:confused: What US reports?

I’m just asking for some arguments for this “common knowledge”. Unlike Russians, they publish regular reports on the coalition activities. If there was a period of the claimed “intentional” lack of activity against IS over Syria, it might show up in those statistics.

I advise you look at the map.. Syrian troops [aided by Russians] are concentrating on enemy assets which are closest to their positions. Why would they attack IS troops located some 600 miles away when they have Nusra at their doorstep? And who are you to dictate the Syrians who they should attack first and who not? :confused:

Again you’ve managed to miss the topic completely. Let me help you here: the topic was about how exactly can people buy Russians claims that it was somehow US to be blamed for them (the Russians) (apparently needing the Palmyra liberation to sell their Syrian intervention as one purportedly directed against IS) sending the Syrian troops deep into the desert where they couldn’t support them properly against a determined IS attack and their related loss of face. Do you have something to contribute in that regard besides “ad hominem” attacks?

Exactly that is why their removal without offering a well-thought viable alternative was a tragic mistake. This has been clearly shown in Afghanistan, Iraq or Libya, yet you are still stupid enough to advocate the same idiotic step in Syria.

Stupid enough? Nice.. First of all, please show me where I advocated for a Western intervention and forceful removal of the regime by them? Please focus on what’s said, not what you think I think.

Second thing is that the real causes of all these wars (Syria, Iraq, Libya) go back to Western established fiefdoms out of Ottoman regions which comprised of different religious and ethnic groups all competing for power. It’s naive to think that there is some Western “well-thought out viable alternative” as it would have to be enforced and thus self-discredited from the perspective of the locals. Until these groups duke it out and find a working solution (or borders) amongst themselves one way or the other, the problem will remain. It’s something that no amount of Russian bombs will solve as they had tried already in Afghanistan. Sooner or later they will pack up and leave and the next round of fighting might be even bloodier.

Plus, there’s the whole scepter of Islamic extremism hanging over the region which also needs to be sorted out by Muslims somehow and the fact that the oil-rich countries from the region (Suadi Arabia, Qatar, Iran) are actively spreading their radical variants of Islam to exert their influence is just adding fuel to the fire. Again not something that can be changed unless nobody buys oil from them anymore.

Those few Syrians you know most likely left years ago (I assume you are not writing this from Syria..) and they have absolutely no idea about the “alternative” to Assad which is in the making.. If they had a chance to spend two weeks with the “moderates”, they would become Assad’s fans very quickly..

Some left years ago, but some left during the war to avoid being drafted and dying for the regime in a war they don’t care about. Their families are still in Syria though.

Legal in the way of Trump being a legal winner of the US elections even while having less voters than Clinton.. You are not the one to decide what is legal and what not just because it doesn’t fit your agenda. Assad is the only current legit leader of Syria and his methods are no different to ones used by royals in Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Bahrain or other states.. face it..

Well, my point is that “legal” is a very relative term. For example, if Iran didn’t get involved early and the regime collapsed early on, would the opposition (Islamist groups were not dominant yet in the first year or two) established government have been any less legal than the current regime in your eyes?

Besides, the most important is how the local population sees it. Certainly I can understand how the poor rural Muslim population appreciates Islamist rebel groups more than the corrupt regime and this is not something that can be changed by force, especially not by such corrupt minority regimes in power ever since the independence of these “countries” and not for the lack of applying force.

Exactly.. In Syria, there is no organized and successful alternative to the regime, yet you still continue advocating removal of Assad which only can lead to one thing – another lawless state.. look at Libya.

Again, you’re implying something that I’m not advocating for. It’s not either this or that. What I’m saying is that just because the current regime seems more acceptable to Westerners than the idea of some Islamists taking over, it doesn’t mean the regime should be presented as something it is not and all of its opposition demonized as illiterate head-choppers. Especially when a similar thing can be said for the foreign militias fighting on the regime side.

Those regimes were by far the most stable ones those countries ever had.. Or do you think Iraqis and Libyans are happy now that they are “liberated”?

You mean minority-ruled corrupt regimes maintained by force over national identities invented few decades earlier by Europeans? Which involved their countries in pointless wars? And suppressed any opposition in brutal ways so that the only option for the opposition is to start an armed revolution? Not what I’d call stable in the long run.

Their removal leads to violence because there are no social institutions and power-sharing deals to fall back to as in a way they held their deeply divided societies frozen in time (not unlike the Ottoman Empire) burying all their unresolved issues over various overlapping interests and identities (religious, Ottoman regional, new enforced national ones, etc.) and now they have to sort out those issues in bloody ways thanks to those regimes spending most of their budget on weapons and teaching their subjects first-hand that the only method which counts is sheer force and brutality. And the matters are further complicated by the resurgent radical Islamist militancy offering an attractive solution to those problems. Not to mention various external factors jumping in the fray to further or protect their interests..

He is a minister of the legal Syrian government. Oh, and what else should he have done? Nicely step down from his post and hand over Aleppo to a group of illiterate head-choppers?

Illiterate head-choppers? So, everyone who’s against this corrupt regime is a radical Islamist terrorist? At least that’s the regime line they’re trying to sell.

The few Syrians I know are not radical Islamists, but hate the corrupt regime so I’d say there’s at least a third option here as well. The fervent supporters of the regime seem to be either those who are well off or minorities worried about the prospects of losing their standing in a Sunni dominated country.

Besides, “legal” is an odd choice of words. What makes it legal exactly? Taking power in a coup and maintaining it through his cronies controlling the secret police, the army and various other groups (e.g. Shabiha) or the sham elections?

Don’t get me wrong, there obviously are various opposition groups there much less appealing than the current regime, but part of their success is based on exploiting the lack of organized and successful alternative to the regime.

As said, we will see what time brings..

How long will we wait before we can declare it as a sham? Personally, I wouldn’t hold my breath expecting these “foreign agents” being shown anytime soon.

A story from a Russian TV channel on Russian special forces fighting in Syria:

Meaning it is implied that the USSR did not have the technical savvy/capability to build catapult supercarriers when in fact they did. They just elected not to go that route.

When exactly? In the 60’s and 70’s they had no money for it (and thus went for the smaller Kiev class in the end), in the 80’s they finally started building one and never finished it as they went bankrupt.

It’s certainly questionable if such a complex project would have been successful given the lack of experience and the issues some of their ships had, e.g. with propulsion systems.

How did ISIS convoy through open desert again without taking fire from one coalition aircraft ?

Coalition aircraft are only striking IS in the north of Syria to support the Kurdish troops, especially after the Deir al-Zor incident.

So, by that silly logic, how did the IS troops get from one place in Syria to another place in Syria and deployed their troops in attacking positions without taking fire from one Russian aircraft?

Yes, hundreds of western advisors embedded in ISIS, where do you get your news “I hate the west and NATO is going to invade Russia Weekly”?

From Russian FM perhaps? I really hope he’s not seriously believing what he’s saying, otherwise we’re back to the paranoia of the Cold War times.

Since the topic of the yak came up, i wanted to re-think the concept of the Aviation cruiser. A heavy weapons carrying ship that also had fixed wing combat aircraft.
Growing up, I was always taught by media, it was a compromised design that allowed the ships to go through Turkey.But then Kuznetsov happened, and that’s a full blown carrier.

Technically, the same concept and classification (heavy aircraft-carrying missile cruiser) was still present on the Kuznetsov with its 12 SS-N-19 missile launchers with the benefit of being vertically launched so they could have been installed under the deck.