|
Vernii posted:It's pretty satisfying watching regime supporters on reddit melt down over the SAA getting trounced again. Lots of blaming both Assad and the Russians for poorly executing and supporting the offensive, respectively. "If only the Russians had dropped more Willie Pete on civilians we could have won  "
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2016 11:30
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 3, 2024 11:06 |
|
|
Not sure if this is from the incendiary cluster bombs or those bombs that rain white phosphorus over everything, but here's some footage from underneath one. https://twitter.com/RamiSafadi93/status/744992905232850945
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2016 14:46
|
|
|
Remember those islands Egypt ceded to Saudi Arabia as part of their warming relationship (and totally not as compensation for a much-needed aid package)? Well, guess which court just got some backbone?quote:An Egyptian court has reversed a decision to hand over two Red Sea islands to Saudi Arabia.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2016 16:52
|
|
|
Welcome to Syria: A Literal Hell-Scape edition! 
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2016 17:04
|
|
|
Volkerball posted:Not sure if this is from the incendiary cluster bombs or those bombs that rain white phosphorus over everything, but here's some footage from underneath one. Incendiary cluster bombs. They've been dropped a bunch of times by Assad in the past, but that stopped a while ago (presumably he ran out). Since the Russian intervention they have been dropped with increasing frequency, and in the last few weeks the rate has shot up significantly. They are thermite-based, not WP.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2016 17:30
|
|
|
Why does Russia have such a hard on for the Syrian regime again? Is it all about making sure that they have naval access to the Mediterranean? I'm very aware of how that's been a Russian geopolitical priority for literally three hundred years because otherwise they'd be trapped in the Black Sea. But there's got to be more to it than that. Is it also an outlet for Putin to swing his dick against the West? To try and pretend that they have 21st century military force projection?
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2016 17:52
|
|
|
And also to show how far they are willing to go to protect their vassals. It's the carrot. With Ukraine and Georgia they've showed the stick that they use for vassals who seek emancipation.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2016 19:37
|
|
|
Shimrra Jamaane posted:Why does Russia have such a hard on for the Syrian regime again? Is it all about making sure that they have naval access to the Mediterranean? I'm very aware of how that's been a Russian geopolitical priority for literally three hundred years because otherwise they'd be trapped in the Black Sea. But there's got to be more to it than that. Is it also an outlet for Putin to swing his dick against the West? To try and pretend that they have 21st century military force projection? They want the bases (they also have air bases now that can allow them to reach most of the Middle East and the Mediterranean) and they want leverage against the Saudis. Their issue with the Saudis is that the Saudis by raising oil production in 2015 (most likely to get at Iran, but their motives are a bit unclear) have undermined the Russian economy, and Putin knows that the Saudis really don't want pro-Iranian/Shia forces in Syria to win including Assad. I assume at some point Russia wants to make a deal (full withdrawal in return for lowered production) but in order to make a deal they need to squash the rebel groups that are backed or may be backed by the Saudis or the other gulf states. It is also why Russia seems to be willing anything it can to demoralize civilians in rebel areas. Btw, it is now understood that one of the biggest reasons the Soviets collapsed is because the Saudis raised production considerably in 1986, but they motives are still up to debate.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2016 19:42
|
|
|
God drat the SAA ate it hard on this one: https://www.reddit.com/r/syriancivilwar/comments/4p5qv3/igorgirkin_on_twitter_russian_reporter_roman/ https://twitter.com/GirkinGirkin/status/745289054120456192 armocalypsis, a guy with a Russian flag flair posted:Ok, so here are the main points, too lazy to do a full translation: fade5 fucked around with this message at 21:32 on Jun 21, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2016 21:27
|
|
|
fade5 posted:God drat the SAA ate it hard on this one: Fresh ISIS offensive?
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2016 21:36
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:Fresh ISIS offensive? There's a sandstorm blanketing Syria right now, and ISIL loving loves to do attacks under sandstorm because planes can't fly/can't target while the air is filled with grit, so that's where the Palmyra attack came from.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2016 21:42
|
|
|
It never ceases to be amazing to me how ISIS manages to fight on so many fronts, especially after every confident prediction that they're finally losing for real this time. Even considering the fact that the US is only fighting directly with air power, it seems like we have to have the capability to disrupt their movements more than we've actually done, particularly when it comes to things that couldn't possibly be civilian targets like operational tanks. I can't help thinking the US, like every other faction, has been willing to tolerate ISIS at times as long as they're frustrating other adversaries.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2016 21:47
|
|
|
Sinteres posted:It never ceases to be amazing to me how ISIS manages to fight on so many fronts, especially after every confident prediction that they're finally losing for real this time. Even considering the fact that the US is only fighting directly with air power, it seems like we have to have the capability to disrupt their movements more than we've actually done, particularly when it comes to things that couldn't possibly be civilian targets like operational tanks. I can't help thinking the US, like every other faction, has been willing to tolerate ISIS at times as long as they're frustrating other adversaries. And really, what the hell would the US even do with the Tabqah salient anyway? We don't have spotters on the ground telling us who are the SAA guys vs who are the ISIL guys, and Russia/the SAA is supposed to be providing air support to the ground forces in the first place. We don't wanna be flying our planes in the same place Russia/Assad is, we've largely managed to avoid that by sticking to the North/Northeast part of Syria. Honestly, with Russian planes having bombed the New Syrian Army, Russia/Assad should be grateful we haven't taken retaliatory potshots at the SAA. We're certainly not going to help them out with some dumbass ill-fated advance that anyone with half a brain could tell was gonna fail anyway. You don't make that kind of salient without being ready for exactly what just happened: a retaliatory attack by ISIL. The SAA was totally unready. I mean goddamn, the YPG/SDF has been way more professional than the SAA, and the SDF started off as a bunch of loving militias: https://twitter.com/ChuckPfarrer/status/745272931908001792 quote:MANBIJ: 21 JUN 2016. 1130 EDT. Manbij Urban TacMap. 13 coalition airstrikes rock Daesh tactical units.  The key is that the SDF does not overextend into hostile territory, they go slowly. Notice how the SDF is slowly forcing ISIL into thin salients in the southwest part of the city, they're doing exactly the opposite of what the SAA did. Also take note that the M4 highway runs along the southern part of Manbij, and that's what the SDF is going for first. Logistics is very important, and getting full control of the M4 will really help in future offensives. E: Have an old map that shows all of North Syria:  That green line in the north from Aleppo to Qamishli is the M4. Notice how it goes right through Al Bab? Notice how it's a straight shot from Al Bab to Afrin Canton? The M4 is going to be the lifeblood of Rojava, it goes through basically all of Kobani and Cizire Cantons. fade5 fucked around with this message at 22:15 on Jun 21, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2016 21:57
|
|
|
Will continued military gently caress ups by the Syrian government do anything to hurt Assad?
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2016 22:13
|
|
|
fade5 posted:Well right now the US is busy with both Manbij and Fallujah, so a lot of our planes are already busy blowing up ISIL positions. Oh yeah, Russia and Syria totally hosed up, and they deserve all the blame for this specific incident. That level of incompetence is staggering. It's just amazing to me that ISIS is even a coherent enough entity at this point to carry out operations in four or five theaters at the same time. In general terms I can't help feeling like we should have gotten more serious about unleashing the Kurds some time ago and rolling up ISIS sooner. If anti-terror is actually the main US priority in the region, allowing Turkey to stand in the way of that for so long even as they've openly supported Al Qaeda and tacitly (at least) supported ISIS is kind of mindblowing. Obama's been clear about not considering terrorism to be an existential threat though, so I guess it makes sense that he takes a longer view, as he probably doesn't actually consider anti-terror to be the top US priority. Maybe he's right and I'm just being emotionally short-sighted after seeing possibly the worst entity in the world score another victory, I don't know. There's still a difference between us bombing the army of the government still technically recognized by the UN and Russia, at the behest of that technically legitimate government, and bombing an invading force backed by the US, even if we don't like it. Beyond that, the American people have no desire whatsoever to get in a shooting war with Russia, particularly over a country like Syria--Russia continues to get their way because they have more at stake there than we do and we don't want to push them into a corner and risk a bigger confrontation than it's worth. I think Obama's definitely made the right call not to escalate there. Dr Kool-AIDS fucked around with this message at 22:17 on Jun 21, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2016 22:13
|
|
|
Shimrra Jamaane posted:Why does Russia have such a hard on for the Syrian regime again? Is it all about making sure that they have naval access to the Mediterranean? I'm very aware of how that's been a Russian geopolitical priority for literally three hundred years because otherwise they'd be trapped in the Black Sea. But there's got to be more to it than that. Is it also an outlet for Putin to swing his dick against the West? To try and pretend that they have 21st century military force projection? Everyone has an answer for this, and an answer for how far Russia will go to protect Assad, but ultimately, it all boils down to speculation. We're not privy to discussions in the Kremlin. Sinteres posted:I can't help thinking the US, like every other faction, has been willing to tolerate ISIS at times as long as they're frustrating other adversaries. ISIS gets one counterattack in against the flow of the war in an area that is Russian jurisdiction, and suddenly, the US and ISIS are in cahoots. Don't make the mistake of thinking the US military is omnipotent, and every negative development is due to choice. Never attribute to malice, etc etc. Volkerball fucked around with this message at 23:10 on Jun 21, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2016 23:05
|
|
|
Volkerball posted:ISIS gets one counterattack in against the flow of the war in an area that is Russian jurisdiction, and suddenly, the US and ISIS are in cahoots. Don't make the mistake of thinking the US military is omnipotent, and every negative development is due to choice. Never attribute to malice, etc etc. That's fair and I'm probably overreacting a bit, but the general frustration that they continue to hold territory this long into the campaign against them is very frustrating. I get that the situation in Syria in particular is very complicated, and that forcing the Taliban into hiding very quickly in the war in Afghanistan didn't prove to be a long-term solution either, but their continuing ability to hold cities and move vehicles through open terrain is just more than I would have expected a US opponent could do in 2016, even when we're only striking from the air. It kind of makes me wonder why Serbia wasn't able to hold Kosovo.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2016 23:15
|
|
|
Sinteres posted:That's fair and I'm probably overreacting a bit, but the general frustration that they continue to hold territory this long into the campaign against them is very frustrating. I get that the situation in Syria in particular is very complicated, and that forcing the Taliban into hiding very quickly in the war in Afghanistan didn't prove to be a long-term solution either, but their continuing ability to hold cities and move vehicles through open terrain is just more than I would have expected a US opponent could do in 2016, even when we're only striking from the air. Yeah, but you have to remember that ISIS as a group has a hell of a lot of experience when it comes to keeping their head above water in the face of US strikes. When they're bombed for ten years straight, they're bound to start seeing what works and what doesn't. How to blend in with civilians and things like that. I'd rather err on the side of caution than just carpet bomb the areas they work out of, because the latter will turn public opinion hard against the US, which benefits ISIS. Especially since generally, the war has gone pretty sour for ISIS over the last year and a half. As of right now, you don't really see a whole lot of condemnation for the US out of Syria, except for from regime held areas, where the US isn't even operating. That's really important to maintain.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2016 23:21
|
|
|
Volkerball posted:ISIS gets one counterattack in against the flow of the war in an area that is Russian jurisdiction, and suddenly, the US and ISIS are in cahoots. Don't make the mistake of thinking the US military is omnipotent, and every negative development is due to choice. Never attribute to malice, etc etc. If the SAA want to continue sticking with Russia, well that's their choice, nothing the US can do about it.  Volkerball posted:Yeah, but you have to remember that ISIS as a group has a hell of a lot of experience when it comes to keeping their head above water in the face of US strikes. When they're bombed for ten years straight, they're bound to start seeing what works and what doesn't. How to blend in with civilians and things like that. I'd rather err on the side of caution than just carpet bomb the areas they work out of, because the latter will turn public opinion hard against the US, which benefits ISIS. Especially since generally, the war has gone pretty sour for ISIS over the last year and a half. As of right now, you don't really see a whole lot of condemnation for the US out of Syria, except for from regime held areas, where the US isn't even operating. That's really important to maintain.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2016 23:35
|
|
|
Imagine what could have been if after 911 we had taken a similar approach to Afghanistan.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2016 23:50
|
|
|
fade5 posted:hopefully it also means that ISIL will stay gone once US special forces leave, because those local forces will ensure we're not leaving behind a power vacuum. It's not the absence of power that allows ISIS to thrive, although a weakened central authority can certainly be a component. It's the misuse of it. The tyranny of Maliki and Assad, the US occupation, etc. Ultimately whether ISIS stays gone, or something else new steps up to take its place, will depend on the SDF and the YPG, and their administration of Arab areas following ISIS losses. I'm not quite sure how that's going to play out just yet.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2016 23:52
|
|
|
Speaking of Afghanistan apparently Taliban have been infiltrating police forces and killing hundreds of police by training and dispatching the police's young boy sex slaves to kill them from the inside.
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2016 01:15
|
|
|
Jagchosis posted:Speaking of Afghanistan apparently Taliban have been infiltrating police forces and killing hundreds of police by training and dispatching the police's young boy sex slaves to kill them from the inside. the sad thing is that doesnt even surprised me. some Afghanistan/pashtune customes are hosed up and the taliban/isis take advantage it. Sinteres posted:It never ceases to be amazing to me how ISIS manages to fight on so many fronts, especially after every confident prediction that they're finally losing for real this time. Even considering the fact that the US is only fighting directly with air power, it seems like we have to have the capability to disrupt their movements more than we've actually done, particularly when it comes to things that couldn't possibly be civilian targets like operational tanks. I can't help thinking the US, like every other faction, has been willing to tolerate ISIS at times as long as they're frustrating other adversaries. Probaly a mix of mercs, old hardended fighters and foreign canon fodder. fade5 posted:God drat the SAA ate it hard on this one: Good, let the russians and the SAA bleed men and material in retardedly led offensives, maybe a coup will happen and assad will die. Shimrra Jamaane posted:Why does Russia have such a hard on for the Syrian regime again? Is it all about making sure that they have naval access to the Mediterranean? I'm very aware of how that's been a Russian geopolitical priority for literally three hundred years because otherwise they'd be trapped in the Black Sea. But there's got to be more to it than that. Is it also an outlet for Putin to swing his dick against the West? To try and pretend that they have 21st century military force projection? Probaly its mix of syria being one of the last og russian allies in the region and putin trying to prove his nation is still militarily strong. honestly i feel like russia will go full afganistan again at some point if they go any deeper.
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2016 01:44
|
|
|
Dapper_Swindler posted:
While I agree it was bone chilling reading about ISIS devastate an offensive force as thoroughly as they apparently have done. It reads like when they first emerged a few years ago right down to the stupidity of their opponent allowing ISIS to score a knockout blow. Out of any faction they can score a win against it may as well be the SAA because it weakens them for any of their shenanigans they might pull against the SDF. quote:
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/jun/21/eu-to-extend-sanctions-against-russia http://www.ibtimes.com/russia-economy-2016-no-gdp-growth-expected-amid-low-oil-prices-sanctions-government-2357358 Russia must be bleeding badly from the sanctions and they don't have the ability to back down without looking weak and yet the situation in Syria is not allowing them to negotiate from a position of strength. The economic toll of sending thousands of soldier is enough of a burden on a crippled economy and every day it's becoming clearer that Russia support != American support. I think the last thing they'll do is launch a full on invasion across an ocean.
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2016 02:17
|
|
|
Brother Friendship posted:
I am sure i will poo poo for this, but its also because russia is a 100000% worse at COIN and Hearts and minds campaigns then the US. the just kill and bomb anything that doesn't have a stobe and drop white phoserous on hospitals/etc.
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2016 02:23
|
|
|
Dapper_Swindler posted:I am sure i will poo poo for this, but its also because russia is a 100000% worse at COIN and Hearts and minds campaigns then the US. the just kill and bomb anything that doesn't have a stobe and drop white phoserous on hospitals/etc. I'm not sure we can say that. They lost in Afghanistan blowing everything to gently caress, but we're losing in Afghanistan too, with a far superior military than they had. They may or may not lose Syria, but we more or less lost Iraq, and if Russia loses in Syria it'll probably be because groups unacceptable to us take Assad's place. It just may be that the ability to project power isn't as important as it used to be, regardless of the approach taken. That said, I suspect we'd have a higher likelihood of winning our wars with something closer to a Full Evil approach than a careful surgical approach, though the moral and diplomatic costs still make that an unacceptable approach in the absence of existential threats. I also think that precision munitions have arguably been a bit of a trap, because the expectation of very minimal civilian casualties that they provided were unrealistically low, to the point where strikes once considered justified with non-precision munitions are no longer acceptable even with them. I mean I'm personally glad we aren't killing tons of civilians, so there's obviously a moral good here; I'm just skeptical about the idea that our attempts at making war humane have somehow made us more effective at the same time even though we don't win wars anymore. Of course we're even more casualty averse when it comes to our own troops, and spend unbelievable amounts of money trying to prevent that, so that's arguably the bigger reason we lose wars now. Particularly in combination, it's hard to beat an enemy that values their lives far less than you value yours, especially if you aren't willing to inflict unholy amounts of devastation on them to even out the calculation. Dr Kool-AIDS fucked around with this message at 02:39 on Jun 22, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2016 02:37
|
|
|
Sinteres posted:I'm not sure we can say that. They lost in Afghanistan blowing everything to gently caress, but we're losing in Afghanistan too, with a far superior military than they had. They may or may not lose Syria, but we more or less lost Iraq, and if Russia loses in Syria it'll probably be because groups unacceptable to us take Assad's place. It just may be that the ability to project power isn't as important as it used to be, regardless of the approach taken. That said, I suspect we'd have a higher likelihood of winning our wars with something closer to a Full Evil approach than a careful surgical approach, though the moral and diplomatic costs still make that an unacceptable approach in the absence of existential threats. I also think that precision munitions have arguably been a bit of a trap, because the expectation of very minimal civilian casualties that they provided were unrealistically low, to the point where strikes once considered justified with non-precision munitions are no longer acceptable even with them. I mean I'm personally glad we aren't killing tons of civilians, so there's obviously a moral good here; I'm just skeptical about the idea that our attempts at making war humane have somehow made us more effective at the same time even though we don't win wars anymore. Iraq is the obvious counterpoint. From 2004-2007 the US basically tried kill em all and let god sort em out, and things only got more and more unstable. From 2007 on, they swapped to a more nuanced strategy that adapted to the situation on the ground and attempted to work with the people there rather than through them, and a shitload of progress was made over the next few years. The problem arises when you're dealing with a force that is attempting to prop up a proxy force, when that proxy force is facing mass dissent. That's often an unwinnable fight, and a lot of strategists tend to fall into the "I'm a hammer, so everything is a nail" mindset when that situation arises. But there's no force in the world right now that's capable of using that strategy successfully when an ideas time has come. You need to be more flexible than that. The US I think is gradually learning that given the progression we've seen in different strategies in Iraq and elsewhere, although there's no shortage of people who are still advocating for treating everything like a nail. And those types could easily gain power and influence in foreign policy circles, and push those sort of old school strategies. So in that sense we have made progress but regression is quite possible. But Russia's calculation has generally been that they just need to hit the nail harder, and that's a big part of the reason why their most recent military excursions have seemed to blow up in their faces.
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2016 02:54
|
|
|
Sinteres posted:It never ceases to be amazing to me how ISIS manages to fight on so many fronts, especially after every confident prediction that they're finally losing for real this time. Even considering the fact that the US is only fighting directly with air power, it seems like we have to have the capability to disrupt their movements more than we've actually done I can't ever recall the US intervening to protect the SAA or NDF from ISIS, and... well, why would they? There's no reason for them to do so, and it's more or less impossible to provide effective CAS for people you can't communicate with anyway.
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2016 03:19
|
|
|
Dapper_Swindler posted:I am sure i will poo poo for this, but its also because russia is a 100000% worse at COIN and Hearts and minds campaigns then the US. the just kill and bomb anything that doesn't have a stobe and drop white phoserous on hospitals/etc. Well that is how they won Chechnya for the most part. But then Chechnya is alot closer to Moscow.
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2016 03:40
|
|
|
It's interesting that Donetsk war criminal Igor Girkin is tweeting about SAA defeats in syria.
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2016 04:04
|
|
|
Crowsbeak posted:Well that is how they won Chechnya for the most part. But then Chechnya is alot closer to Moscow. Yeah, but Chechnya is a much smaller group of people (largely due to previous Russian governments wiping out 90% of the population). And if Chechnya is what winning looks like I'd rather lose.
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2016 04:20
|
|
|
Schizotek posted:Yeah, but Chechnya is a much smaller group of people (largely due to previous Russian governments wiping out 90% of the population). And if Chechnya is what winning looks like I'd rather lose. Ramzan Kadyrov is an unending source of entertainment and dissidents disappearing into torture prisons before he executes them with his ridiculous golden gun .
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2016 04:37
|
|
|
Looks like the entire 555th special forces regiment got taken out when the line collapsed. This is almost Iraqi levels of incompetence.
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2016 09:17
|
|
|
slavatuvs posted:Looks like the entire 555th special forces regiment got taken out when the line collapsed. Relevant again https://youtu.be/Ra7mHzBodvM
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2016 09:21
|
|
|
Shimrra Jamaane posted:Imagine what could have been if after 911 we had taken a similar approach to Afghanistan. Isn't the entire reason this is working because we have such a dependable, palatable ally in the SDF? I could be wrong, but I seem to remember one of the big hang-ups in Afghanistan being that there was nobody good to work with on the ground. Government officials were in the Taliban's pocket, local warlords wanted us to look the other way while they snatched up young boys, and the Afghani forces on the ground were terrible to begin with. I mean, I'm not saying Afghanistan was impossible, I'm just saying that after 30-40 years of the US and Russia taking turns buttfucking the country, dependable allies on the ground to help fight against the Taliban were not exactly easy to find. And I'm sure they got a lot harder to find after we started loving over the translators who worked with us by denying or prolonging their visa applications. 
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2016 09:25
|
|
|
Captain Bravo posted:Isn't the entire reason this is working because we have such a dependable, palatable ally in the SDF? I could be wrong, but I seem to remember one of the big hang-ups in Afghanistan being that there was nobody good to work with on the ground. Government officials were in the Taliban's pocket, local warlords wanted us to look the other way while they snatched up young boys, and the Afghani forces on the ground were terrible to begin with. There was the Northern Alliance. They weren't perfect, far from it, but they were the best and most palatable option. But of course, the Talibans assassinated Massoud shortly before 9/11, taking the option off the table.
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2016 10:25
|
|
|
Shimrra Jamaane posted:Imagine what could have been if after 911 we had taken a similar approach to Afghanistan.
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2016 11:17
|
|
|
slavatuvs posted:Looks like the entire 555th special forces regiment got taken out when the line collapsed. Source? Not doubting you, btw, just want to see more info if there's any. e: Manbij map update:  Also, does anybody have the links anymore from a few weeks (or months?) ago when those guys on Twitter (or Reddit, can't remember) were providing coordinates to the Russian MoD for air strikes and were getting non-Nusra people blown up? Dusty Baker 2 fucked around with this message at 13:41 on Jun 22, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2016 11:34
|
|
|
Dusty Baker 2 posted:Source? Not doubting you, btw, just want to see more info if there's any. The regiment was cut off and surrounded, there has been no news about it since. I don't think they could last very long on a highway in the middle of the desert vs suicide trucks. Pro-Assad twits now claim they didn't lose the regiment because it never existed! https://twitter.com/AboZain6/status/745555360543444992 quote:there is no such thing as regiment 555, my friend there is nothing in the Syrian army named 555!
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2016 13:40
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 3, 2024 11:06 |
|
|
slavatuvs posted:
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2016 13:44
|
|