ISIS in Iraq and Syria

Speaking of SAA gains against ISIS, they're advancing into Al-Tabqah, south-west of Ar-Raqqa, essentially trapping ISIS from the western and Southern front.

But apparently the SAA don't fight ISIS or Al Nusra, must be some misguided rogues :wenger:
 
I'm sure everyone who has previously condemned hospitals getting hit will also condemn this action.
1- Interesting, because I didn't see you in the Yemen thread. Well I did see you, but you weren't there to condemn more than 100 hospitals being hit by your ally.. Hmmmm.

2- Nobody there (in the Yemen thread) was actually there to "condemn" these actions, the (very) few people who cared enough to show up there actually condemned the fact that the people who consistently condemn every rumour about a hospital being hit in Syria, still don't seem to care the tiniest bit when tens of hospitals are hit in Yemen.

But if you're now (again) willing to condemn hospitals being hit, we welcome you in the Yemen thread, where you can take your discussion if you want to talk about it.
 
Deadly air strikes hit hospitals in northern Syria
At least 23 people killed in suspected Russian raids on two hospitals and a school in provinces of Aleppo and Idlib.


At least 23 people have been killed and dozens others injured in air strikes and rocket attacks on a school and two hospitals in separate locations in northern Syria, Al Jazeera has learned.

In the deadliest incident, at least 14 people were killed and about 30 injured when air strikes and rocket artillery damaged parts of a hospital in the town of Azaz in Aleppo province, the media office at the rebel-controlled Aleppo local council said on Monday.

In the same raid, a school where refugees were sheltering was also hit. No death toll has been confirmed.

Turkish Prime Minister Ahmet Davutoglu said in a news conference in Kiev on Monday that a Russian balistic missile hit the school and hospital in Azaz.

The head of the media office, Abu Thaer al-Halabi, told Al Jazeera that a section of a highway that facilitates the main supply line for humanitarian aid to the region was destroyed in the raids.

Halabi also said the strikes were carried out by Russian fighter jets.

MSF hospital hit
Meanwhile, suspected Russian air strikes also targeted a hospital run by Doctors Without Borders (MSF) in the town of Maaret al-Numan in Idlib province, killing at least nine people, including a child, the UK-based Syrian Observatory for Human Rights reported on Monday.

A spokesman for the Syria Civil Defence in Idlib confirmed that the hospital was hit but said four people were killed.

"At least four people have been killed while several others have been injured. We expect the death toll to rise. There are doctors and MSF staff missing," Radi said, without stating his full name.


At least 13 people were reportedly injured in the strikes, as rescue workers were trying to reach several people buried under the rubble.

"Extreme damage has been caused to the hospital. Six floors have been almost reduced to rubble. This hospital is located in an area previously surrounded by restaurants and has no rebel strongholds. It has been functioning for over a year now," Radi said.

MSF condemned the attack in a report released on Monday.

"This appears to be a deliberate attack on a health structure, and we condemn this attack in the strongest possible terms," said Massimiliano Rebaudengo, MSF's head of mission.

"The destruction of the hospital leaves the local population of around 40,000 people without access to medical services in an active zone of conflict," Massimiliano said.






I know it's important to keep up to date with all that's going on, but isn't this the sort of information that is breeding the hatred of ISIS?

I'd rather the media keep all what's going on quiet.
 
I know it's important to keep up to date with all that's going on, but isn't this the sort of information that is breeding the hatred of ISIS?

I'd rather the media keep all what's going on quiet.

Its a bit more complicated than that.

Turkey and Saudi Arabia have been committing similar attacks in Northern Syria and Yemen respectively yet there's not a single ISIS fighter in Turkey or Saudi - on the contrary they seem to come from or pass through those countries but never stick around.
 
They're all obstacles

I don't know about that. Russia is going to beget peace at the muzzle of a gun. In the best tradition of American diplomacy. Or is it bad peace if it comes from a Russian gun, and good peace if it comes from an American gun?

I know your answer Raoul ;p
 
I know it's important to keep up to date with all that's going on, but isn't this the sort of information that is breeding the hatred of ISIS?

I'd rather the media keep all what's going on quiet.
Not really. The real solution is for the media to expose the other side of the story. To let the world see the reality of this "revolution". Let the world for example see how the children in the "free Idlib" (after its fall was celebrated by many in the West as a great victory!) are being raised right now...



Just let the people see how and why this "revolution" managed to unite Sunnis, Alawites, Druze, Christians, Kurds, Shia against them, but still shamelessly try to claim they represent "freedom and democracy". Let them see why many of the people who supported them in the beginning are giving up on them now (after what they saw from them). The right approach is actually to report everything.

Of course this won't happen, because they're all propaganda machines, just like all media are, everywhere in the world. The closest you can get to a "neutral" view, is by listening to different propaganda machines, with different political agendas.
 
I don't know about that. Russia is going to beget peace at the muzzle of a gun. In the best tradition of American diplomacy. Or is it bad peace if it comes from a Russian gun, and good peace if it comes from an American gun?

I know your answer Raoul ;p

That's not a lasting peace though is it. You can't hold a population at gunpoint forever, which is why it's crucial to have an international plan for a new government where all major stakeholders except ISIS and the AQ type organizations are a part of the power sharing arrangement. Anything short of that will result in current feedback loop of violence.
 
U.S. officials: Russian airstrikes have changed ‘calculus completely’ in Syria.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/worl...f172c8-cf2f-11e5-b2bc-988409ee911b_story.html

Russian military intervention in Syria has turned the course of that country’s civil war against U.S.-backed rebel groups, increasing the likelihood that Syrian President Bashar al-Assad and his loyalists will remain in power, U.S. intelligence officials testified Tuesday.

The assessment amounts to an acknowledgment by U.S. spy agencies that Russian airstrikes have derailed the Obama administration’s aims of pushing Assad aside as part of a political settlement to the nearly five-year old conflict.

“The Russian reinforcement has changed the calculus completely,” Lt. Gen. Vincent R. Stewart, head of the Defense Intelligence Agency, said in Senate testimony. Assad is “in a much stronger negotiating position than he was just six months ago,” Stewart said. “I’m more inclined to believe that he is a player on the stage longer term than he was six months to a year ago.”

As recently as last summer, U.S. intelligence officials were openly talking about an “endgame” for the Syrian leader, who is also supported by Iran.

Stewart’s remarks came during a pair of Senate hearings on Tuesday that served as a grim survey of the security problems — including cyberattacks, terror threats and failing states — that seem certain to confront the next occupant of the White House.

Among those testifying were Director of National Intelligence James R. Clapper Jr., FBI Director James B. Comey and CIA Director John Brennan, who was making his first public appearance before the Senate Intelligence Committee since the panel issued a scathing 2014 report on the agency’s use of brutal interrogation methods on terrorism suspects.

The lingering tensions behind that Senate probe erupted during a heated exchange Tuesday between Brennan and Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.), who demanded an admission from the CIA chief that his staff had improperly accessed files of Senate investigators combing through agency records.

As Wyden made his case, Brennan bristled, saying, “This is the annual threat assessment, is it not.”

Brennan seemed to be chiding Wyden for raising the computer intrusion issue during a hearing that is annually devoted to examining security threats. But the confrontation only continued, with both men raising their voices.

Ultimately, Brennan admitted “very limited inappropriate actions” by CIA staff but accused Senate investigators of comparable transgressions and came close to shouting at Wyden: “Do not say that we spied on Senate computers or your files! Do not say that!”

Clapper led his testimony with warnings about the nation’s vulnerability to cyberattacks from Russia, China and other adversaries — putting computer-based intrusions at the top of his security-risk list as he has done in recent years.

But Clapper also cited the spread of the Islamic State beyond its base in Syria, recent signals that North Korea remains determined to develop a nuclear weapon capable of striking the United States, and the rising danger that “home-grown” terrorists might launch plots inspired by attacks last year.

“The perceived success” of the attacks in Paris, Chattanooga, Tenn., and San Bernardino, Calif., “might motivate others to replicate opportunistic attacks with little or no warning, diminishing our ability to detect terrorist operational planning and readiness,” Clapper said in testimony submitted to the Senate Intelligence and Armed Services committees.

Despite nearly 15 years of U.S. counterterrorism operations after the Sept. 11 attacks, Clapper said, “there are now more Sunni violent extremist groups, members and safe havens than at any time in history.”

At one point, Clapper described his grim presentation, only half jokingly, as a “litany of doom.”

Clapper’s testimony on Syria came as thousands of civilians have fled that country’s largest city, Aleppo, amid a barrage of Russian airstrikes and advances by regime forces aimed at dislodging rebel factions that had maintained control of much of the city since 2012.

The Russian-backed advances in recent weeks coincided with the collapse of peace talks in Geneva, once seen as key to the Obama administration’s efforts to engineer Assad’s departure as part of a negotiated end to the civil war.

Obama had said that he was “confident that Assad’s days are numbered” during the last presidential election cycle four years ago. The United States has also carried out hundreds of airstrikes, and trained and armed thousands of rebel fighters, in pursuit of that elusive outcome.

Instead, many experts now see moderate groups in Syria as pinned between two more powerful forces: Assad and the Islamic State.

U.S. officials said the terror group continues to draw substantial support from beyond Syria despite territorial setbacks in recent months. The number of foreign fighters who have gone to Syria since the conflict started has surged to 36,500, up from estimates of 20,000 a year ago.

At least 6,600 of those fighters have migrated to Syria from Western nations, Clapper said, compared with 3,400 a year earlier. The Paris attacks, which involved militants who had fought in Syria, were widely regarded as a chilling demonstration of the foreign fighter threat in Europe.

Islamic State-related arrests in the United States surged to 60 in 2015, five times the number a year earlier.

Beyond its military involvement in Syria, Russia has also emerged as an increasingly aggressive adversary of the United States online, Clapper said.

“Russia is assuming a more assertive cyber posture,” Clapper said, adding that Moscow is increasingly willing “to target critical infrastructure systems and conduct espionage operations even when detected and under increased public scrutiny.”

Just days after North Korea launched a satellite into space — a move widely seen as a test of its long-range missile capability — Brennan said that Pyongyang was seeking not only to demonstrate its capability but “showcase” its technology for potential buyers of its missiles and weapons systems.

U.S. officials also said they have seen no indication that Iran is violating any aspect of a multinational agreement reached last year to dismantle aspects of its nuclear program in return for relief from economic sanctions.
 
That's not a lasting peace though is it. You can't hold a population at gunpoint forever, which is why it's crucial to have an international plan for a new government where all major stakeholders except ISIS and the AQ type organizations are a part of the power sharing arrangement. Anything short of that will result in current feedback loop of violence.
Yeah, if we can only ensure the collapse of the state in Syria, Alloush and co will take us to the promise land (the Saudi oil..., I mean freedom, democracy and plurality!).
 
No one cares about Ankara? Gotta say I am really surprised.
 
No one cares about Ankara? Gotta say I am really surprised.
Just heard it now, turns out they were all military targets.

Wouldnt be surprised after all the shelling of Kurdish positions that they'd seek some form of retribution.

Edit: YPG (Syrian Kurds) have denied involvement and the government are blaming the PKK. You couldn't make the timing up either.
 
Last edited:
No one cares about Ankara? Gotta say I am really surprised.

I'd say it's quite predictable. If it isn't on people's doorsteps, they generally don't care. They didn't care about millions of refugees flooding into Turkey until those same refugees decided to go further afield, and now they want to send them back to Turkey because it's the holding ground. This entire thing has been somewhat insightful about Europe's attitude towards Turkey.

Just heard it now, turns out they were all military targets.

Wouldnt be surprised after all the shelling of Kurdish positions that they'd seek some form of retribution.

Edit: YPG (Syrian Kurds) have denied involvement and the government are blaming the PKK. You couldn't make the timing up either.

You can never truly tell with this government. They'd hit themselves if they needed momentum to continue their operations in the east.
 
I'd say it's quite predictable. If it isn't on people's doorsteps, they generally don't care. They didn't care about millions of refugees flooding into Turkey until those same refugees decided to go further afield, and now they want to send them back to Turkey because it's the holding ground. This entire thing has been somewhat insightful about Europe's attitude towards Turkey.

Really? I would have thought it was quite transparent. No matter how hard Turkey pushed the secular angle - most of Europe would never ever consider Turkey to be Europe proper when push came to shove.

In the end Mehmet is still Mohammad.
 
Really? I would have thought it was quite transparent. No matter how hard Turkey pushed the secular angle - most of Europe would never ever consider Turkey to be Europe proper when push came to shove.

In the end Mehmet is still Mohammad.

Wasn't implying that - the sentence means literally what it reads as. Turkey doesn't consider itself European, Europe doesn't consider it European, which explains the wording - "Europe's attitude towards Turkey."

It's pretty amusing to think that Turkey is pushing a secular angle. You're thinking of an older Turkey.
 
It has little to do with “not caring”. I am certain, that most people deplore such terrible acts and that the sympathy is with all the Turks who suffered from terrorism.

That said, Turkish politics of the last years is so bad in so many ways, that such acts are sadly not a surprise. That was not the first attack and it won´t be the last. If you start a war against the biggest minority, while providing safe haven for radical Islamists, you create instability and violence.

The Turkish government also doesn´t tolerate criticism of their actions.

Sooner or later the Syrian insurgency and ISIS will implode and at this point a huge amount of combat-experienced, brutalized extremist, who are armed to their teeth will swap back into Turkey. If Turkey (Erdogan) doesn´t make a sharp turn and change his current misguided course, these kind of incidents will become the new normal. That is a genuinely terrible outlook, but nobody but the Turkish people can change that.
 
It has little to do with “not caring”. I am certain, that most people deplore such terrible acts and that the sympathy is with all the Turks who suffered from terrorism.

That said, Turkish politics of the last years is so bad in so many ways, that such acts are sadly not a surprise. That was not the first attack and it won´t be the last. If you start a war against the biggest minority, while providing safe haven for radical Islamists, you create instability and violence.

The Turkish government also doesn´t tolerate criticism of their actions.

Sooner or later the Syrian insurgency and ISIS will implode and at this point a huge amount of combat-experienced, brutalized extremist, who are armed to their teeth will swap back into Turkey. If Turkey (Erdogan) doesn´t make a sharp turn and change his current misguided course, these kind of incidents will become the new normal. That is a genuinely terrible outlook, but nobody but the Turkish people can change that.

Of course people don't care. Any rational-minded individual would 'deplore such terrible acts', but people naturally prioritize events and if they're relevant to their lives plays a major role in that. It's not that people are informed about Turkish politics to the extent that they can deduce the inevitability of attacks, it's that it's background noise to more pertinent issues in their lives.

That's an interesting point about nobody but the Turkish people changing something. Interesting because there have already been local elections, a presidential election, and two general elections that have kept the AKP firmly in power, albeit through widespread corruption. Turkish people can't change anything because it's not 2013 anymore and the president is firmly entrenched.
 
Wasn't implying that - the sentence means literally what it reads as. Turkey doesn't consider itself European, Europe doesn't consider it European, which explains the wording - "Europe's attitude towards Turkey."

It's pretty amusing to think that Turkey is pushing a secular angle. You're thinking of an older Turkey.

I obviously should have specified I was speaking of Pre-Erdogan Turkey.
 
I obviously should have specified I was speaking of Pre-Erdogan Turkey.

Turkey's biggest steps towards admission into the EU came under Erdoğan, and even then, at its height, Turks never considered themselves European.

This is the reality - Erdoğan doesn't want to be a part of the EU, and he simply used the issue in the early days of his rule to appease the more liberal-minded Turks.
 
Turkey's biggest steps towards admission into the EU came under Erdoğan, and even then, at its height, Turks never considered themselves European.

This is the reality - Erdoğan doesn't want to be a part of the EU, and he simply used the issue in the early days of his rule to appease the more liberal-minded Turks.

I referred to Erdogan with respect to the strict secularism within the Turkish State that was in effect before he and his party came into power. I would have thought wanting to join the EU would have been primarily a economic issue regardless of political leanings.

Anyways - I fear I'm derailing the thread.
 
You can never truly tell with this government. They'd hit themselves if they needed momentum to continue their operations in the east.

I'm not much of a conspiracy theorist but the timing couldn't have been better. If the government can somehow link these attacks to the YPG/SDK in Syria, then they'll use that as justification for a full blown intervention.
 
I referred to Erdogan with respect to the strict secularism within the Turkish State that was in effect before he and his party came into power. I would have thought wanting to join the EU would have been primarily a economic issue regardless of political leanings.

Anyways - I fear I'm derailing the thread.

There are many issues surrounding Turkey and the EU that prevent progress, Turks not considering themselves European just being one of them.

I'm not much of a conspiracy theorist but the timing couldn't have been better. If the government can somehow link these attacks to the YPG/SDK in Syria, then they'll use that as justification for a full blown intervention.

They were angling for a PKK angle when ISIS killed over a hundred people in Ankara. I'd say it's more of a plan to rally support behind operations in eastern Turkey, as Putin would end Erdoğan if he tried a significant move into Syria.
 
The media are misleading the public on Syria.

https://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion...B75otYirPzUCnlwaVtcK/story.html?event=event25

COVERAGE OF the Syrian war will be remembered as one of the most shameful episodes in the history of the American press. Reporting about carnage in the ancient city of Aleppo is the latest reason why.

For three years, violent militants have run Aleppo. Their rule began with a wave of repression. They posted notices warning residents: “Don’t send your children to school. If you do, we will get the backpack and you will get the coffin.” Then they destroyed factories, hoping that unemployed workers would have no recourse other than to become fighters. They trucked looted machinery to Turkey and sold it.

This month, people in Aleppo have finally seen glimmers of hope. The Syrian army and its allies have been pushing militants out of the city. Last week they reclaimed the main power plant. Regular electricity may soon be restored. The militants’ hold on the city could be ending.

Militants, true to form, are wreaking havoc as they are pushed out of the city by Russian and Syrian Army forces. “Turkish-Saudi backed ‘moderate rebels’ showered the residential neighborhoods of Aleppo with unguided rockets and gas jars,” one Aleppo resident wrote on social media. The Beirut-based analyst Marwa Osma asked, “The Syrian Arab Army, which is led by President Bashar Assad, is the only force on the ground, along with their allies, who are fighting ISIS — so you want to weaken the only system that is fighting ISIS?”

This does not fit with Washington’s narrative. As a result, much of the American press is reporting the opposite of what is actually happening. Many news reports suggest that Aleppo has been a “liberated zone” for three years but is now being pulled back into misery.

Americans are being told that the virtuous course in Syria is to fight the Assad regime and its Russian and Iranian partners. We are supposed to hope that a righteous coalition of Americans, Turks, Saudis, Kurds, and the “moderate opposition” will win.

This is convoluted nonsense, but Americans cannot be blamed for believing it. We have almost no real information about the combatants, their goals, or their tactics. Much blame for this lies with our media.

Under intense financial pressure, most American newspapers, magazines, and broadcast networks have drastically reduced their corps of foreign correspondents. Much important news about the world now comes from reporters based in Washington. In that environment, access and credibility depend on acceptance of official paradigms. Reporters who cover Syria check with the Pentagon, the State Department, the White House, and think tank “experts.” After a spin on that soiled carousel, they feel they have covered all sides of the story. This form of stenography produces the pabulum that passes for news about Syria.

Astonishingly brave correspondents in the war zone, including Americans, seek to counteract Washington-based reporting. At great risk to their own safety, these reporters are pushing to find the truth about the Syrian war. Their reporting often illuminates the darkness of groupthink. Yet for many consumers of news, their voices are lost in the cacophony. Reporting from the ground is often overwhelmed by the Washington consensus.

Washington-based reporters tell us that one potent force in Syria, al-Nusra, is made up of “rebels” or “moderates,” not that it is the local al-Qaeda franchise. Saudi Arabia is portrayed as aiding freedom fighters when in fact it is a prime sponsor of ISIS. Turkey has for years been running a “rat line” for foreign fighters wanting to join terror groups in Syria, but because the United States wants to stay on Turkey’s good side, we hear little about it. Nor are we often reminded that although we want to support the secular and battle-hardened Kurds, Turkey wants to kill them. Everything Russia and Iran do in Syria is described as negative and destabilizing, simply because it is they who are doing it — and because that is the official line in Washington.

Inevitably, this kind of disinformation has bled into the American presidential campaign. At the recent debate in Milwaukee, Hillary Clinton claimed that United Nations peace efforts in Syria were based on “an agreement I negotiated in June of 2012 in Geneva.” The precise opposite is true. In 2012 Secretary of State Clinton joined Turkey, Saudi Arabia, and Israel in a successful effort to kill Kofi Annan’s UN peace plan because it would have accommodated Iran and kept Assad in power, at least temporarily. No one on the Milwaukee stage knew enough to challenge her.

Politicians may be forgiven for distorting their past actions. Governments may also be excused for promoting whatever narrative they believe best suits them. Journalism, however, is supposed to remain apart from the power elite and its inbred mendacity. In this crisis it has failed miserably.

Americans are said to be ignorant of the world. We are, but so are people in other countries. If people in Bhutan or Bolivia misunderstand Syria, however, that has no real effect. Our ignorance is more dangerous, because we act on it. The United States has the power to decree the death of nations. It can do so with popular support because many Americans — and many journalists — are content with the official story. In Syria, it is: “Fight Assad, Russia, and Iran! Join with our Turkish, Saudi, and Kurdish friends to support peace!” This is appallingly distant from reality. It is also likely to prolong the war and condemn more Syrians to suffering and death.
 
U.S.-led strikes in Syria kill 38 civilians in past two days: monitor

Let's stop fighting ISIS!

These parts in the article were pretty odd though..
The Syrian Observatory for Human Rights, a British-based monitoring group, said on Thursday that at least 38 civilians were killed in air strikes carried out by a U.S.-led coalition in Hasaka province in northeast Syria in the past two days.

The death toll published by the Observatory, which tracks the war using a network of contacts on the ground, included at least 15 people killed when strikes hit a bakery in the city of al-Shadadi near the border with Iraq on Tuesday.

Air raids in at least three other villages killed 15 others on Thursday, including three children, while eight more civilians died in air strikes elsewhere, it said. Reuters could not independently confirm the reports.

U.S. Lieutenant General Charles Brown, head of U.S. Air Forces Central Command, said he was aware of the report of civilian casualties. The U.S.-led coalition will begin assessing the credibility of those reports and start an investigation if required, he added.
First time I hear SOHR's credibility is up for question...
 
Putin vs. Erdogan: NATO Concerned over Possible Russia-Turkey Hostilities.

http://www.spiegel.de/international...ible-turkey-russia-hostilities-a-1078349.html

It was a year deep in the Cold War, a time when the world was closer to nuclear war than ever. There were myriad provocations, red lines were violated, airspace was infringed upon and a plane was shot down.

The situation was such that an accidentally fired missile or a submarine captain losing his cool would have been enough to trigger World War III. It was 1962, the year of the Cuban Missile Crisis -- an incident the current Russian prime minister finds himself reminded of today. At the Munich Security Conference last weekend, Dimitri Medvedev invoked the danger of a new Cold War. "Sometimes I think, are we in 2016 or 1962?"

Officials in Berlin have likewise been struck recently by a strange sense of déjà vu. The mood is similar to how it was at the beginning of the Ukraine crisis, a time when everyone was reading the new book from historian Christopher Clark, "The Sleepwalkers," about how Europe stumbled into World War I.

Syria is the Cuba of 2016 and the risk of an international confrontation there is growing by the day. For five years now, the country has been engaged in a brutal civil war, but the conflict could now develop into a larger clash between Russia and the West. Moscow and NATO member state Turkey are squaring off in the Syrian conflict, and the potential consequences for the trans-Atlantic alliance are impossible to predict.

Officials in Angela Merkel's Chancellery in Berlin are concerned about how close NATO has already come to a conflict with Russia. Indeed, Syria could become a vital test case for the military alliance. But the situation is complex: In order to thwart Putin, NATO must make it clear that it stands behind its member states in their moment of need. Yet NATO also wants to avoid a military conflict with Russia at all costs.

Officials at NATO headquarters in Brussels view the situation between Ankara and Moscow as being extremely volatile. "The armed forces of the two states are both active in fierce fighting on the Turkish-Syrian border, in some cases just a few kilometers from each other," one NATO official says.

Intensifying Conflict

Since Russia became a party to the war in Syria at the end of September, there has been a significant risk of open confrontation between Moscow and Ankara. Russia has thrown its support behind the troops loyal to Syria's unscrupulous dictator Bashar Assad while Turkey is supporting the rebels who would like to topple his autocracy.

The conflict intensified at the end of November when Turkey shot down a Russian warplane and now Putin has forged an alliance with the Syrian Kurds, Erdogan's archenemies. The Turkish president holds the Syrian Kurds responsible for the attack on Wednesday in the Turkish capital, which saw an explosion in central Ankara kill 28 and wound 61. Syrian Kurds have denied responsibility, but the bombing has ratcheted up tensions between Ankara and Moscow even further.

The NATO alliance is not always united, but in this case, nobody is interested in an escalation. How, though, can it be prevented? Russian President Vladimir Putin and Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan both have few scruples when it comes to wielding power and the two have previously demonstrated that they are more than willing to use force against their own people in an emergency. Both have likewise experienced the frustration of failed rapprochement with the West. How rational are they? How far might they go?

Turkey too has done its part in recent weeks to ratchet up the escalation. Turkish troops are now firing artillery across the border at Kurds in Syria and Ankara has also been thinking out loud about possibly sending ground troops into Syria to take on the Kurds.

That would be a nightmare for the West: Direct fighting between the Kurds and the Turks could mean that Russian troops would be soon to follow. What, though, would happen were a NATO member state to fire at Russian soldiers? Officials in the Chancellery hope that the alliance wouldn't be directly called on to get involved, as long as the fighting was limited to Syrian territory.

But German Chancellor Merkel is concerned that Putin is doing what he can to provoke Turkey as a way to test NATO. Which is why the German chancellor wants to do all she can to prevent Ankara from realizing its threat to send ground troops into Turkey. "That would likely be tantamount to doing Russia a favor," says one Chancellery official.

Putin's 'Hybrid War'

Putin's aim, the official says, is that of driving a wedge into NATO and destabilizing the alliance. A military federation that openly debates whether or not to support one of its members would quickly lose its credibility -- and that would be a significant triumph for Putin, the official says.

Russia has shown no signs of letting up, either. At the end of January, Turkey reported that a Russian jet had once again violated its airspace. It's a pattern that NATO is familiar with from the Baltic countries, where Russia likewise engaged in a series of pinprick provocations. In Berlin, officials have begun talking of "Putin's hybrid war against Turkey."

One element in that conflict is the economic sanctions that Putin slapped on Ankara after the Russian jet was shot down. That is also when he began supporting the Kurds. "That is Turkey's Achilles heel," says Moscow military analyst Vladislav Shurygin. "By helping the Kurds, we unsettle Turkey to such a degree that it can think of nothing else."

The confrontation is also taking place against the backdrop of a personal feud between Putin and Erdogan. The two used to be friendly with one another, but sources in Moscow say that Putin felt deeply and personally betrayed by Erdogan following the shooting down of the Russian plane. Erdogan sought several times to personally apologize to Putin, but that wasn't enough for the Russian president. He wants Erdogan to make a public display of contrition.

In an effort to prevent further escalation, NATO has made it exceedingly clear to the Turkish government that it cannot count on alliance support should the conflict with Russia head up as a result of a Turkish attack. "NATO cannot allow itself to be pulled into a military escalation with Russia as a result of the recent tensions between Russia and Turkey," says Luxembourg Foreign Minister Jean Asselborn.

Should Turkey be responsible for escalation, say officials in both Berlin and Brussels, Ankara would not be able to invoke the NATO treaty. Article 4 of the alliance's founding treaty grants member states the right to demand consultations "whenever, in the opinion of any of them, the territorial integrity, political independence or security of any of the Parties is threatened." Turkey has already invoked this article once in the Syrian conflict. The result was the stationing of German Patriot missiles on the Syrian border in eastern Turkey.
 
Part 2.

NATO Gets Nervous

The decisive article, however, is Article 5, which guarantees that an "armed attack against one or more of (the alliance members) in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all." But Luxembourg's Foreign Minister Asselborn notes that "the guarantee is only valid when a member state is clearly attacked."

Ankara was already rebuked following the shooting down of the Russian warplane, with NATO diplomats speaking of a Turkish overreaction. "We have to avoid that situations, incidents, accidents spiral out of control," warned NATO General Secretary Jens Stoltenberg.

Berlin agrees. "We are not going to pay the price for a war started by the Turks," says a German diplomat. Because decisions taken by the North Atlantic Council, NATO's primary decision-making body, must always be unanimous, it is enough for a single country to exercise its veto rights, the official says. But, the official adds, it won't get that far: there is widespread agreement with the US and most other allies that Turkey would get the cold shoulder in such a case.

Nevertheless, NATO alliance members are monitoring the Turkish-Russian confrontation with concern. There is, after all, always the risk that Russia at some point might attack Turkish positions on Turkish soil. "Were the Russians to carry out a retaliatory strike against Turkey, we would have a problem," says a NATO official. In such a case, Turkey could very well invoke Article 5. Were the North Atlantic Council to fail to achieve unanimity, Putin would once again have split the West, the official says.

Either way, the 28-member alliance is not of a single mind when it comes to Russia. The question as to how one should approach Putin's aggression is a matter of significant debate. Moscow's intervention in Syria has simply intensified that discussion.

On one side are those countries that once suffered under Russian hegemony: Poland, the Czech Republic and the three Baltic countries. They are in favor of a tough line against Moscow and have been building up their militaries on NATO's eastern border with the help of the US as a deterrent to Putin.

A second group is more pro-Russian, primarily out of individual -- mostly economic -- interests. That group includes Bulgaria and Rumania, but also Slovakia and Hungary. On Wednesday, for example, Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán demanded an end to European sanctions against Russia. The Greek government, under the leadership of Alexis Tsipras, also leans pro-Russia.

Refraining from Provoking Putin

And then there is the special case of Paris. France is openly flirting with Moscow, with French Prime Minister Manuel Valls demonstratively praising cooperation with Russia at the Munich Security Conference. "We welcome France's constructive role," said Russian Prime Minister Medvedev, returning the praise.

Germany leads the group of moderate critics of Russia, but it is a group to which most other Western European countries belong. They are critical of Russia's geopolitical ambitions but are also wary of breaking off contact to Moscow. Berlin's role here is key. The German government sharply criticized Putin's actions in Crimea and eastern Ukraine, but has also urged that Russian concerns be taken seriously and has refrained from provoking Putin.

The dispute between the hawks and the doves within NATO primarily focuses on the arms build-up on NATO's eastern border. At the beginning of February, the Pentagon announced that it would request €3.4 billion ($3.8 billion) for an expanded presence in Eastern Europe. The Americans plan to station equipment for an entire tank division in the region, including battle tanks, artillery and other heavy weaponry. In an emergency, a unit of 20,000 combat-ready troops from the US could quickly be deployed. In addition, a brigade is to be stationed in NATO's east, rotating between bases.

Not coincidentally, Poland is planning a large maneuver together with the US ahead of the next NATO summit, to be held in Warsaw in July. The joint military exercise, named Anaconda, will involve 25,000 troops and 19 additional alliance members, but it is not an official NATO exercise. The Americans have pledged 90 tanks for the maneuver, which is to simulate a land invasion of Poland -- a classic Article 5 scenario.

Germany isn't particularly taken with such posturing. In the coming months, Berlin intends to do what it can to prevent the stationing of additional NATO troops or materiel in the alliance's eastern member states. The German military is not prepared to send additional troops to the Baltic countries or to Poland.

For Berlin, it is important to avoid calling into question the 1997 Founding Act on Mutual Relations between Russia and NATO. According to that agreement, "additional permanent stationing of substantial combat forces" in the former Eastern Bloc is to be avoided. It is exactly this agreement, though, that new Polish Foreign Minister Witold Waszczykowski declared to be "invalid" at the Munich Security Conference. The security situation, he argued, has fundamentally changed and Russia terminated the agreement on its own by virtue of its actions in Crimea.

'Masterful Tradecraft'

Moscow, for its part, reacted immediately to the US armaments plans. Andrey Kelin, the Russian Foreign Ministry official responsible for pan-European cooperation, announced that Russia would respond by stationing three new divisions, a tank army and 50 strategic, nuclear-compatible bombers on Russia's western border. Moscow, he said, would also equip its Caspian and Black Sea fleets with cruise missiles of the kind Russia launched into Syria from a distance of over 1,000 kilometers on Putin's birthday.

From the perspective of power politics, officials in Berlin and elsewhere are willing to concede, Putin's intervention in Syria has thus far been a great success. "It is masterful tradecraft," a close Merkel advisor says admiringly. Russia, he says, not only stabilized the regime of its ally Assad, but has also done everything in its power to make the situation more difficult for the West.

Chancellery officials believe that Putin is deliberately trying to trigger a new wave of refugees to further divide Europe. Furthermore, they believe that Putin would welcome a further evaporation of support for Merkel among the German electorate.

The chancellor has promised to solve the refugee crisis together with Turkey. The country is to ensure that refugees can no longer stream into Greece across the Aegean. But the more people escape the violence of Syria into Turkey, the less inclined Ankara is to tighten up its western border to Greece. Erdogan already has enough problems. Why should he expend even more effort to help Merkel?

The chancellor is doing her best to entice the Turkish government with pledges of money and an easing of visa requirements. But she now finds herself in the dilemma of being unable to offer Turkey assistance in its conflict with Russia even as she needs Ankara's help. Knowing both Putin and Erdogan as she does, she is aware that neither is exactly a model of equanimity. She is extremely wary of encouraging Erdogan in any way to start something with Russia.

Using NATO to Pressure Turkey

That's what makes the situation so complicated. Thus far, when addressing the need to tighten the maritime border in the Aegean, Turkey has talked a lot but done little. Which is why Merkel brought in NATO to patrol the border between Turkey and Greece. Officially, the alliance has been charged with providing surveillance and combatting migrant smugglers. In reality, though, the presence of the Standing NATO Maritime Group 2 is to increase pressure on Turkey by making it impossible for government officials to continue claiming they don't know where on the coast the refugee boats were launching from.

With the German ship Bonn leading the way, the NATO fleet is to determine the starting points of refugee boats and the routes they take. The data will then be used to force the Turks to block off the launch points, say NATO officials. Ideally, the ships are to have real-time contact with Turkish coast guard vessels.

Moscow has realized just how touchy the game is that Merkel is playing. The German chancellor's refugee policies have made her dependent on Erdogan, a man who has not traditionally been particularly concerned about human rights. Not that Putin himself much cares about human rights either. But the Kremlin is happy to take advantage of the situation for a small propaganda victory.

"Apparently, Merkel has suffered from a short-circuit in her brain," wrote the pro-government tabloid Komsomolskaya Pravda a few days ago. "A lamb is flirting with the jackal. One would like to ask Merkel: Do you share Erdogan's values? Are you happy about all of the journalists sitting in prison?"
 
It would be a stupid move for both sides. If Russia does anything to Turkey they will at a minimum be on the wrong end of further economic sanctions, like removal from the SWIFT banking system, which will send the economy into the dark ages and probably Trigger demonstrations and a challenge to Putin's power. Obviously the Turks need to be stepping back and thinking about the cons of getting involved in a military confrontation with Putin.
 

I'm happy to report that #Tikrit stabilization phase is almost complete. 90% #IDP population have returned home. - #UN#Iraq envoy Ján Kubiš

Some of the news that you don't usually hear in the media, for obvious reasons. They prefer the ISIS/Saudi version of "Tikrit has been ethnically cleansed after ISIS' defeat!!"
 
It would be a stupid move for both sides. If Russia does anything to Turkey they will at a minimum be on the wrong end of further economic sanctions, like removal from the SWIFT banking system, which will send the economy into the dark ages and probably Trigger demonstrations and a challenge to Putin's power. Obviously the Turks need to be stepping back and thinking about the cons of getting involved in a military confrontation with Putin.

Russians won't do anything to Turkey because they're not in Turkey, they're in Syria. If Turkish military invade Syria and attack Syrian troops, then it's a different matter.

Erdogan's main concern is how to deal with Kurds. It's actually more of a headache for Americans. How they are planning to keep Kurds and Turks happy without picking a side is a mystery to me.
 
Russians won't do anything to Turkey because they're not in Turkey, they're in Syria. If Turkish military invade Syria and attack Syrian troops, then it's a different matter.

Erdogan's main concern is how to deal with Kurds. It's actually more of a headache for Americans. How they are planning to keep Kurds and Turks happy without picking a side is a mystery to me.

Yes, I agree. Each side is actually incentivized to back off as the knock on effects of a Russia Turkey military clash would lead to a broader conflict.
 
It would be a stupid move for both sides. If Russia does anything to Turkey they will at a minimum be on the wrong end of further economic sanctions, like removal from the SWIFT banking system, which will send the economy into the dark ages and probably Trigger demonstrations and a challenge to Putin's power. Obviously the Turks need to be stepping back and thinking about the cons of getting involved in a military confrontation with Putin.

Erdoğan needs to think about it. Even in a country full to the brim with corrupt, hot-headed politicians, he's the driving force behind everything involving Syria. Even the other key players in the AKP have turned against him or are leaning in that direction. They don't want it any more than America does.
 
The media are misleading the public on Syria.

https://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion...B75otYirPzUCnlwaVtcK/story.html?event=event25

COVERAGE OF the Syrian war will be remembered as one of the most shameful episodes in the history of the American press. Reporting about carnage in the ancient city of Aleppo is the latest reason why.

For three years, violent militants have run Aleppo. Their rule began with a wave of repression. They posted notices warning residents: “Don’t send your children to school. If you do, we will get the backpack and you will get the coffin.” Then they destroyed factories, hoping that unemployed workers would have no recourse other than to become fighters. They trucked looted machinery to Turkey and sold it.

This month, people in Aleppo have finally seen glimmers of hope. The Syrian army and its allies have been pushing militants out of the city. Last week they reclaimed the main power plant. Regular electricity may soon be restored. The militants’ hold on the city could be ending.

Militants, true to form, are wreaking havoc as they are pushed out of the city by Russian and Syrian Army forces. “Turkish-Saudi backed ‘moderate rebels’ showered the residential neighborhoods of Aleppo with unguided rockets and gas jars,” one Aleppo resident wrote on social media. The Beirut-based analyst Marwa Osma asked, “The Syrian Arab Army, which is led by President Bashar Assad, is the only force on the ground, along with their allies, who are fighting ISIS — so you want to weaken the only system that is fighting ISIS?”

This does not fit with Washington’s narrative. As a result, much of the American press is reporting the opposite of what is actually happening. Many news reports suggest that Aleppo has been a “liberated zone” for three years but is now being pulled back into misery.

Americans are being told that the virtuous course in Syria is to fight the Assad regime and its Russian and Iranian partners. We are supposed to hope that a righteous coalition of Americans, Turks, Saudis, Kurds, and the “moderate opposition” will win.

This is convoluted nonsense, but Americans cannot be blamed for believing it. We have almost no real information about the combatants, their goals, or their tactics. Much blame for this lies with our media.

Under intense financial pressure, most American newspapers, magazines, and broadcast networks have drastically reduced their corps of foreign correspondents. Much important news about the world now comes from reporters based in Washington. In that environment, access and credibility depend on acceptance of official paradigms. Reporters who cover Syria check with the Pentagon, the State Department, the White House, and think tank “experts.” After a spin on that soiled carousel, they feel they have covered all sides of the story. This form of stenography produces the pabulum that passes for news about Syria.

Astonishingly brave correspondents in the war zone, including Americans, seek to counteract Washington-based reporting. At great risk to their own safety, these reporters are pushing to find the truth about the Syrian war. Their reporting often illuminates the darkness of groupthink. Yet for many consumers of news, their voices are lost in the cacophony. Reporting from the ground is often overwhelmed by the Washington consensus.

Washington-based reporters tell us that one potent force in Syria, al-Nusra, is made up of “rebels” or “moderates,” not that it is the local al-Qaeda franchise. Saudi Arabia is portrayed as aiding freedom fighters when in fact it is a prime sponsor of ISIS. Turkey has for years been running a “rat line” for foreign fighters wanting to join terror groups in Syria, but because the United States wants to stay on Turkey’s good side, we hear little about it. Nor are we often reminded that although we want to support the secular and battle-hardened Kurds, Turkey wants to kill them. Everything Russia and Iran do in Syria is described as negative and destabilizing, simply because it is they who are doing it — and because that is the official line in Washington.

Inevitably, this kind of disinformation has bled into the American presidential campaign. At the recent debate in Milwaukee, Hillary Clinton claimed that United Nations peace efforts in Syria were based on “an agreement I negotiated in June of 2012 in Geneva.” The precise opposite is true. In 2012 Secretary of State Clinton joined Turkey, Saudi Arabia, and Israel in a successful effort to kill Kofi Annan’s UN peace plan because it would have accommodated Iran and kept Assad in power, at least temporarily. No one on the Milwaukee stage knew enough to challenge her.

Politicians may be forgiven for distorting their past actions. Governments may also be excused for promoting whatever narrative they believe best suits them. Journalism, however, is supposed to remain apart from the power elite and its inbred mendacity. In this crisis it has failed miserably.

Americans are said to be ignorant of the world. We are, but so are people in other countries. If people in Bhutan or Bolivia misunderstand Syria, however, that has no real effect. Our ignorance is more dangerous, because we act on it. The United States has the power to decree the death of nations. It can do so with popular support because many Americans — and many journalists — are content with the official story. In Syria, it is: “Fight Assad, Russia, and Iran! Join with our Turkish, Saudi, and Kurdish friends to support peace!” This is appallingly distant from reality. It is also likely to prolong the war and condemn more Syrians to suffering and death.
And all of it falls squarely on the shoulders of the Obama Administration. Yes it can be seen as having its roots War on Terror that Obama inherited but the war in Syria was one of those events that the US could and should have never gotten involved in from the very start.
 
The Syrian Arab Army's elite forces known as the Tiger forces have captured the entire encircled pocket east of Aleppo city, killing some 100-150 ISIS terrorists entrenched in and around the power plant, however a further 600-800 ISIS terrorists ran away to Al Bab and Deir Hafer unusual for ISIS to run as they usually fight to the death.

o4z8bmfcfbr4mn8zg.jpg
 
SA is backpedalling. Maybe they realize, that sending ground forces would be a terrible decision.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...toric-to-send-troops-into-syria-a6875156.html
They were never serious about intervening. Both Saudi Arabia and Turkey just want to get the US forces to enter the conflict, and they'll hide behind it. Neither of them would intervene without the US forces being in the lead (and the primary fighting force). They (and the "opposition") have been pushing for this for a while now...

Kerry 'blames opposition' for continued Syria bombing
Syrian aid workers said Kerry told them on sidelines of donor conference that 'opposition will be decimated' and to expect 3 months of bombing.

US Secretary of State John Kerry told Syrian aid workers, hours after the Geneva peace talks fell apart, that the country should expect another three months of bombing that would “decimate” the opposition.

During a conversation on the sidelines of this week’s Syria donor conference in London, sources say Kerry blamed the Syrian opposition for leaving the talks and paving the way for a joint offensive by the Syrian government and Russia on Aleppo.

“‘He said, ‘Don’t blame me – go and blame your opposition,’” one of the aid workers, who asked to remain anonymous to protect her organisation, told Middle East Eye.

Kerry told reporters on Friday, as tens of thousands fled the Syrian government and Russian bombardment of Aleppo, that both Russia and Iran, another of Syria's allies, have told him that they are prepared for a ceasefire in Syria.

He said he would know “whether or not these parties are serious” after a meeting of the International Syria Support Group – 17 nations including the US and Russia – scheduled to be held in Munich next week.

But Kerry left the aid workers with the distinct impression that the US is abandoning efforts to support rebel fighters.

The UN-based Geneva talks were suspended earlier this week after the government and opposition delegates refused to meet. The opposition delegates stated that all bombing must stop before talks could proceed, while the government said the rebels were "not serious" about the push for peace.

Kerry’s mixed messages after the collapse of the Geneva process have put more pressure on Turkey and Saudi Arabia, a senior Turkish source told MEE on Friday.

Turkish Prime Minister Ahmet Davutoglu warned at the donor conference on Thursday that tens of thousands of people were heading to the Turkish border from Aleppo. On the same day, Saudi Arabia said it could put troops in as part of a multinational force to fight the Islamic State (IS) group.

Both feel extreme unease at the potential collapse of the opposition US-recognised Free Syrian Army, according to the senior Turkish source.

Two Syrian aid workers said they approached Kerry at a donor conference drinks reception and told him that he had not done enough to protect Syrian civilians. He then said they should blame the opposition.

"He said that basically, it was the opposition that didn’t want to negotiate and didn’t want a ceasefire, and they walked away,” the second of the aid workers told MEE in a separate conversation and also on the basis of anonymity.

“‘What do you want me to do? Go to war with Russia? Is that what you want?’” the aid worker said Kerry told her.

Both aid workers said Kerry told them that he anticipated three months of bombing during which time “the opposition will be decimated”.

The second aid worker said the most that Kerry seemed prepared to offer were aid drops for besieged Syrian towns which he said he had discussed with Russia.

"He said they were close and they were talking to the Russians about it," she said.

------------

The Syrian Arab Army's elite forces known as the Tiger forces have captured the entire encircled pocket east of Aleppo city, killing some 100-150 ISIS terrorists entrenched in and around the power plant, however a further 600-800 ISIS terrorists ran away to Al Bab and Deir Hafer unusual for ISIS to run as they usually fight to the death.
That was a great plan well executed. I think the next attack in ISIS territory will use the same tactic. By the way, another target achieved in this operation was freeing the Aleppo power plant. This could mean Aleppo might get electricity back soon.

Now, what's the next target? Al-Bab? Dayr Hafir? Personally I think the latter (may be not directly, but creating pockets around it with it being the ultimate target), to meet the forces advancing in the South towards Tabqa airbase.

CbwIpGjXIAAMWt-.jpg:large
 
Syrian Army and Hezbollah militants currently involved in a huge operation to take back Palmyra from ISIS. They're receiving heavy air support from the Russians.

But hey the regime doesn't fight ISIS :wenger: