• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

Russia is gearing up its support of Assad in Syria with Soldiers and Hardware

Status
Not open for further replies.

daTRUballin

Member
What? There's difference between armed men and general population. Imagine that somebody took over a government building in the US. Would you call them "terrorist"?

Not sure why you finding this concept confusing. There are no huge differences in religion, language, or social status between people in Kiev and Donetsk. Now there's animosity between citizens who stayed in Donetsk and those who are in Kiev. Those who are in Kiev are pissed that Donetsk people didn't fight back and protest. People in Donetsk are pissed that Ukraine cut them off economically. And there's also Russian propaganda which is constantly making up stories. I think "execution of a 3 year old boy" is classic now.

The "rebels" in DNR and LNR aren't terrorists, they're ordinary citizens fighting for the people in Donetsk and Luhansk. The people in Kiev have animosity towards the people in Donetsk because they're being brainwashed by their government that DNR and LNR are "terrorist regions" that Russia is using in order to "take over" Ukraine. The people in Donetsk have animosity towards Kiev because the Ukrainian government is constantly bombing Donetsk since it's a "terrorist" region.

My family is from Donetsk, and we have close friends and family who still live there, and we still keep in contact with them. Some of them actually have been killed, but I guess it doesn't matter and they deserve to die since they're "terrorists".
 
The "rebels" in DNR and LNR aren't terrorists, they're ordinary citizens fighting for the people in Donetsk and Luhansk. The people in Kiev have animosity towards the people in Donetsk because they're being brainwashed by their government that DNR and LNR are "terrorist regions" that Russia is using in order to "take over" Ukraine. The people in Donetsk have animosity towards Kiev because the Ukrainian government is constantly bombing Donetsk since it's a "terrorist" region.

My family is from Donetsk, and we have close friends and family who still live there, and we still keep in contact with them. Some of them actually have been killed, but I guess it doesn't matter and they deserve to die since they're "terrorists".

And I know people who have been killed by DNR army. So what do you propose? When armed people take over government buildings the army is supposed to surrender? Imagine the same scenario in the US.

If you have family that supports DNR just ask them what DNR stands for. What do the DNR flag colors represent? When was the first time they saw DNR flag? How are they culturally different from Kharkiv or Dnipropetrovsk? What is this war about? Sure you might not believe that Russia is involved, but you should be at least somewhat suspicious that as of year ago most of the leaders of DNR were Russian citizens.

Anyway, we are way off topic here. If you want to know more about conflict I think Vice News reports are good source. You don't have to trust Ukrainian or Russian media, just check out how events on the ground played out.
 

daTRUballin

Member
And I know people who have been killed by DNR army. So what do you propose? When armed people take over government buildings the army is supposed to surrender? Imagine the same scenario in the US.

If you have family that supports DNR just ask them what DNR stands for. What do the DNR flag colors represent? When was the first time they saw DNR flag? How are they culturally different from Kharkiv or Dnipropetrovsk? What is this war about? Sure you might not believe that Russia is involved, but you should be at least somewhat suspicious that as of year ago most of the leaders of DNR were Russian citizens.

Anyway, we are way off topic here. If you want to know more about conflict I think Vice News reports are good source. You don't have to trust Ukrainian or Russian media, just check out how events on the ground played out.

Is Vice News Western? If so, I wouldn't trust those either if I were you.......
 
Is Vice News Western? If so, I wouldn't trust those either if I were you.......

They are independent. It's basically 2 guys with a camera showing events on the ground. Almost no commentary. They were filming from both sides usually. Even if you consider them western you can easily filter out their bias.

EDIT: also why do you think that "western" media cares about what's going on in Ukraine? When was the last report you saw on CNN about Ukraine? Western Media is usually too incompetent to cover international affairs.
 

daTRUballin

Member
They are independent. It's basically 2 guys with a camera showing events on the ground. Almost no commentary. They were filming from both sides usually. Even if you consider them western you can easily filter out their bias.

EDIT: also why do you think that "western" media cares about what's going on in Ukraine? When was the last report you saw on CNN about Ukraine? Western Media is usually too incompetent to cover international affairs.

I'm just saying that the West is obviously supporting Kiev in this conflict, so any media coverage they have of the conflict will most likely be biased towards Kiev.
 

Suikoguy

I whinny my fervor lowly, for his length is not as great as those of the Hylian war stallions
I'm just saying that the West is obviously supporting Kiev in this conflict, so any media coverage they have of the conflict will most likely be biased towards Kiev.

You really should research Vice more before judging them. They do many investigative pieces that don't agree with what the "West" thinks, or what the prevailing policy currently is.
 

daTRUballin

Member
You really should research Vice more before judging them. They do many investigative pieces that don't agree with what the "West" thinks, or what the prevailing policy currently is.

I wasn't really talking about Vice, I was talking more about Western media in general. So I agree that Vice could be more trustworthy then.
 
I'm just saying that the West is obviously supporting Kiev in this conflict, so any media coverage they have of the conflict will most likely be biased towards Kiev.
So you trust the Russian media who are a warring party in this war and the aggressor to boot? Lmao. Not to forget that almost none of their media is independent as in not state-owned.
Get your ass to the Ukraine OT and get enlightned or get in, get fucked by truth and stay out. That's what apparently happened to our DNR fanboy.

On topic: Russia wants to save Assad's aas and that's about it. Hope they won't bomb civilans the way the Arab fucking smaller-scale Hitler does.
If it's down to protecting him it may not be that bad after all. 1) they'll also protect the minorities from getting overrun and 2) Their fucking empire of evil will crumble even faster.
Assad will get a timeout at the most. The halflife of these Arab dictators is rather short nowadays.
 

daTRUballin

Member
So you trust the Russian media who are a warring party in this war and the aggressor to boot? Lmao. Not to forget that almost none of their media is independent as in not state-owned.
Get your ass to the Ukraine OT and get enlightned or get in, get fucked by truth and stay out. That's what apparently happened to our DNR fanboy.

On topic: Russia wants to save Assad's aas and that's about it. Hope they won't bomb civilans the way the Arab fucking smaller-scale Hitler does.
If it's down to protecting him it may not be that bad after all. 1) they'll also protect the minorities from getting overrun and 2) Their fucking empire of evil will crumble even faster.
Assad will get a timeout at the most. The halflife of these Arab dictators is rather short nowadays.

Yeah, it's not like Ukrainian/Western media can be classified as propaganda either or anything. I'd rather trust what our close friends and family who live in Donetsk say rather than what Kiev and Washington do.

Everything Russia says is lies and everything the West says is truth. Russia is the root of all evil.
 

orochi91

Member
Al-Asaad is decidedly the best option for Syria in the short-term.

Russia will do a lot to alleviate this ISIS onslaught, at least I hope so.
 
I think this is a good article.

http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Euro...f-Afghanistan-may-limit-Kremlin-s-options-now



I doubt Russia is going to change much if they decide to fight ISIL or the Rebels. Many people here have not been following, but the government has not been doing a good job against anyone during this year. They need more troops, better leaders, and strategies but thats, but thats something that won't be easy to fix anytime soon since the government already had a lot Iranian and a small amount of Russian assistance for a long time.
 

G.ZZZ

Member
I'm just saying that the West is obviously supporting Kiev in this conflict, so any media coverage they have of the conflict will most likely be biased towards Kiev.

Supporting Kiev by doing economical sanction is less involved than actually sending soldiers to die and actively doing war.

Russia is talking about this issue constantly, western media has basically abandoned kiev years ago. But it's western media who is biased and obsessed about putting russia in a bad light, ok.
 
I'd rather trust what our close friends and family who live in Donetsk say rather than what Kiev and Washington do.

There's absolutely no freedom of speech or any freedom of media in Donetsk. I feel bad for them, but they are the worst source of information you could think of.

You mentioned before that they believe that Kiev thinks that they are terrorists. Well if they took guns took over government buildings they are terrorists, if they didn't do that they are not terrorists. It's a simple as that.
 

daTRUballin

Member
There's absolutely no freedom of speech or any freedom of media in Donetsk. I feel bad for them, but they are the worst source of information you could think of.

You mentioned before that they believe that Kiev thinks that they are terrorists. Well if they took guns took over government buildings they are terrorists, if they didn't do that they are not terrorists. It's a simple as that.

Well, what else are they supposed to do if Kiev is bombing them? Sit there and do nothing? Or protect their city?

I don't understand how that makes them terrorists.

Edit: Also, there's no freedom of media in Kiev either. Russian news channels are prohibited there, and people are only allowed to watch Ukrainian news.
 
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/just-got-clearest-sign-yet-181700769.html

Good article that highlights that unlike what some thought here. Russia has no real interest in dealing with ISIS. If anything Russia is worried the west will succeed against Assad.

Russia bringing into Syria some of the most advanced anti-air systems in the world. ISIS and various rebel factions have no air force but its pretty obvious who does and its forces opposed to Assad in the middle east and the West. Russia has gone so far as t make veiled threats over potential "unintended consequences"
Well, it was a nice thought while it lasted. Guess Russia already has experience in Ukraine with unintended consequences and shooting down airplanes.

I wasn't really talking about Vice, I was talking more about Western media in general. So I agree that Vice could be more trustworthy then.
I see we have a new one. How's Russia Today these days? Still holding the line that Russia has nothing to do with the fighting in Ukraine?
 

daTRUballin

Member
Well, it was a nice thought while it lasted. Guess Russia already has experience in Ukraine with unintended consequences and shooting down airplanes.


I see we have a new one. How's Russia Today these days? Still holding the line that Russia has nothing to do with the fighting in Ukraine?

So it's not okay for Russia to be involved, but it's completely okay for the U.S. to be? Gotcha.
 

reckless

Member
So it's not okay for Russia to be involved, but it's completely okay for the U.S. to be? Gotcha.

Well when Russia is claiming to be there to fight against ISIS, and then supply Assad with advanced AA weapons... its almost like they're lying!

Not to mention all the times Assad either ignored ISIS or helped them out.
 

daTRUballin

Member
Well when Russia is claiming to be there to fight against ISIS, and then supply Assad with advanced AA weapons... its almost like they're lying!

Not to mention all the times Assad either ignored ISIS or helped them out.

Haven't many people in this thread said that Assad is the lesser of two evils? So it's a bad thing that Russia is fighting against ISIS?
 
So it's not okay for Russia to be involved, but it's completely okay for the U.S. to be? Gotcha.
In the case of Ukraine: the US and EU are not military involved in the conflict outside of some training and weapon deliveries after the whole thing got started. Russia is actively sending soldiers into Ukraine. It is pretty clear who is in the wrong here.

As for Syria it's a bit more grey. the US and some EU countries are doing air strikes in Syria (and Iraq) against ISIS and supporting various groups fighting Assad. Not a fan of it myself and it backfired massively, but here we are now.

Russia is supporting Assad with weapons and now possibly soldiers and anti-aircraft - possibly because the US will from now on do bombings on Assad's forces when protecting US-trained rebels. Let's hope Russia doesn't shoot down a US plane here and unleashed a storm of trouble.

It would be better if Russia was there just to fight ISIS, but clearly they also have another agenda.

Do not confuse the opposition against Russian involvement as support for US involvement also. People can be against both.

Haven't many people in this thread said that Assad is the lesser of two evils? So it's a bad thing that Russia is fighting against ISIS?
It is a bad thing that Russia is getting equipment involved aimed at shooting down US and EU forces, because we do not want those two getting into a conflict.
 

reckless

Member
Haven't many people in this thread said that Assad is the lesser of two evils? So it's a bad thing that Russia is fighting against ISIS?

How do AA weapons help against the fight with ISIS?

Assad also pretty much provided air support for ISIS in the past and ignored them for a long time which is one of the reasons they are so large right now.
 

Lime

Member
Now tanks and artillery are being provided to Syria: (based on the word of a US official)

Increase of Russian hardware in Syria has caused concerns in the West about the implications of Moscow militarily helping its old ally, President Bashar al-Assad

Russia has sent artillery and seven tanks to a Syrian air base as part of Moscow’s continued military buildup in the war-ravaged nation, according to US officials.

The increase of Russian hardware in Syria has caused concerns in the West about the implications of Moscow militarily helping its old ally, President Bashar al-Assad.

Speaking on condition of anonymity, a US official told AFP that seven T-90 tanks arrived in recent days but had not been sent outside the airbase near Latakia, on Syria’s Mediterranean coast.

And the artillery, which arrived last week, appears to have been sent there to protect the facility. There was no indication Russia had sent fighter jets or helicopter gunships to Syria.

“It appears, and all the indications are pointing, that (the artillery is) for airfield defense,” the official said.

Russian help for Assad could seriously complicate the US-led coalition’s air strikes against Islamic State jihadists in Syria and defense officials are worried about the possibility of accidents if coalition and Russian planes operate in the same airspace.

Two Russian transport planes, purportedly carrying humanitarian aid, landed in Syria on Saturday, Russian state media said, and Russian foreign minister Sergei Lavrov last week said Moscow was sending military equipment along with aid “in accordance with current contracts”.

At a news briefing, Pentagon spokesman captain Jeff Davis said Russia apparently was establishing a forward air operations base in Latakia.

“It’s been a continued steady flow (of equipment) for the last week and a half or so,” he said.

AFP reported last week that dozens of Russian naval infantry had arrived in Syria, along with two tank-landing ships and about a dozen Russian armored personnel carriers.

American officials also say Russia has installed modular housing units – enough for “hundreds” of people.

Russia is a staunch ally of the regime in Damascus and maintains a naval facility in Tartus province.

“We would welcome Russian contributions to the overall global effort against (the IS group) but things that continue to support the Assad regime, particularly military things, are unhelpful and risk adding greater instability to an already unstable situation,” Davis said.

More than 240,000 people have been killed in Syria since the conflict began with anti-government protests in March 2011.

The government has lost large swathes of territory to rebels and jihadists such as the Islamic State group.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/20...o-syria-as-part-of-continued-military-buildup
 

Dishy

Unconfirmed Member
This definitely won't help the refugee crisis at the moment. I would not be surprised if this news will lead to even more fleeing.

People often tend to forget that many Syrians aren't just fleeing the brutality of ISIS but also the often seemingly random air strikes in urban areas etc in almost all cities. Not even the suburbs of the Damascus are safe.


And to add to the "Assad is the lesser of the two evils" comments: For us in the West or wherever outside the Middle East, of course Assad is the better option: he stays out of our business and lets Israel and our allies in peace. But for the thousands of dead Syrians died to his army's bombardment I don't see how he is any better than ISIS. Yes, they are more gruesome but in the end the result is the same: If you are opposing the system / the terrorist group you will end up dead in one way or the another.
 

Dishy

Unconfirmed Member
probably. cash that will be useless if he is overthrown

Which won't happen anytime soon with new Russian support.

I only see the regime fall if all the veto powers of the security council decide to drop him. Assad and his clan will be gone in seconds. But as long as he has his backers in Iran, Lebanon, Russia (China) he won't leave anytime soon.
 

Zultan

Banned
I can't really blame Russia, to be honest. The US isn't doing shit. Iraqi forces suck.

There are only two forces that are fighting ISIS that are somewhat decent at it. Assad, and the Kurds. The Kurds seem to be stretched thin.

As much as I hate Assad, I don't see any other way for ISIS to go down. The US isn't sending troops. The US will do their usual song and dance, then allow the arms transfers to happen.
 
I can't really blame Russia, to be honest. The US isn't doing shit. Iraqi forces suck.

There are only two forces that are fighting ISIS that are somewhat decent at it. Assad, and the Kurds. The Kurds seem to be stretched thin.

As much as I hate Assad, I don't see any other way for ISIS to go down. The US isn't sending troops. The US will do their usual song and dance, then allow the arms transfers to happen.
Sending US troops would be a huge mistake. Everybody wants to shoot Americans, and likely ISIS would use the presence as a successful recruiting tool.
 

davepoobond

you can't put a price on sparks
Which won't happen anytime soon with new Russian support.

I only see the regime fall if all the veto powers of the security council decide to drop him. Assad and his clan will be gone in seconds. But as long as he has his backers in Iran, Lebanon, Russia (China) he won't leave anytime soon.

well, yeah. it would only make sense to make Russia double down on their support if he can buy it

I can't really blame Russia, to be honest. The US isn't doing shit. Iraqi forces suck.

There are only two forces that are fighting ISIS that are somewhat decent at it. Assad, and the Kurds. The Kurds seem to be stretched thin.

As much as I hate Assad, I don't see any other way for ISIS to go down. The US isn't sending troops. The US will do their usual song and dance, then allow the arms transfers to happen.

i dont think Russia's intent here is to stop ISIS, rather to prop up Assad.
 

antonz

Member
f2jISMv.png

Sad people still think Russia has any noble motives here
 

noshten

Member
Sad people still think Russia has any noble motives here

No one is noble - everyone is protecting their geopolitical positions overall. Russia would loose a close ally if opposition or ISIS gain control over Syria. While the US and Europe have a financial and geopolitical benefit if opposition is not actively trading with Russia and also is allowing western industry to buy out local industry. As someone who lived behind the Iron Curtain it's pretty obvious that both sides don't have Syrian interest in mind. In the end its regular people who get stuck between a rock and hard place - in Syria, in Ukraine, in Libya, in Iraq etc. Conflict and instability are difficult to comprehend as a given if you haven't lived in such places - where you are in a no win situation.
 
So they're disguising weapons and arsenal through "humanitarian aid." How is Assad paying for all this? Does he still have substantial cash reserves?

They are giving BOTH military aid and Humanitarian aid, its good to separate fact from fiction. They are protecting their interest in the region by pouring arms to keep Assad's regime in power but there is ample evidence by every account to also suggest that they are landing humanitarian aid into the country. Besides, they don't need to disguise anything in this case, what is the US and its allies going to do? shoot down their transport aircraft?

Sad people still think Russia has any noble motives here

Some of you are becoming worse than some nutters in many forums. Sure, Putin the evil mastermind, never mind that their are several very simple reasons everyone with common sense accepts. Nahh, Putin the evil mastermind wants to cause even worse destruction, so more refugees go into Europe, so he can fund anti-refugee parties, so he can destabilize the EU, completely idiotic.


Would you look at that.
 
No one is noble - everyone is protecting their geopolitical positions overall. Russia would loose a close ally if opposition or ISIS gain control over Syria. While the US and Europe have a financial and geopolitical benefit if opposition is not actively trading with Russia and also is allowing western industry to buy out local industry. As someone who lived behind the Iron Curtain it's pretty obvious that both sides don't have Syrian interest in mind. In the end its regular people who get stuck between a rock and hard place - in Syria, in Ukraine, in Libya, in Iraq etc. Conflict and instability are difficult to comprehend as a given if you haven't lived in such places - where you are in a no win situation.

Exactly. I've always thought that a fair question to ask is "why should any one nation care about another nation's government or people's well being?" Nations are wholly amoral (amoral not immoral) so really have no reason to act unless it's in their own interest, and so far as I can tell the only reason any nation cares about Syria is that its instability is a problem regionally.

To the citizens of nations outside the conflict the images and stories from refugees can be heartbreaking, but the governments are being perfectly reasonable in wanting to stay out of it as much as possible.
 

Nivash

Member

The "elegant way" for Assad to step aside at that time would almost have been guaranteed to involve amnesty for war crimes and nothing but token democratization efforts. Russia would never have proposed something that could genuinely have risked them losing Syria as an ally. It was a non-starters, especially considering that the West were not in any way in sufficient control to make the rebels actually agree to anything.

The reason they didn't entertain the idea has everything to do with this part:

"Western diplomats at the UN refused to speak on the record about Ahtisaari’s claim, but pointed out that after a year of the Syrian conflict, Assad’s forces had already carried out multiple massacres, and the main opposition groups refused to accept any proposal that left him in power. A few days after Ahtisaari’s visit to New York, Hillary Clinton, then US secretary of state, branded the Syrian leader a war criminal."

Of course, Russia doesn't give two shits about human rights or war crimes so for them this wasn't a huge issue. For the rebels and the western powers, it very much was.
 
Of course, Russia doesn't give two shits about human rights or war crimes so for them this wasn't a huge issue. For the rebels and the western powers, it very much was.

The USA doesn't really care about human rights or war crimes either. I mean, the government sure talks like it does but it doesn't really.
 

Nivash

Member
The USA doesn't really care about human rights or war crimes either. I mean, the government sure talks like it does but it doesn't really.

Well, even the US typically draws the line at officially granting a documented war criminal and dictator amnesty unless it's absolutely necessary. At least after the Cold War ended. And again, the agreement didn't even take the rebels into account at all which is kinda vital for any agreement to work because they're one of the sides that are fighting.

The point is that the agreement was unpalatable and unworkable. I'm not sure why Ahtisaari puts so much faith in it. There are also numerous comments in the articles from diplomats pointing out that they were not at all convinced that this wasn't some ploy by Russia to pull out Assad but keep the regime in place without him.
 
The USA doesn't really care about human rights or war crimes either. I mean, the government sure talks like it does but it doesn't really.
It is only war crimes if another country does it. If the US does it it is 'enhanced interrogation' or 'discipline' or an 'accident' or 'self defense'.
 

AndyD

aka andydumi

One of the Russian points in the proposal:
find an elegant way for Assad to step aside
And the UK negotiator:
I’d have wanted to be sure it wasn’t a Putin trick to draw us in to a process that ultimately preserved Assad’s state under a different leader but with the same outcome

This was somewhat discussed back then and dismissed as not the right thing to do for someone using full military and gas attacks against own civilians. It would have given him a golden parachute to walk away, which would have been the implicit approval from Western powers for other dictators that they could do this and walk away without ICC or their own country's prosecution.
 
Well, even the US typically draws the line at officially granting a documented war criminal and dictator amnesty unless it's absolutely necessary. At least after the Cold War ended. And again, the agreement didn't even take the rebels into account at all which is kinda vital for any agreement to work because they're one of the sides that are fighting.

The point is that the agreement was unpalatable and unworkable. I'm not sure why Ahtisaari puts so much faith in it. There are also numerous comments in the articles from diplomats pointing out that they were not at all convinced that this wasn't some ploy by Russia to pull out Assad but keep the regime in place without him.

I don't disagree with your overall point, I just think the USA would have found the deal more palatable than you might think had it been more advantageous/Assad didn't look like he was already on his way out.

I think I'm speaking a little out of my depth wrt Syria specifically, though.
 

AndyD

aka andydumi
I don't disagree with your overall point, I just think the USA would have found the deal more palatable than you might think had it been more advantageous/Assad didn't look like he was already on his way out.

I think I'm speaking a little out of my depth wrt Syria specifically, though.

Of course. US proposed for him to step down without protection from day one, before it looked like he was going to fall, and now when he is in a stronger position. The issue of giving a war criminal protection and forgiveness is a huge one that Syria/Russia never budged on and neither did the US. The implications for a lot of other places across Africa, south America and Asia would be immense otherwise.
 
Leading figures in the Ukrainian conflict on the Russian side have now surfaced in Syria. Interesting shifting of resources. Man holding the Assad image went by the codename Motorola and was one of the "DNR" Commanders

That's a pretty clever way to get two birds with one stone, those guys produced a lot of bad PR in Ukraine and now they are fighting the good fight against ISIS.
 
Leading figures in the Ukrainian conflict on the Russian side have now surfaced in Syria. Interesting shifting of resources. Man holding the Assad image went by the codename Motorola and was one of the "DNR" Commanders

CPA5lWiWEAASM9G.jpg


article discussing the pivot is unfortunately behind a paywall.
http://www.haaretz.com/news/middle-east/.premium-1.676038

they are just on a vacation from their vacation


Russian army seems to be a good workplace, its easy to get lots of time off for holidays and you get to borrow equipment to bring along as well
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom