Vocal Voices

I mentioned a few weeks ago about Russia's military build up in Syria and wondered how the US led coalition would deal with it. The US went from 'no deal' to 'maybe we will talk' to 'talking", UN type talking.

Today there was a knock on the door. A Russian emissary announced that they would begin air strikes in one hour.

Then they did - about 20 missions - and not a thing the US could do to stop them.

Despite what is going on it n the UN the Russian message seems clear: "Get with us or stay out of our way."

I think in this instance we should let the Russians get on with it - not that we can stop them anyway! IS need taking out, and the Russians have the means to do it. They won't have the qualms about it that the Western countries would have either!

Kaz wrote:I think in this instance we should let the Russians get on with it - not that we can stop them anyway! IS need taking out, and the Russians have the means to do it. They won't have the qualms about it that the Western countries would have either!

Yes - if it is ISIS that the Russians are taking out, Kaz. First reports, however, are that they are targeting anti-Assad forces that are supported by the USA, and not ISIS at all ...... this may not bode well.

I think it's a case of "Watch this space".

I don't know what to think.

They back Assad and everybody who fights against him will be fair game for the Russians.

cromwell wrote:They back Assad and everybody who fights against him will be fair game for the Russians.

That is how I see it. Stop all the rebels, whoever they are, then talk about about the future.

Will the coalition shoot down Russian planes? I think not.

I don't think so either, that really would make things dangerous.

As far is the West is concerned our policy is a mess (as usual). First we were going to bomb the wicked dictator Assad. Then someone points out:- a) That we did that in Iraq and Libya, and things didn't turn out so well there and b) Some of the people fighting Assad like ISIS are arguably worse than he is.

So then we were only going to back the good rebels.

Then the "bad" rebels ISIS turn out to be very bad indeed, and apparently we should be bombing them.

So at this point we should apparently be bombing both Assad on one side and ISIS on the other? Who are both fighting each other?

Mess.

In contrast Putin's stand is very simple, Assad is our friend and we back him.

Good for Putin I say. Will the yanks never realise that only by supporting Assad will Syria be peaceful again and it was arming the rebels in the first place that is the most likely cause of the present dreadful situation. Assad and his father kept the country stable for many years and only a tough regime like that with different muslim factions can stop them getting at each other`s throats. The last time I drove through Syria everything seemed well ordered and working well.
Flushed by their triumphs in "toppling" - a euphemism for having murdered, Hussein and Gaddafi causing chaos in both countries, they decided to oust another dictator without considering the consequences. It is utter nonsense to try to set up a Western style democracy in such countries as whichever faction is in majority will of course win any election and when in power persecute the others.
A matter of conjecture how much the present situation has been caused by that first dastardly attack on Iraq on the pretext of Kuwait when that fat woman who was their secretary for warmongering whose name I have no wish to remember told Saddam when she was ambassador in Baghdad that the yanks would consider it an arab matter if he wished to annex Kuwait.

Russia's plan is simple.

1. Make Assad secure.
2. Work with Assad, the legal ruler, to remove ALL factions who fight him

What Russia might then do about Iraq is anybody's guess, but I'd assume they would make overtures to the Shia side of Iraq then destroy IS in Iraq. Effectively isolating the US and NATO in the area.

That would be sound tactics. Also it would be Exactly what we deserve for our actions and idiocy in the area.

If anyone argues with Putin, he just needs to point to the Islamic atrocities in Russia to say he's defending his own country... Funnily enough just like the US claims it is doing....

if they are'nt they will