Putin has always seemed determined about this, a few months ago he was telling Muslims if they do not like the culture they would integrate into in Russia then they should not be in Russia...
Thank you kindly Christina. I think, if this article bears a true semblance to the facts, it could be useful if further forces are negotiated in co-operation with other international efforts.Stating the obvious; to have two or three different tactical operations underway without co-ordination between them in the same geographical locations is a very dangerous situation.
William i did like the article you are right. As far as oil thou is concerned saudis already had their peak of its production that is one of the reasons they are funding isis to take over other. There are multi reasons but that one on a list as well. I so hope OPEC would be gone with russia's iran china current temporary alliance
Oil prices is an issue and OPEC is the biggest issue that usa let saudis control and carter selling off aramco and betraying Iran with Shah, who was an honest man
Forgive me for being naieve but I don't think this is about oil. If it is about oil then it is about the wealth of a few, not the moral and spiritual comfort and happiness of the many.
I say that because in real terms the populace are little affected by the cash issue, they might not even associate money with this, but they will and shall comment and talk of the moral and humanitarian distinctions between Muslims, radical Muslims, Christians, Jews etc... there always remains, nonetheless, that aspect of intelligence and government which says "we know better than the masses"
Of course, nothing is ever really so simple. A complex made of simplexes, some intertwined some separable. What would you nominate as Putin's main motivation Christina? If I dare ask...
From ego prospective and usa imposed sanctions on the backyard issue definately to show usa. From strategic issue to make sure assad stays in power as usa has been supplying weapons to rebels and they in turn donating to isis. To assert the position in middle east and balance of power would be one of the main. To show dominance and it is working as iraq just asked to airstrike them to get rid of isis not iraq would be indebted to russia. Next to further build alliances.
A reply to a friend's question "what if Vlad pulls this off?" I said " Well world security changes eh? Russia beefs up its ego a bit, reflects on another job well done and thinks about its moral standing in relation to Cuba and lots of past history. US and GB begin to say it was done wrongly and they would have performed a tidier job and had the God Right to do it, Russia are viewed as thieves and imposters and things carry on the same, except the borders of Russia and Europe are (for a time) more secure... ?"
There are common goals in the theater, it would be nice I think, if a compact could be made, even temporarily. For what does happen if Russia pull this off? As you say Christina, there are changes in the balance of power, if only in perception... if Russia does pull it off then they prove they have the strategic and kinetic force. One thing making achievement of the common goal easier is the fact they are more friendly with Assad... this works to everyone's advantage is some respects.
Now I think I perceive a complication in a Russo-US co-operation; the relationship with Assad would add a parameter that would require some negotiation.
Well strength of russia in eurasia one of the objectives that is how alliance of russia china was sold to russians. Next obviously control. If iran executes its capabilities with russian blessing in saudi arabia. Isis gone so is any influence of usa in middle east. Un agenda 2030 as usual waste of time and paper it was written on as usual. What is for the west eu time to go as it is not sustainable. With new parties gaining traction and influx of refugees will play into favor. Next best for usa to regroup. Invest funding into military with proper working equipment. Get more ex military personnel into positions of leadership not arrogant pompous professors from harvard like ashton carter to run pentagon. Work on foreign policy. Implement cyberwarfare policy. Great talent in usa for that. That is just a few the list goes on. Also stop going into other countries with strategic motifs and selling it as democracy establishment
As I'm sure is clear from some of my comments in this group previously, the selling of it as democracy is easy to pick up on in the UK, and many British don't agree with the apparent imposition. Having spent time reading the posts in this group I think I have gained a clearer understanding of the US policy. the political position puts US in a tricky situation requiring them to sustain such a force and strength in arms.
I agree with all my heart, professors and scholars with no experience of Business or Military affairs should not be making the policy decisions.
The new leader of the Labour Party in Britain... never a day's work in his life but lives in a 600,000 sterling mansion... we the little people do not like it! :)
Whether ISIS can be wiped out depends upon the definition of wiping out. The Roman standard of decimation (10%) has been found operative in units losing 10% of their forces in battles at close order losing enough cohesion to flee.
The casualty rates in wars fought in open order (since the machine gun) is hard to define in wiping out terms. It is rather how much firepower they can apply to wherever they want to apply it to.
The usual process in the Middle East is to track down all relatives for death or dishonor.
That ISIS is at core a regular army and grows by adding other regular troops (Libya included) is more to the point of battlefield elite. Unlike others, ISIS covers itself with a coat of barbarism which Machiavelli considers expendable. To settle, ISIS will likely shed it's bloody coat at cut a deal with those old buddies from Russia.
In the days of close order combat (as in side by side), there often came a tipping point in which one side attempted to out run enemy cavalry and the results were often in the ninetieth percentile lost.
Large scale operations then and now usually are tied to their logistic tail. The VC had a long logistical tale that confined their operations to those they could support at the end of a well concealed set of bases and lines of communication.
ISIS has developed a logistic tail and administrative system which they must defend as in their present order of battle, they do not have the ability to disappear like the Taliban. They are also road bound, with all manner of nodules, nodes and cross roads.
My question is: should Mr. Putin, Quds and Hezbollah be successful in pushing back Islamic State and the plethora of other non-state actors, who will hold on to the territory and hold down an almost certain insurgency? We can be sure that the current Syrian forces cannot do this themselves in the short term. In position will this leave Israel with Hezbollah, Iranian forces in Syria, in large numbers, with advanced weapons system, permanently?
As far as Syria i think Putin has long terms there. Assad is indebted to Putin now. It js possible soon syria would be more like Russian autonomy. As far as israel usa funds it:
Syrian state forces can handle it thanks to Putin who will INSHALLAH OR WITHOUT INSHALLAH MAKE MINCE MEAT OF FOUR STATE MERCENARIES OF ISLAMIST MAD DOGS SPONSORED BY USA TURKEY JORDAN KSA AND ISRAEL GOD BLESS RUSSIAN AND PUTIN ACTIONS
They are not chicken jihadis instead fucking Zionist. All of them must be killed for ever and their Plan and expansion of zionest Plans and destruction of Humanity.
God bless you my dear Mr Hafeez , you have summed it and sad part is that characters like Erdogan , JORDAN and KSA are part of this DIRTY GAME GOD BLESS PUTIN
Br. Amin. Exactly you are right that all of them Erdogan , JORDAN and KSA are an integral part of their Zionist plan to expand and change the Map of the region and turned into the Zionist land. That is all it is that Zionist, west and Zionist Government in America killed millions of innocent people in order to suck Muslim blood that they are always thirsty and remained.
There are common goals in the theater, it would be nice I think, if a compact could be made, even temporarily. For what does happen if Russia pull this off? As you say Christina, there are changes in the balance of power, if only in perception... if Russia does pull it off then they prove they have the strategic and kinetic force. One thing making achievement of the common goal easier is the fact they are more friendly with Assad... this works to everyone's advantage is some respects.
I agree with all my heart, professors and scholars with no experience of Business or Military affairs should not be making the policy decisions.
The new leader of the Labour Party in Britain... never a day's work in his life but lives in a 600,000 sterling mansion... we the little people do not like it! :)
The casualty rates in wars fought in open order (since the machine gun) is hard to define in wiping out terms. It is rather how much firepower they can apply to wherever they want to apply it to.
The usual process in the Middle East is to track down all relatives for death or dishonor.
That ISIS is at core a regular army and grows by adding other regular troops (Libya included) is more to the point of battlefield elite. Unlike others, ISIS covers itself with a coat of barbarism which Machiavelli considers expendable. To settle, ISIS will likely shed it's bloody coat at cut a deal with those old buddies from Russia.
Large scale operations then and now usually are tied to their logistic tail. The VC had a long logistical tale that confined their operations to those they could support at the end of a well concealed set of bases and lines of communication.
ISIS has developed a logistic tail and administrative system which they must defend as in their present order of battle, they do not have the ability to disappear like the Taliban. They are also road bound, with all manner of nodules, nodes and cross roads.