission of many." And russia is not acting at all, still stupid rhetoric of "partners" while this anglo suckson neocon and jew lovers are openly making laws and treaties that are calling Russia the enemy and aggressor like with their "Russian aggression prevention act".
Russia has to fucking do something and stop accepting this bullying. Bullies understand only one and that is violence, this bastards needs to see lot of their own blood and that as soon as possible. I am not a patient person i would already destroyed the entire US fleet with shkval torpedoes with nuclear warheads, they wouldn't even have a chance for counter attack without such weapons. They need a bloody nose, regardless how but they need one otherwise they keep genociding,looting raping and enslaving countries.
GarryB- Posts : 40487
Points : 40987
Join date : 2010-03-30
Location : New Zealand
I agree a stable Syria is good for Russia, and indeed Iran.
If the rebels take power the chance of a stable Syria is zero... look at Libya...
they are part of a network that delivers middle east oil to the world... but instability there wont hurt Russia supplies of Gas and oil to the world and instability might increase the price of oil...
Hardly a base, it is tiny and very limited as to what can be done there.
What would be more valuable would be a base on the other side of the Suez Canal so that Russian ships operating in the Indian ocean or off the coast of Africa don't have to go through the Suez Canal o restock and refuel.
A small base in Syria is handy for ships operating in the Med so they don't have to sail up the Bosphorus back to the Black Sea, but the difference in time on station is not that amazing that it is worth going to war for.
But that is the Key... if you had given Serbian forces S-300s and the training to use them properly then lots of NATO planes would have been burnt marks on the ground.
Give those same SAMs to Syria and there is a question mark as to whether they could be as effective with them in terms of training and performance.
Part of playing chess is thinking about moves and consequences... the evaluation is fairly simple... what will each move gain in the short or long term and what potential losses could be incurred.
You have an overall strategy and you choose your moves to try to reach the goals of your strategy.
Sometimes you can get what you want with no cost... sometimes there is a cost, but you get what you want and other times you don't get what you want but there is still a cost.
Russia is not a global power and cannot do what the west does on a whim... ie bomb and invade countries.
Of course Russia could launch a few cruise missiles or send a few bombers to deal with a few specific targets, but mounting a campaign of bombing in the ME is not really an option... and i say that is not a bad thing any way.
They don't have to do anything. Do you really think a military confrontation with NATO is the best choice for Russia? Especially when we have already established Assad was looking west when he was backstabbed, and found Russia again as a result.
Obviously the best solution is to arm Assad and train his forces so he can solve his problems himself.
there is no need for Russian forces to get involved.
They do need a wake up call... and I am sure all their ISIS creations will provide that better than Russia ever could.
If the rebels take power the chance of a stable Syria is zero... look at Libya...
Syria is the junction for oil market to the world, they are transit country via land pipelines and junction for sea trade routes.
they are part of a network that delivers middle east oil to the world... but instability there wont hurt Russia supplies of Gas and oil to the world and instability might increase the price of oil...
Russia has Tartus base and also that gives bigger access to the Suez canal.
Hardly a base, it is tiny and very limited as to what can be done there.
What would be more valuable would be a base on the other side of the Suez Canal so that Russian ships operating in the Indian ocean or off the coast of Africa don't have to go through the Suez Canal o restock and refuel.
A small base in Syria is handy for ships operating in the Med so they don't have to sail up the Bosphorus back to the Black Sea, but the difference in time on station is not that amazing that it is worth going to war for.
The US always have and will have the same policy not to show weakness, meaning they will hesitate to invade Syria if they have a capable Air Defense, the useless warmonger US already got ass kicked by littler serbia with S-125 New Systems, what you will get by using S-300 is out of question a disaster air campaign.
But that is the Key... if you had given Serbian forces S-300s and the training to use them properly then lots of NATO planes would have been burnt marks on the ground.
Give those same SAMs to Syria and there is a question mark as to whether they could be as effective with them in terms of training and performance.
This not about Syria but about a god damn chess game, less chess pieces around the sooner comes the King (Russia) as the target, weakening the Kings defense means nothing good. Further it will always break down to this "Pardon one Offence and you encourage the commission of many." And russia is not acting at all, still stupid rhetoric of "partners" while this anglo suckson neocon and jew lovers are openly making laws and treaties that are calling Russia the enemy and aggressor like with their "Russian aggression prevention act".
Part of playing chess is thinking about moves and consequences... the evaluation is fairly simple... what will each move gain in the short or long term and what potential losses could be incurred.
You have an overall strategy and you choose your moves to try to reach the goals of your strategy.
Sometimes you can get what you want with no cost... sometimes there is a cost, but you get what you want and other times you don't get what you want but there is still a cost.
Russia is not a global power and cannot do what the west does on a whim... ie bomb and invade countries.
Of course Russia could launch a few cruise missiles or send a few bombers to deal with a few specific targets, but mounting a campaign of bombing in the ME is not really an option... and i say that is not a bad thing any way.
Russia has to fucking do something and stop accepting this bullying. Bullies understand only one and that is violence, this bastards needs to see lot of their own blood and that as soon as possible.
They don't have to do anything. Do you really think a military confrontation with NATO is the best choice for Russia? Especially when we have already established Assad was looking west when he was backstabbed, and found Russia again as a result.
Obviously the best solution is to arm Assad and train his forces so he can solve his problems himself.
there is no need for Russian forces to get involved.
They need a bloody nose, regardless how but they need one otherwise they keep genociding,looting raping and enslaving countries.
They do need a wake up call... and I am sure all their ISIS creations will provide that better than Russia ever could.
sepheronx- Posts : 8823
Points : 9083
Join date : 2009-08-06
Age : 35
Location : Canada
Werewolf wrote:GarryB wrote:
Excuse me... what exactly does Russia owe to the Syrian people?
Russia is not the worlds police. Assad was actually looking west for investment and rearmament when he got stabbed in the back for breaking one of their little rules... Russia has no moral obligation to get involved.
Having said that Assad has been an ally in the past, and certainly Syria does not deserve what the west is putting it through just because Assad now no longer meets their high ideals of a perfect leader... ie does as told when told.
The middle east with another sunni run shit hole is not an improvement for anyone... whether the west sees that or not... they just have the hate blinkers on for Iran because Iran nationalised its oil industry like Syria and Libya and very unlike Saudi Arabia.
It is in russian interest to keep Syria stable. Syria is the junction for oil market to the world, they are transit country via land pipelines and junction for sea trade routes. Russia has Tartus base and also that gives bigger access to the Suez canal.
The US always have and will have the same policy not to show weakness, meaning they will hesitate to invade Syria if they have a capable Air Defense, the useless warmonger US already got ass kicked by littler serbia with S-125 New Systems, what you will get by using S-300 is out of question a disaster air campaign. This not about Syria but about a god damn chess game, less chess pieces around the sooner comes the King (Russia) as the target, weakening the Kings defense means nothing good. Further it will always break down to this "Pardon one Offence and you encourage the commission of many." And russia is not acting at all, still stupid rhetoric of "partners" while this anglo suckson neocon and jew lovers are openly making laws and treaties that are calling Russia the enemy and aggressor like with their "Russian aggression prevention act".
Russia has to fucking do something and stop accepting this bullying. Bullies understand only one and that is violence, this bastards needs to see lot of their own blood and that as soon as possible. I am not a patient person i would already destroyed the entire US fleet with shkval torpedoes with nuclear warheads, they wouldn't even have a chance for counter attack without such weapons. They need a bloody nose, regardless how but they need one otherwise they keep genociding,looting raping and enslaving countries.
Russia is side stepping a lot of things because they are facing issues with politicians in their own countries whom are nothing more than stooges for the west. In this case, I would say Russia should have provided Syria with S-300's but at the same time too, I agree with Garry as they would end up being useless for them due to Syrian training and past experience (BUKS being destroyed while being transported). In this case, having Buk's, Tor's and Pantsirs would be far more important than S-300's (especially given now that their airspace is even smaller now since US and other nations are within its airspace, meaning such weapons will be able to easily track and engage). But as well, Syria needs other sets of equipment. But I agree, Russia needs to do more and finally say no to US and UN as UN is simply another tool for US (cannot believe that it was considered acceptable to say Russia is the second biggest threat to world peace in the UN by Obama. If I was Russia, I would point out every single engagement they had in other countries and list which ones they bypassed UN about and how they created terrorism in the first place). But of course, Russia stayed with a tact.
par far- Posts : 3496
Points : 3741
Join date : 2014-06-26
I think it could be a good thing if Russia does send in its air force to Syria and Iraq because you are going to be killing a lot of birds with one shot.
First thing we know that the ISIS terrorists are created and controlled by the evil US Zionist empire and its evil allies. This makes one thing clear that they are going to spread this evil around the world and bring it right home to Russia(they are going to relocate these terrorists on Russia's borders(Ukraine) and they are going to send these terrorists to Chechnya and Dagestan to cause unrest and deep inside Russia itself). So it is better to fight them long away from home as possible.
Second thing is that Russia can tell the evil Zionist US empire that it will not tolerate, other countries interfering in it's business and hurting it's interests. We know Assad was looking West for investments and stuff but he got back stabbed and he found out the hard way not to trust the West, now other countries will think twice before trusting the West and this can play into Russia's hands. More business opportunities for Russia's companies and more allies for Russia because countries will be reluctant to do business with West. Russia's influence will grow and it will tell the world that Russia stands by its friends.
Third is that it can help Russian arms exports because that was one of the aims of president Vladimir Putin, if Russia used their latest fighter jets(SU 35, SU 34, Mig 35) and other latest equipment it will greatly help bolster Russian arms exports because countries like to see how equipment preforms during actually war, that why the US sells so much weapons because they showcase it in wars(the US sold Iraq $700 million worth of hellfire missiles because they been displaying it to other countries to see).
The first thing is probably most important, if Russia gets Syrian and the Iraqi governments approval, then can show off the US and show to UN and say that what US is doing is illegal by international law and what Russia is doing is legal, that can be a big chess move. I don't think sending in large numbers of Russian troops is a good idea but a small number just to protect the Russian air base might not be a bad idea. Russia can use the air base in Latakia, Syria, the Russian fighter jets can hit targets in Syria and Iraq.
First thing we know that the ISIS terrorists are created and controlled by the evil US Zionist empire and its evil allies. This makes one thing clear that they are going to spread this evil around the world and bring it right home to Russia(they are going to relocate these terrorists on Russia's borders(Ukraine) and they are going to send these terrorists to Chechnya and Dagestan to cause unrest and deep inside Russia itself). So it is better to fight them long away from home as possible.
Second thing is that Russia can tell the evil Zionist US empire that it will not tolerate, other countries interfering in it's business and hurting it's interests. We know Assad was looking West for investments and stuff but he got back stabbed and he found out the hard way not to trust the West, now other countries will think twice before trusting the West and this can play into Russia's hands. More business opportunities for Russia's companies and more allies for Russia because countries will be reluctant to do business with West. Russia's influence will grow and it will tell the world that Russia stands by its friends.
Third is that it can help Russian arms exports because that was one of the aims of president Vladimir Putin, if Russia used their latest fighter jets(SU 35, SU 34, Mig 35) and other latest equipment it will greatly help bolster Russian arms exports because countries like to see how equipment preforms during actually war, that why the US sells so much weapons because they showcase it in wars(the US sold Iraq $700 million worth of hellfire missiles because they been displaying it to other countries to see).
The first thing is probably most important, if Russia gets Syrian and the Iraqi governments approval, then can show off the US and show to UN and say that what US is doing is illegal by international law and what Russia is doing is legal, that can be a big chess move. I don't think sending in large numbers of Russian troops is a good idea but a small number just to protect the Russian air base might not be a bad idea. Russia can use the air base in Latakia, Syria, the Russian fighter jets can hit targets in Syria and Iraq.
par far- Posts : 3496
Points : 3741
Join date : 2014-06-26
Werewolf wrote:par far wrote:.GarryB wrote:I respect your opinion NationalRus, but I have to agree with FP in this.
Dont dip your toe in the water if you aren't going to have a swim... this river is full of crocs who would love to drag Russia into a costly and largely pointless war.
I would say equip the Syrians and train them to use the new equipment... against insurgents it simply makes no sense to use expensive modern aircraft... the Su-34 would not be the best choice for most roles Syrian forces will need it for.
An upgraded Tu-22M3M with a Gefest&T upgrade to allow CCCIP (continuously computer calculated impact point) and just load up 24 tons of 250kg bombs and just blow the crap out of them from 10,000m all day every day. For targets in valleys and hard to reach places pull out the FAB-1500 and FAB-3000, and even FAB-5000.
Of course if you want the big girl... FAB-9000 you will need an old Tu-16... actually chuck a couple of new MiG-31 engines in a Tu-16 and you would have quite a good little bomber.
Russia does not have to go knee deep, it can just be a 2-3 month campaign, where the Russian Air Force bombs the terrorists and helps Assad to victory. Don't send in ground troops, just bombing missions to help the Assad army advance in Al-Raqq and other terrorist strong holds.
What and giving USA the snake the opportunity to blame all bombs that wipe out Syrian government buildings and Syrian soldiers, on Russia?
There is no purpose, the only thing Russia should do and get their fucking head out of Jews arses, is delivering S-300 systems, but it failed now Syria will have big problems and yes for this Russia is actually to blame for not acting against US aggression.
This can be avoided by telling the Syrians where Russian fighter are going to bomb.
Werewolf- Posts : 5927
Points : 6116
Join date : 2012-10-24
par far wrote:
This can be avoided by telling the Syrians where Russian fighter are going to bomb.
You still don't get it?
PR opaganda is not for rest of the world but only for western "civilized" world.
They only need to keep the anti russian propaganda running. They don't need to convince Syria that this were Russian bombs, they need to convince the western countries that this was Russia.
par far- Posts : 3496
Points : 3741
Join date : 2014-06-26
Werewolf wrote:par far wrote:
This can be avoided by telling the Syrians where Russian fighter are going to bomb.
You still don't get it?
PR opaganda is not for rest of the world but only for western "civilized" world.
They only need to keep the anti russian propaganda running. They don't need to convince Syria that this were Russian bombs, they need to convince the western countries that this was Russia.
True enough but is there anything Russia can do to help Syria out? I think Russia got beaten to the punch when west started bombing Syria, Russia should have been there first.
Werewolf- Posts : 5927
Points : 6116
Join date : 2012-10-24
par far wrote:Werewolf wrote:par far wrote:
This can be avoided by telling the Syrians where Russian fighter are going to bomb.
You still don't get it?
PR opaganda is not for rest of the world but only for western "civilized" world.
They only need to keep the anti russian propaganda running. They don't need to convince Syria that this were Russian bombs, they need to convince the western countries that this was Russia.
True enough but is there anything Russia can do to help Syria out? I think Russia got beaten to the punch when west started bombing Syria, Russia should have been there first.
Yes, russia could get her head out of the rear and deploy already Nukes in central and South America untill the NATO pulls out of East Europe, if they don't russia has to break all INF/START treaties which are already broken by US and her dogs, to prevent WW3. China should also already act because they are next right after Syria and Iran on the list, before Russia.
GarryB- Posts : 40487
Points : 40987
Join date : 2010-03-30
Location : New Zealand
I think it could be a good thing if Russia does send in its air force to Syria and Iraq because you are going to be killing a lot of birds with one shot.
I disagree.
There is no reason for the Russian Air Force to go to Iraq or Syria.
Russia can simply supply lots of aircraft with minor upgrades to allow them to hit point targets on the ground with cheap dumb ordinance, and train Iraqi and Syrian pilots to do the job themselves.
That way if it lasts years they can keep doing it themselves.
Plus it strengthens the locals so they are less dependent on Russia when external forces threaten.
It uses up some old aircraft and gives the aircraft upgrade companies some work and the Iraqi and Syrian Air Forces get useful aircraft and pilots with the skills to do a useful job.
Third is that it can help Russian arms exports because that was one of the aims of president Vladimir Putin, if Russia used their latest fighter jets(SU 35, SU 34, Mig 35) and other latest equipment it will greatly help bolster Russian arms exports because countries like to see how equipment preforms during actually war, that why the US sells so much weapons because they showcase it in wars(the US sold Iraq $700 million worth of hellfire missiles because they been displaying it to other countries to see).
The new stuff is expensive and not really what either country needs right now... they don't need stealth fighters or stealth bombers.. just decent attack aircraft... Su-25SM, MiG-29SMT, and Su-24M would be all they needed... though a Tu-22M3 would be interesting with all its nuclear stuff and secret stuff taken out and maybe fitted with that Gefest & T upgrade of the dumb bomb targeting computer.
The first thing is probably most important, if Russia gets Syrian and the Iraqi governments approval, then can show off the US and show to UN and say that what US is doing is illegal by international law and what Russia is doing is legal, that can be a big chess move. I don't think sending in large numbers of Russian troops is a good idea but a small number just to protect the Russian air base might not be a bad idea. Russia can use the air base in Latakia, Syria, the Russian fighter jets can hit targets in Syria and Iraq.
I think you are over estimating the effect of air power. ISIS will already have changed tactics... no big open columns of forces, mixing convoys with civilian traffic, putting ISIS flags on civilian buildings... easy stuff that makes things harder for air power.
That is why I suggest Su-25SM instead of Su-35... Su-35 can carry and drop more and heavier bombs, but Su-25SM can operate with ground forces so when the enemy concentrates its forces to deal with the enemy ground forces then the Frogfoot can go in and pound them... if they don't concentrate to avoid becoming an air target the ground forces can mop them up... it worked with Northern Alliance forces and the US Air Force in Afghanistan and it should work in Iraq and Syria.
NationalRus- Posts : 610
Points : 611
Join date : 2010-04-11
GarryB wrote:I respect your opinion NationalRus, but I have to agree with FP in this.
Dont dip your toe in the water if you aren't going to have a swim... this river is full of crocs who would love to drag Russia into a costly and largely pointless war.
no wonder we loss interest everywere, we have a defeatest mentality, like we dont even understand what geopolitics is, we straight refuse to do some fight for out friends and allies.
and now a opertunity of unbeliveble amount is punching us in the face to help a greatfull allie and fight a cancer like isis with who he have to deal at some point anyway and have even the cover of western powers with us............. and we straigh up refuse to take it!
geoplitical interests of our country?? nahhh lets look away... defeatism at its best