Dozens of Russian mercenaries killed while attacking Kurdish / US Special Forces

Scroll to see replies

Sad to see such loss of life on any side but it doesn't compare to the ongoing destruction of Eastern Ghouta which has killed 400+ civilians including at least 99 children in less than a week

Reply 21

Trapz99

Original post by AlexanderHam

You are very confused. The Taliban =/= Mujahideen. The Taliban didn't exist until 1994, which is three years after the Soviet Union collapsed and five years after they pulled out of Afghanistan. Quote;

The United States supported the Mujahideen against the Soviet Union, to turn Afghanistan in their Vietnam. I am not denying that the US provided weapons to the mujahideen; the support by the US, funneled through Pakistan and Saudi Arabia, amounted to billions of dollars and included the provision of advanced systems like the Stinger shoulder-launched surface-to-air missile. As you say, that is all documented. What is not documented is that the US funded the Taliban to fight the Soviet Union, because the Taliban didn't even exist in the 1980s. Again, the Taliban and Mujahideen are not the same thing.

Until you can get the basics right, like understanding the difference between the Mujahideen and the Taliban, I'm not sure you can be considered a very credible interlocutor in a debate on middle eastern geopolitics. Claiming that the US funded the Taliban is something you commonly hear from people opposed to US foreign policy; this claim in itself is usually a pretty good indicator of someone's actual level of knowledge of the 1980s Afghan war and geopolitics of West Asia and the Middle East.

Even though they are not the same thing, at the end of the day they are both Islamist terrorist organisations. And it is clear that helping such a group was morally wrong.

Reply 22

Napp

Original post by Tempest II

This was a busy day at work. From what I gather, the US forces embedded with the SDF called "Broken Arrow" on comms. It quickly became a bad day to be a Russian mercenary, Syrian solider or anyone else hostile to the Coalition who'd crossed to the Eastern side of the Euphrates River.

Isnt a broken arrow when someone accidentally sets off a nuclear bomb?
At any rate i still find the US attitude to Russia here deeply amusing. For all the bluster about following international laws and norms Russia is the only one fighting their legally. The US, as per intl law, is a hostile foreign invader. Black pots and kettles abound.

Reply 23

Napp

Original post by Trapz99

Even though they are not the same thing, at the end of the day they are both Islamist terrorist organisations. And it is clear that helping such a group was morally wrong.

The Taliban isnt a terror group though, legally it is no more than an guerrilla insurgency.
Ironically enough the Taliban came about due to the wests arming of various war lords and of course the Soviets pissing them off when they stomped on in. I guess you could call the Taliban that unattractive 3rd child people have but try not to talk about?

Reply 24

Napp

Original post by Trapz99

Sad to see such loss of life on any side but it doesn't compare to the ongoing destruction of Eastern Ghouta which has killed 400+ civilians including at least 99 children in less than a week

Your comment seems to imply our sympathies should be directed at only the people in Ghouta and by extension not directed at the civilians et al. whom live in the rest of Damascus and Syria in general.
What the regime is doing is pure barbarism and beyond contempt but lest we forget that the 'rebels' are most certainly not saints themselves in the atrocities theyve committed.

Reply 25

OldishStudent

Original post by Napp

Isnt a broken arrow when someone accidentally sets off a nuclear bomb?

No its a movie, and code for losing one. Which they all have done.....numerous times.....reassuringly.....! :unimpressed:

Reply 26

bob072

Original post by AlexanderHam

It is worth adding, this is the first time since Vietnam that Russian and American soldiers have engaged in battle. It is utterly bizarre that Putin would be so willing to provoke us, to risk a broader conflict. But this has become typical Russian behaviour in the last ten years; just as they have aggressively flown their nuclear bombers right up to our borders and carried out simulated nuclear attacks on NATO countries, attacked us in the cyber-domain including our elections, just as their fighters jets have aggressively buzzed Western aircraft flying in the vicinity of Russia, now they have crossed that line of using direct force (while keeping that application of force within the deniable confines of a private military company).

The sole evidence for Russian intereference in elections is a company based in Russia spent 90p on facebook adds in the EU referendum. George Soros spends £tens of billions and we don't hear about foreign intervention.

NATO (which expanded right to Russia's borders - if you look at it from their perspective that's agressive) regularly flew alongside Russia and China.

Russia's methods are certainly not admirable but they are the only ones to have military success in the Middle East in 25 years. Successive UK prime ministers and US presidents have invaded (sometimes illegally) sovereign countries so no wonder Putin feels threatened.

Reply 27

That Bearded Man

Original post by AlexanderHam

The story is basically this. There's a Kurdish SDF base in Syria just across the Euphrates from Deir ez-Zor. The Euphrates has been considered, for all intents and purposes, the 'deconfliction' line for US and Russian troops. Russians stay on the southern side, we stay on the northern side, everyone is happy.

Recently, large numbers of Russian soldiers have been serving in Syria under the aegis of a private military contractor called Wagner. Many people believe Wagner is a thin and rather flimsy front company for Russian military and intelligence operations. Somewhat amazingly, this company is owned by Yevgeny Prigozhin, the Russian billionaire who was just indicted by Robert Mueller for interference in the US 2016 election.

Anyway, for some crazy, unknown reason, last week several hundred Russian soldiers from Wagner, and Syrian troops, chose to cross the Euphrates to mount an attack on a Syrian Democratic Forces (essentially, the Kurds and their allies) base. At this base was also a contingent of US special forces.

When the Russians and Syrians started attacking the base, the US military machine in northeast Syria sprung into action to defend it. Drones, fighter aircraft and attack helicopters arrived and pounded the attacking forces relentlessly from the air. Hundreds of artillery strikes were called in on the attacking forces. The battle went on for hours and we know that hundreds of attacking troops were killed, and of the Russian citizens at least dozens and possibly hundreds were killed. One Russian military doctor said around 100 were killed, and other sources say that another two hundred suffered horrific injuries from the withering and highly precise rain of US firepower.

Anyway, you can read about it here in the New Yorker below. The hard left and far right can no longer claim to be both pro-Assad and pro-Kurd; the battle lines are now drawn, as we always knew they would be.

https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/putins-shadow-army-suffers-a-setback-in-syria

And here is targeting pod footage of a Russian tank in these attacks being destroyed by Reaper drone

[video="youtube;wbgbC1DhZnE"]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wbgbC1DhZnE[/video]

So you think Assad is backing the Russian mission here? Surely it makes no sense for Syria/Russia to attack Kurds when they're protected by the US?

Very interesting. Wonder what Turkey are doing

Reply 28

That Bearded Man

Original post by Napp

Hadn't the US come to an agreement with Assad? (didn't Trump assure a deal between him, Putin and Assad?) Or are the US simply anti-Assad with no plan for what to do afterwards.

Reply 29

Napp

Original post by That Bearded Man

Hadn't the US come to an agreement with Assad? (didn't Trump assure a deal between him, Putin and Assad?) Or are the US simply anti-Assad with no plan for what to do afterwards.

I'm not certain on the deal you speak of suffice I know they've talked about it but generally speaking it's widely agreed that the US is distinctly lacking in policy towards Syria - quite a few civil servants complained about Obamas complete lack of a clue on what to do and I don't believe trump (who seems determined that lack of knowledge be his presidential hall mark) is any better.

Reply 30

Tempest II

Original post by Napp

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/broken_arrow

There's two definitions.

I'm not entirely sure you can class invites from mass murdering dictatorship as totally following international laws.

Reply 31

Napp

Original post by Tempest II

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/broken_arrow

There's two definitions.

I'm not entirely sure you can class invites from mass murdering dictatorship as totally following international laws.

Ah gotcha.
Well seeing as they're the only recognized government of syria who can claim any legitimacy then by nothing else but default they must be the only representatives of Syria. to claim the 'opposition' is anything but a ragtag bunch of terrorists is farcical.
anyway it still doesnt excuse te fact America invaded a sovereign country and is bombing civilians. a nice parallel to draw would be their 'liberation' of Mosul and condemnation of Russia in the same act in Aleppo. I cant abide hypocrisy and America seems to be the embodiment of it.

Reply 32

Tempest II

Original post by That Bearded Man

So you think Assad is backing the Russian mission here? Surely it makes no sense for Syria/Russia to attack Kurds when they're protected by the US?

Very interesting. Wonder what Turkey are doing

It's not so much the Kurds but the entire SDF that Pro-Regime Forces attacked. The PRF had been massing forces in their foothold on the Eastern side of the Euphrates for weeks if not months before the attack on the US-backed SDF. The situation in Syria has become a land grab, partly due to the fact that, while the majority of the Syrian population lives in the west of the nation, most natural resources are located in the east.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Petroleum_industry_in_Syria

From what I gather, the aim is to ensure that SDF have at least some bargaining chip with the Regime & having control over oil fields gives them strength to do so. However, as the size of Syria's oil reserves are insignificant globally (0.5% of global production even before the Civil War), it's not as though the oil argument can be leveled at the Coalition in the same way it was with Iraq in 2003.

Reply 33

username2950448

Original post by AlexanderHam

America's involvement is "interference". But Russia's involvement is... what?

Legal because Russia's involvement is at the invitation, and with the consent, of the Syrian Government.

The US sits back as its NATO ally Turkey attacks Kurds in Afrin - the neo-cons can no longer claim to be both pro-US and pro-Kurd.

Reply 34

username358506

Original post by AlexanderHam

Interesting double-standard. America's involvement is "interference". But Russia's involvement is... what?

Russia was invited by the democratically-elected government of Syria to restore order and rid the country of Western and Gulf-backed jihadists; the U.S. was not.

Reply 35

Napp

Original post by Stalin

Russia was invited by the democratically-elected government of Syria to restore order and rid the country of Western and Gulf-backed jihadists; the U.S. was not.

I agree with your over all point but to call Assad democratically elected is a seriously tenuous point to make. Legally recognised leader? sure but a democratically elected leader he is not.

Reply 36

username358506

Original post by Napp

I agree with your over all point but to call Assad democratically elected is a seriously tenuous point to make. Legally recognised leader? sure but a democratically elected leader he is not.