|
Human Grand Prix posted:The Syrian Army did not have any tanks that could be considered modern at that time. The aircraft and pilots that they were losing were far from decent - Mig-21s and Mig-23s and whatever lovely Sukhoi Fitter variants they were flying would be mediocre by 1980s Standards, much less now. They keep their modern planes (Mig-29s) near Damacus and in Latakia I think you are exaggerating the security of the regime in 2015 or at least people’s impressions of its security at the time. There are many articles from the time in which the authors say that it looks like it’s going to collapse or at least continue to retreat. Too easy with hindsight to say everything would turn out as it did.
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2018 17:31
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 24, 2024 19:55 |
|
|
Squalid posted:I think you are exaggerating the security of the regime in 2015 or at least people’s impressions of its security at the time. There are many articles from the time in which the authors say that it looks like it’s going to collapse or at least continue to retreat. Too easy with hindsight to say everything would turn out as it did. The SAA was obviously on the back foot around 2014-2015, however, it is unclear if the opposition would have actually been able to take West Aleppo considering SAA air superiority. One thing that should be kept in mind is while the rebels were on the offensive in the countryside, most urban areas (and the population) remained in SAA hands and opposition would have likely had to take lengthy street battles (such as the breakthrough in SW Aleppo) in order to take those areas. I think the most likely result would have been a long battle of attrition (more than even the current war). As for T-72s, some were old models in storage, others were models that had been upgraded. There were T-72 Urals fighting alongside T-72a/bs and some Italian upgraded T-72s. Supposedly some T-72B3s were being sent there (late 2016/early 2017). Also, there were still a bunch of T-55s and T-62s out there as well. (Btw it should be mentioned that Russia is upgrading its T90a to the T90M standard (which includes protected ammo storage) and their T-72s to the T-72B3M standard).
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2018 20:39
|
|
|
Human Grand Prix posted:The Syrian Army did not have any tanks that could be considered modern at that time. The aircraft and pilots that they were losing were far from decent - Mig-21s and Mig-23s and whatever lovely Sukhoi Fitter variants they were flying would be mediocre by 1980s Standards, much less now. They keep their modern planes (Mig-29s) near Damacus and in Latakia I might be misremembering the timeline, but I do recall some discussion that in late 2015, with Aleppo under siege, Assad might need to abandon keeping forces stranded in various corners of the country and focus on defending Latakia and Damascus. You're right, Syria didn't have a modern arsenal of tanks and airplanes, but the best they had was being conserved because they were overextended (as you mentioned). I couldn't find the articles but I think it was Bellingcat or Onyx posted about the tank repairs of the T-72s which were getting hit a lot by ATGMs which at the time were flowing very liberally to the rebels. Wasn't the SAA airforce also overstretched from a repair and parts perspective? Lots and lots of bombing runs that resulted mostly in general destruction (like the barrel bombs) but that weren't helping targeted offenses, the way the Coalition or Russian bombs can. The FSA was hopelessly disorganized politically, so you're right that it's not like a consolidated military victory for the rebels was months away. But I remember reading this and thinking the country was definitely going to split up, maybe it's a hack piece: http://www.understandingwar.org/report/army-all-corners-assads-campaign-strategy-syria But this is all just armchair musing.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2018 20:40
|
|
|
A lot of it comes down to "armchairing" the Battle of Aleppo and which side was going to get a final advantage in that fight. I could see the SAA losing more of the countryside, but the question would become the cities themselves.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2018 20:45
|
|
|
Saladin Rising posted:The YPG's anti-terror group (the YAT) prevented a really horrible massacre of civilians from happening: https://www.reddit.com/r/syriancivilwar/comments/7o34cw/antiterror_units_yat_dismantled_a_group_of_is_in/ As hosed up as typical IS shitbags. They're evil at a level that would give cartoon supervillains pause.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2018 21:07
|
|
|
The US is suspending "security" aid to Pakistan. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/04/us/politics/trump-pakistan-aid.html Its strange that seemingly out of nowhere Trump was tweeting about Fatah and this same poo poo: we pay you, you don't do good things. I wonder if Trump was conflating Palestine and Pakistan there.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2018 22:15
|
|
|
Count Roland posted:I wonder if Trump was conflating Palestine and Pakistan there. That makes too much sense for the way that the pile of worm-infested onion dip Trump calls a brain works.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2018 22:22
|
|
|
Count Roland posted:The US is suspending "security" aid to Pakistan. This sentence hurt to think, and its gonna hurt worse to write: This is a fairly coherent and consistent line of out Trump, tbqh. At least in a Trumpy kinda way. Ever since The Escalator he has consistently demonstrated a Facebook Dad level of understanding of events where We Pay Good Money For X, and we expect X, despite the fact that nothing in life on any level is quite that simple or unaffected by externalities because AmericaTM is an increasingly literal stand-in for the narcissism and schizoid psychosis of the kind of American who hews center/right in 2018 AD. It's still dumb! But its consistently dumb.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2018 22:26
|
|
|
Also, lets admit that $255m is relative chump change to our overall security spending, especially since we are stuck in Afganistan. I would say it is both believably stupid and also probably the worse thing to do in the situation in geopolitical terms. (Pakistan can be horrible (etc etc) and it doesn't change the fact we need absolutely need influence in and access to the country.)
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2018 22:36
|
|
|
Not to mention we need to go through it to get things into and out of Afghanistan.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2018 23:41
|
|
|
Ardennes posted:Also, lets admit that $255m is relative chump change to our overall security spending, especially since we are stuck in Afganistan. $255mil was what we delayed paying in August. The article states we're freezing $1.3 billion.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2018 00:01
|
|
|
Mozi posted:Not to mention we need to go through it to get things into and out of Afghanistan. Nah, there's a lot of other ways into Afghanistan, such as through Iran, or through Turkmenistan, or even through China! No?
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2018 00:19
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/AxelMerk/status/948909960422858752
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2018 00:38
|
|
|
I mean, Pakistan is still keeping the Taliban around, and Obama had to send a strike team into Pakistan to take out bin laden. Its been over 15 years since the war on terror began, I can see Trump getting mad and just cutting off the security money since it seems to be doing nothing.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2018 00:53
|
|
|
Pharohman777 posted:I mean, Pakistan is still keeping the Taliban around, and Obama had to send a strike team into Pakistan to take out bin laden. lol
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2018 01:20
|
|
|
Pharohman777 posted:I mean, Pakistan is still keeping the Taliban around, and Obama had to send a strike team into Pakistan to take out bin laden. You (or trump I guess, to be more accurate) aren't seeing the poo poo that hasn't been happening for all of this time because we're bribing some key folk in the ISI. e; oh fine I GUESS I'll capitalize. Willie Tomg fucked around with this message at 01:45 on Jan 5, 2018 |
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2018 01:36
|
|
|
OhFunny posted:$255mil was what we delayed paying in August. The article states we're freezing $1.3 billion. It still isn't optional spending when we are still spending billions on Afganistan and are now sending even more soldiers there. If you want to pull out of Afganistan (fine...) this would be a little more logical, but if the US is going to stay, it isn't going to work with a hostile Pakistan. Ardennes fucked around with this message at 02:13 on Jan 5, 2018 |
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2018 01:44
|
|
|
Meanwhile, in Egypt... https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2018/01/04/egyptian-parliament-considers-outlawing-atheism/1005441001/
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2018 02:11
|
|
|
Cat Mattress posted:Meanwhile, in Egypt... I think it makes sense, they got to find a way to get the religious crowd on the regime's side after the Jerusalem announcement. It is the kitchen sink approach.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2018 02:15
|
|
|
Cat Mattress posted:Meanwhile, in Egypt... Let's support a secular strongman, it's the only way to stop religious fundamentalism.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2018 03:24
|
|
|
Ardennes posted:It still isn't optional spending when we are still spending billions on Afganistan and are now sending even more soldiers there. If you want to pull out of Afganistan (fine...) this would be a little more logical, but if the US is going to stay, it isn't going to work with a hostile Pakistan. Indeed. Would be real funny if the Afghanistan War ends under the Trump Presidency because Pakistan cuts off our ability to resupply. https://twitter.com/Reuters/status/949005039519006721 Oh and we did this too today.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2018 03:32
|
|
|
Somehow I suspect being on that list isn't going to stop any arms shipments to the Saudis.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2018 03:43
|
|
|
The Saudis also good put on the list amusing.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2018 03:46
|
|
|
OhFunny posted:https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/948548807612084224 https://twitter.com/Joyce_Karam/status/949009993336020994 Was this supposed to be that support?
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2018 03:48
|
|
|
Are the protests in Iran still ongoing?
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2018 04:58
|
|
|
This tiff with Pakistan is particularly relevant now as I suspect we are going to see a major increase in the tempo of U.S. military operations in Afghanistan. For the last several years the US strategy has been to lose slowly, but sooner or later we will reach a tipping point at which the US must choose to double down or give up. With operations against ISIS in Syria and Iraq winding down, those assets will be freed up for use in Afghanistan. For reference, as of October the US air force had dropped 3,238 bombs in Afghanistan during 2017. By contrast in the same period the air force dropped 36,351 bombs in Iraq and Syria. Today the Taliban frequently release footage of themselves conducting military parades, training in the open, besieging government bases for hours, and otherwise making huge targets of themselves. If the US wants to contain the spring offensive its going to need to seriously increase to tempo and scale of activity and that's going to necessity a cooperative Pakistan. Back on Syria 2017 saw a continuation of the decline in violence, with fewer deaths occurring than in any other year since 2011.  This decline is likely to continue through 2018, however the scale of the decline is going to be contingent on many unknowns. Will relations between the regime and Syrian Democratic forces break down? Will Turkey move to further intervene in Idlib? Is the regime going to move seriously to reoccupy Idlib and the other opposition pockets? Will the US continue to protect the YPG? So much seems to swing on the unknowable whims of Erdogan, Trump, and Assad. Anyone willing to offer some bold predictions?
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2018 05:26
|
|
|
I think Assad will undoubtedly attempt (at least) to collapse the remaining pockets including Ildib. Erdogan himself is a bit of a wild card though, and he often vacillates between implicating accepting or rejecting Assad's rule. It seems relatively clear the rebels around Ildib are only able to fight with at least he passive acceptance of Erdogan, but it is unclear if he will take serious action to save them if the pocket looking like it will collapse. Also, Turkey has its own ongoing operations in Syria to worry about and it seems they foremost priority is still the YPG. As for the fate of the YPG it is difficult to predict without more information since the players are probably going to be reacting to the actions of each over. On Afganistan, I don't know how the war is going to work without Pakistan, especially if they close their airspace. We can pour more troops into it, but certainly, more militants can also flow across the border and may have a more secure base of operations in Pakistan. The ANA is still a trainwreck, and if the US wanted to "take back" Afganistan we are going to have to put ourselves back to a war-footing and even then I think much of the mountainous regions would remain contested. Also, I am sure most of the other major actor in the region (Iran/Russia/China) have no desire to see the US victorious in Afganistan and would certainly try to "fine-tune" the situation to keep us there forever. I don't think India is really interested in being involved either.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2018 05:48
|
|
|
OhFunny posted:Indeed. Would be real funny if the Afghanistan War ends under the Trump Presidency because Pakistan cuts off our ability to resupply. There are like 2M Christians in Pakistan, so I guess the angle for the next future war is secured, after all the supposed goal of protecting Christians in Syria was enough to sell plenty of Americans on a possible intervention there. (I know the US won't actually attack Pakistan under any pretense) (actually I lie to myself about knowing that)
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2018 09:08
|
|
|
Cat Mattress posted:Nah, there's a lot of other ways into Afghanistan, such as through Iran, or through Turkmenistan, or even through China! No? Not quite sure if this was a joke or not but just to be safe, if we are hoping to scale up our involvement in Afghanistan, there is no other option but to go through Pakistan. Yes technically you can reach the country through other means but I sincerely doubt we will be running our logistics and supply lines through Iran any time soon. (Into Iran, well, I hope not...)
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2018 15:06
|
|
|
Mozi posted:Not quite sure if this was a joke or not It's a suggestion to base the US military in Iran or China. What do you think.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2018 15:48
|
|
|
The Soviet Union also bordered Afghanistan, so let's help Putin do what he really wants to do and then get him to help us in Afghanistan in return.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2018 15:50
|
|
|
Cat Mattress posted:It's a suggestion to base the US military in Iran or China. What do you think. I think there are so many ridiculous things happening and bad opinions flying all over the place that I'm no longer able to distinguish a joke told with a straight face from the massive pile of poo poo that's flowing over everything these days.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2018 15:59
|
|
|
Mozi posted:I think there are so many ridiculous things happening and bad opinions flying all over the place that I'm no longer able to distinguish a joke told with a straight face from the massive pile of poo poo that's flowing over everything these days. it owns doesnt it
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2018 16:18
|
|
|
Willie Tomg posted:You (or trump I guess, to be more accurate) aren't seeing the poo poo that hasn't been happening for all of this time because we're bribing some key folk in the ISI. What hasn't been happening? The taliban, TTP and islamic extremism in general are alive and thriving in both Pakistan and Afghanistan with plenty of support from the ISI despite the rhetoric during Zarb e Azb.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2018 16:24
|
|
|
tekz posted:What hasn't been happening? The taliban, TTP and islamic extremism in general are alive and thriving in both Pakistan and Afghanistan with plenty of support from the ISI despite the rhetoric during Zarb e Azb. You can get tough with the Pakistani government but what could you possibly hope to accomplish?
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2018 16:47
|
|
|
Cat Mattress posted:Nah, there's a lot of other ways into Afghanistan, such as through Iran, or through Turkmenistan, or even through China! No?
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2018 18:36
|
|
|
 
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2018 20:00
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/ReutersWorld/status/949373287947173889
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2018 21:25
|
|
|
Doncep Erdogump is visiting Emmanuald Macrump http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/01/05/eu-must-end-hypocrisy-letting-turkey-think-can-become-full-member/
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2018 21:47
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 24, 2024 19:55 |
|
|
Sufism Empire? Is that a thing now?
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2018 22:16
|
|
