Syrian Revolution News & Discussions

[BLACKEAGLE]

 

[BLACKEAGLE]

Syrian warplane crashes after take-off from Hama airport

A battery of the Syrian Army's Russian made the BM-21 multiple rocket launcher is visible in Hama province, in the northwest of Syria on May 4, 2016. (AFP)

Reuters, Amman Sunday, 19 June 2016

A Syrian jet bomber crashed just after take-off from Syria's Hama airport after it encountered a technical problem, a Syrian military source said on Sunday.

The military source, quoted by Syrian state media, did not say when the crash had occurred or provide any other details.

Several Russian-manufactured warplanes have crashed since the start of the year, mostly due to technical failures which defense analysts have generally attributed to age.

A rebel source told Reuters the plane that crashed was a Russian Mig 21 fighter but this could not be independently verified

Last Update: Sunday, 19 June 2016 KSA 13:53 - GMT 10:53
http://english.alarabiya.net/en/New...crashes-after-take-off-from-Hama-airport.html

 

[BLACKEAGLE]

Russia, US agree on Syria military coordination

Russia and the United States have agreed on the need to improve coordination to avert incidents. (File photo: Reuters)
Reuters, Moscow Sunday, 19 June 2016

Russia said on Sunday it had reached an agreement with the United States to improve coordination between their military operations in Syria, where they are backing opposing sides of a civil war and launching air strikes.

Russia’s defense ministry said it was pushing Washington to help produce a shared map of the positions of fighting forces to avoid incidents, a day after Washington accused Moscow of attacking U.S.-backed insurgents there.

Moscow’s intervention on the side of President Bashar al-Assad, alongside Western backing for rebel groups opposing him, has raised fears of a wider international confrontation in the war.

Russia’s defense ministry said military officials from both countries had agreed on the need to improve coordination during a video conference. There was no immediate confirmation from Washington.

“The exchange of views about the incident was carried out in a constructive way with the both sides aiming to improve the coordination on fighting the terrorist organizations in Syria and in order to avert any incidents during military operations in this country,” Russian Defense Ministry spokesman Igor Konashenkov said in a statement.

The Pentagon said on Saturday it had questioned Moscow over Russian air strikes conducted against U.S.-backed Syrian opposition forces last week, accusing Moscow of failing to heed US warnings.

Konashenkov dismissed the allegation, saying the Russian strikes hit about 300 km away from territory where the United States had said opposition forces were operating.

He said Russia had notified the U.S.-led coalition about the targets it was planning to strike.

“The Russian defense ministry for the past few months has been proposing to its American colleagues to draw a unified map, which would containing information about the location of the forces which were active in Syria. However, no material progress has been made on this issue,” the spokesman said.

Russia, which has been bombing opposition-held areas, is blamed by the opposition and rights activists for causing hundreds of civilian deaths and targeting hospitals, schools and infrastructure in what they say are indiscriminate attacks.

Moscow has repeatedly dismissed the allegations.

Last Update: Sunday, 19 June 2016 KSA 13:59 - GMT 10:59
http://english.alarabiya.net/en/New...US-agree-on-Syria-military-coordination-.html

 

[BLACKEAGLE]

Russian Defence Minister inspected combat service by the Russian servicemen in the Syrian Arab Republic
Jun 19, 2016



The Minister of Defence of the Russian Federation General of the Army Sergei Shoigu on the order of the President of the Russian Federation Vladimir Putin has inspected combat service of the Russian military servicemen at the Hmeymim airbase.

In the course of the working trip, the Head of the Russian military department has listened to report of the Commander of the Russian force grouping in Syria Colonel General Alexander Dvornikov on the current situation, performing tasks on high-accurate elimination of terrorists’ infrastructure as well as results of the Russian Centre for reconciliation of opposing sides in the Syrian Arab Republic.

General of the Army Sergei Shoigu4 has inspected accommodation of personnel and issues of providing with all types of support. He has also met the Russian pilots performing tasks on eliminating terrorists’ infrastructure in Syria and military servicemen performing tasks on providing security and supplying of the airbase.

The Head of the defence department has department has inspected combat duty at the command center of air defence of the grouping as well as launch positions of S-400 air defence systems located at the airbase.


[URL='http://defence-blog.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/SAVX9283-550.jpg']


[/URL]
http://defence-blog.com/army/russia...n-servicemen-in-the-syrian-arab-republic.html

 

[BLACKEAGLE]

Assad Regime Uses Explosive Pipes To Bomb Aleppo: Report
Our Bureau
01:14 PM, June 17, 2016

An explosive pipe that has not triggered, found in the Al-Breij district, in the northern suburbs of Aleppo. (Le Monde)
- A +
The Assad regime in Syria has now opted for a new weapon, explosive pipes which has been tested against rebel groups in Aleppo in recent weeks.

The weapon looks like a fire hose, but instead of water, it is filled with shrapnel and explosives, and can be fired from a helicopter, like bomb barrels, French newspaper Le Monde reports.

According to locals who spoke to Le Monde, the weapon has been used at least five times in the parts of the city that are still controlled by rebel groups, since early June.

According to the report, the launch may be done in two ways: either from a fixed canon possibly used recently in Aleppo; or can be fired from the UR 77 Meteorit, a type of Russian tank.

One of those tanks had been spotted in Damascus in 2014, used to destroy enemy positions.

"The explosive charge exceeds a ton and the power of the explosion was such that the houses (...) were simply wiped off the face of the Earth," the report cited Moscow Defense Brief, a Russian Military information website.

Since a cease-fire broke down at the end of April, a fierce battle for the control of Aleppo has opposed the Syrian government forces, helped by the Russians, and different insurgent groups.
http://www.defenseworld.net/news/16...ive_Pipes_To_Bomb_Aleppo__Report#.V2bHRqKAadE

 

[BLACKEAGLE]

 

[BLACKEAGLE]

 

[Bubblegum Crisis]

...

So everyone has not lost his mind...


Quote :

51 U.S. Diplomats Urge Strikes Against Assad in Syria

By MARK LANDLER
June 16, 2016

WASHINGTON — More than 50 State Department diplomats have signed an internal memo sharply critical of the Obama administration’s policy in Syria (Link PDF), urging the United States to carry out military strikes against the government of President Bashar al-Assad to stop its persistent violations of a cease-fire in the country’s five-year-old civil war.

The memo, a draft of which was provided to The New York Times by a State Department official, says American policy has been “overwhelmed” by the unrelenting violence in Syria. It calls for “a judicious use of stand-off and air weapons, which would undergird and drive a more focused and hard-nosed U.S.-led diplomatic process.”

Such a step would represent a radical shift in the administration’s approach to the civil war in Syria, and there is little evidence that President Obama has plans to change course. Mr. Obama has emphasized the military campaign against the Islamic State over efforts to dislodge Mr. Assad. Diplomatic efforts to end the conflict, led by Secretary of State John Kerry, have all but collapsed.

But the memo, filed in the State Department’s “dissent channel,” underscores the deep rifts and lingering frustration within the administration over how to deal with a war that has killed more than 400,000 people.

The State Department set up the channel during the Vietnam War as a way for employees who had disagreements with policies to register their protest with the secretary of state and other top officials, without fear of reprisal. While dissent cables are not that unusual, the number of signatures on this document, 51, is extremely large, if not unprecedented.

The names on the memo are almost all midlevel officials — many of them career diplomats — who have been involved in the administration’s Syria policy over the last five years, at home or abroad. They range from a Syria desk officer in the Bureau of Near Eastern Affairs to a former deputy to the American ambassador in Damascus.

While there are no widely recognized names, higher-level State Department officials are known to share their concerns. Mr. Kerry himself has pushed for stronger American action against Syria, in part to force a diplomatic solution on Mr. Assad. The president has resisted such pressure, and has been backed up by his military commanders, who have raised questions about what would happen in the event that Mr. Assad was forced from power — a scenario that the draft memo does not address.

The State Department spokesman, John Kirby, declined to comment on the memo, which top officials had just received. But he said Mr. Kerry respected the process as a way for employees “to express policy views candidly and privately to senior leadership.”

Robert S. Ford, a former ambassador to Syria, said, “Many people working on Syria for the State Department have long urged a tougher policy with the Assad government as a means of facilitating arrival at a negotiated political deal to set up a new Syrian government.”

Mr. Ford, who is now a senior fellow at the Middle East Institute, resigned from the Foreign Service in 2014 out of frustration with the administration’s hands-off policy toward the conflict.

In the memo, the State Department officials wrote that the Assad government’s continuing violations of the partial cease-fire, known as a cessation of hostilities, will doom efforts to broker a political settlement because Mr. Assad will feel no pressure to negotiate with the moderate opposition or other factions fighting him. The government’s barrel bombing of civilians, it said, is the “root cause of the instability that continues to grip Syria and the broader region.”

“The moral rationale for taking steps to end the deaths and suffering in Syria, after five years of brutal war, is evident and unquestionable,” it said. “The status quo in Syria will continue to present increasingly dire, if not disastrous, humanitarian, diplomatic and terrorism-related challenges.”

The memo acknowledged that military action would have risks, not the least further tensions with Russia, which has intervened in the war on Mr. Assad’s behalf and helped negotiate a cease-fire. Those tensions increased on Thursday when, according to a senior Pentagon official, Russia conducted airstrikes in southern Syria against American-backed forces fighting the Islamic State.

The State Department officials insisted in their memo that they were not “advocating for a slippery slope that ends in a military confrontation with Russia,” but rather a credible threat of military action to keep Mr. Assad in line.

Once that threat was in place, the memo said, Mr. Kerry could undertake a diplomatic mission similar to the one he led with Iran on its nuclear program.

The expression of dissent came a week after Mr. Assad showed renewed defiance of the United States and other countries, vowing to retake “every inch” of his country from his enemies. The cease-fire, which Mr. Kerry helped negotiate in Munich last winter, has never really taken hold. Mr. Assad has continued to block humanitarian convoys, despite a warning that the United Nations would begin airdrops of food to starving towns.

“There is an enormous frustration in the bureaucracy about Syria policy,” said Andrew J. Tabler, a Syria expert at the Washington Institute for Near Eastern Policy. “What’s brought this to a head now is the real downturn in the negotiations, not just between the U.S. and Russia, but between Assad and the opposition.”

Last month, Mr. Kerry rejected the suggestion that the United States and its allies would never use force to stop the bombings or enforce humanitarian access. “If President Assad has come to a conclusion there’s no Plan B,” he said, “then he’s come to a conclusion that is totally without any foundation whatsoever and even dangerous.”

Still, Mr. Obama has shown little sign of shifting his focus from the campaign against the Islamic State — a strategy that probably acquired even more urgency after the mass shooting Sunday in Orlando, Fla.

In the memo, the State Department officials argued that military action against Mr. Assad would help the fight against the Islamic State because it would bolster moderate Sunnis, who are necessary allies against the group, also known as ISIS or ISIL.

While the State Department has a tradition of being open to dissent — in the 1990s, Secretary of State Warren Christopher met with Foreign Service officers who had written a 30-page dissent on the Clinton administration’s Balkans policy — Mr. Christopher and his successors have been frustrated when these classified memos become public.

In this case, the memo mainly confirms what has been clear for some time: The State Department’s rank and file have chafed at the White House’s refusal to be drawn into the conflict in Syria.

During a debate in June 2013, after the Assad government had used chemical weapons against its own people, Mr. Kerry brandished a State Department report that argued that the United States needed to respond militarily or Mr. Assad would view it as “green light for continued CW use.”

Three years later, the sense of urgency at the State Department has not diminished. The memo concludes, “It is time that the United States, guided by our strategic interests and moral convictions, lead a global effort to put an end to this conflict once and for all.”


The New York Times

 

[BLACKEAGLE]

 

[Lieutenant]

...

So everyone has not lost his mind...


Quote :

51 U.S. Diplomats Urge Strikes Against Assad in Syria

By MARK LANDLER
June 16, 2016

WASHINGTON — More than 50 State Department diplomats have signed an internal memo sharply critical of the Obama administration’s policy in Syria (Link PDF), urging the United States to carry out military strikes against the government of President Bashar al-Assad to stop its persistent violations of a cease-fire in the country’s five-year-old civil war.

The memo, a draft of which was provided to The New York Times by a State Department official, says American policy has been “overwhelmed” by the unrelenting violence in Syria. It calls for “a judicious use of stand-off and air weapons, which would undergird and drive a more focused and hard-nosed U.S.-led diplomatic process.”

Such a step would represent a radical shift in the administration’s approach to the civil war in Syria, and there is little evidence that President Obama has plans to change course. Mr. Obama has emphasized the military campaign against the Islamic State over efforts to dislodge Mr. Assad. Diplomatic efforts to end the conflict, led by Secretary of State John Kerry, have all but collapsed.

But the memo, filed in the State Department’s “dissent channel,” underscores the deep rifts and lingering frustration within the administration over how to deal with a war that has killed more than 400,000 people.

The State Department set up the channel during the Vietnam War as a way for employees who had disagreements with policies to register their protest with the secretary of state and other top officials, without fear of reprisal. While dissent cables are not that unusual, the number of signatures on this document, 51, is extremely large, if not unprecedented.

The names on the memo are almost all midlevel officials — many of them career diplomats — who have been involved in the administration’s Syria policy over the last five years, at home or abroad. They range from a Syria desk officer in the Bureau of Near Eastern Affairs to a former deputy to the American ambassador in Damascus.

While there are no widely recognized names, higher-level State Department officials are known to share their concerns. Mr. Kerry himself has pushed for stronger American action against Syria, in part to force a diplomatic solution on Mr. Assad. The president has resisted such pressure, and has been backed up by his military commanders, who have raised questions about what would happen in the event that Mr. Assad was forced from power — a scenario that the draft memo does not address.

The State Department spokesman, John Kirby, declined to comment on the memo, which top officials had just received. But he said Mr. Kerry respected the process as a way for employees “to express policy views candidly and privately to senior leadership.”

Robert S. Ford, a former ambassador to Syria, said, “Many people working on Syria for the State Department have long urged a tougher policy with the Assad government as a means of facilitating arrival at a negotiated political deal to set up a new Syrian government.”

Mr. Ford, who is now a senior fellow at the Middle East Institute, resigned from the Foreign Service in 2014 out of frustration with the administration’s hands-off policy toward the conflict.

In the memo, the State Department officials wrote that the Assad government’s continuing violations of the partial cease-fire, known as a cessation of hostilities, will doom efforts to broker a political settlement because Mr. Assad will feel no pressure to negotiate with the moderate opposition or other factions fighting him. The government’s barrel bombing of civilians, it said, is the “root cause of the instability that continues to grip Syria and the broader region.”

“The moral rationale for taking steps to end the deaths and suffering in Syria, after five years of brutal war, is evident and unquestionable,” it said. “The status quo in Syria will continue to present increasingly dire, if not disastrous, humanitarian, diplomatic and terrorism-related challenges.”

The memo acknowledged that military action would have risks, not the least further tensions with Russia, which has intervened in the war on Mr. Assad’s behalf and helped negotiate a cease-fire. Those tensions increased on Thursday when, according to a senior Pentagon official, Russia conducted airstrikes in southern Syria against American-backed forces fighting the Islamic State.

The State Department officials insisted in their memo that they were not “advocating for a slippery slope that ends in a military confrontation with Russia,” but rather a credible threat of military action to keep Mr. Assad in line.

Once that threat was in place, the memo said, Mr. Kerry could undertake a diplomatic mission similar to the one he led with Iran on its nuclear program.

The expression of dissent came a week after Mr. Assad showed renewed defiance of the United States and other countries, vowing to retake “every inch” of his country from his enemies. The cease-fire, which Mr. Kerry helped negotiate in Munich last winter, has never really taken hold. Mr. Assad has continued to block humanitarian convoys, despite a warning that the United Nations would begin airdrops of food to starving towns.

“There is an enormous frustration in the bureaucracy about Syria policy,” said Andrew J. Tabler, a Syria expert at the Washington Institute for Near Eastern Policy. “What’s brought this to a head now is the real downturn in the negotiations, not just between the U.S. and Russia, but between Assad and the opposition.”

Last month, Mr. Kerry rejected the suggestion that the United States and its allies would never use force to stop the bombings or enforce humanitarian access. “If President Assad has come to a conclusion there’s no Plan B,” he said, “then he’s come to a conclusion that is totally without any foundation whatsoever and even dangerous.”

Still, Mr. Obama has shown little sign of shifting his focus from the campaign against the Islamic State — a strategy that probably acquired even more urgency after the mass shooting Sunday in Orlando, Fla.

In the memo, the State Department officials argued that military action against Mr. Assad would help the fight against the Islamic State because it would bolster moderate Sunnis, who are necessary allies against the group, also known as ISIS or ISIL.

While the State Department has a tradition of being open to dissent — in the 1990s, Secretary of State Warren Christopher met with Foreign Service officers who had written a 30-page dissent on the Clinton administration’s Balkans policy — Mr. Christopher and his successors have been frustrated when these classified memos become public.

In this case, the memo mainly confirms what has been clear for some time: The State Department’s rank and file have chafed at the White House’s refusal to be drawn into the conflict in Syria.

During a debate in June 2013, after the Assad government had used chemical weapons against its own people, Mr. Kerry brandished a State Department report that argued that the United States needed to respond militarily or Mr. Assad would view it as “green light for continued CW use.”

Three years later, the sense of urgency at the State Department has not diminished. The memo concludes, “It is time that the United States, guided by our strategic interests and moral convictions, lead a global effort to put an end to this conflict once and for all.”


The New York Times

What is in the US interest to bomb Assad? Nothing. Only the Arabs can solve the Syrian issue not the US and certainly not Russia.

 

[Bubblegum Crisis]

What is in the US interest to bomb Assad? Nothing. Only the Arabs can solve the Syrian issue not the US and certainly not Russia.

Do we have the political will to send 20 000 troops on the ground in Syria (KSA-UAE-Jordan-Egypt). No !

Do we have the technical ability to eliminate the Russian S-400 defenses enough away safety for our pilots. No !

Do we have the will to shoot down Russian planes - with all that would mean for the rest - if confronted with their fighters. No !


...

 

[Lieutenant]

Do we have the political will to send 20 000 troops on the ground in Syria (KSA-UAE-Jordan-Egypt). No !

Do we have the technical ability to eliminate the Russian S-400 defenses enough away safety for our pilots. No !

Do we have the will to shoot down Russian planes - with all that would mean for the rest - if confronted with their fighters. No !


...

But you do have the ability to provide anti aircraft missiles to the FSA. If Turkey, Jordan, Saudi and Egypt team up they could impose a naval blockade and create a buffer zone inside the Syrian territories.

 

[Falcon29]

Do we have the political will to send 20 000 troops on the ground in Syria (KSA-UAE-Jordan-Egypt). No !

Do we have the technical ability to eliminate the Russian S-400 defenses enough away safety for our pilots. No !

Do we have the will to shoot down Russian planes - with all that would mean for the rest - if confronted with their fighters. No !


...

Deploying ground troops is out of question and won't achieve anything. Establishing no fly zone is also out of question, let alone targeted strikes of regime. Not much can be done at this point, because it's not simple task for rebels to mount successful ground offensives due to Russian air power. They can stand their ground in the mean time, unless cease fire breaks and Aleppo is affected. Aleppo would be first province to see significant change, as pro-regime forces are preparing for it.

All that can be done is campaign against ISIS, in which land is appropriated to rebels once recovered. Buffer zone has no use at this point, unless there is serious decline of rebel strength/ability to hold hand.

But you do have the ability to provide anti aircraft missiles to the FSA. If Turkey, Jordan, Saudi and Egypt team up they could impose a naval blockade and create a buffer zone inside the Syrian territories.

Naval blockade cannot be achieved with Russian naval presence around the coast. Buffer zone scenario could be likely on Jordanian border, but on limited scale. But it won't really achieve anything if you think about it.

 

[Lieutenant]

Deploying ground troops is out of question and won't achieve anything. Establishing no fly zone is also out of question, let alone targeted strikes of regime. Not much can be done at this point, because it's not simple task for rebels to mount successful ground offensives due to Russian air power. They can stand their ground in the mean time, unless cease fire breaks and Aleppo is affected. Aleppo would be first province to see significant change, as pro-regime forces are preparing for it.

All that can be done is campaign against ISIS, in which land is appropriated to rebels once recovered. Buffer zone has no use at this point, unless there is serious decline of rebel strength/ability to hold hand.



Naval blockade cannot be achieved with Russian naval presence around the coast. Buffer zone scenario could be likely on Jordanian border, but on limited scale. But it won't really achieve anything if you think about it.

Naval blockade can be imposed by Turkey to limit the Russian supplies to Assad. Two buffer zones can be created on both the Jordanian and Turkish borders. Plus the anti craft missiles provided to the FSA then say hi to Assad once and for good.

 

[Bubblegum Crisis]

...

For power to do that :

Naval blockade can be imposed by Turkey to limit the Russian supplies to Assad. Two buffer zones can be created on both the Jordanian and Turkish borders. Plus the anti craft missiles provided to the FSA then say hi to Assad once and for good.

Must be able do this :

“Do we have the technical ability to eliminate the Russian S-400 defenses enough away safety for our pilots. No !

Do we have the will to shoot down Russian planes - with all that would mean for the rest - if confronted with their fighters. No !”


...