Turn on thread page Beta

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

    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    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-...tback-in-syria

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

    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    They’ve lost the plot. They’re no longer fighting to protect the country/the people, they’re just fighting for power and greed. It’s so wrong.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    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).

    This is insanity. Putin only respects one thing, and that is force. He will continue pushing the envelope, pushing us and prodding us and poking us, until we poke back him back!

    The irony is that the hard-left and far-right claim it is the West that is the provocative one, and that anyone who dares question the beloved Putin is a warmonger who wants World War 3. Concerned about Russian hacking? "Warmonger! You want World War 3". Support us standing by our treaties and alliances, and defending our eastern european allies? "Warmonger! You want World War 3". Support any American political candidate other than Trump or Jill Stein? You get the picture.

    Thinking people can quite clearly see who the real warmongers are.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    the us should not be interfering in Syria smh
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by the0)
    the us should not be interfering in Syria smh
    Interesting double-standard. America's involvement is "interference". But Russia's involvement is... what?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Russia is basically declaring war.

    Cant we do something about it?! attack their internet or something like they do to us?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AlexanderHam)
    Interesting double-standard. America's involvement is "interference". But Russia's involvement is... what?
    I don't think Russia's history of involvement in the middle east is quite as bad as America's. After all, it was the US that funded the Taliban to fight Russia in the 80's. Russia supporting the Syrian government against the "Free Syrian Army" a loose confederation of groups, many being of dubious background at this point. It is in no way comparable to the US funding random groups and destabilizing entire countries throughout the region. The US's insistence on continuing to bomb the Syrian government whilst they were fighting ISIS only served to make them stronger.

    Obviously the Kurds are a trusted and long time ally of America, but establishment a Kurdish State in Syria is an unrealistic goal which will only serve to create further instability in the region, especially considering the fact it borders Turkey.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by chemicalreagent)
    Russia is basically declaring war.

    Cant we do something about it?! attack their internet or something like they do to us?
    Yeah, Because America bombing Russians who are supporting the Syrian government in Syria is Russia declaring war on America. And you can't act like america does not "already attack their internet", they obviously do.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by the0)
    I don't think Russia's history of involvement in the middle east is quite as bad as America's. After all, it was the US that funded the Taliban to fight Russia in the 80's.
    Err, no. The United States never funded the Taliban.

    Perhaps you are confusing the Taliban with the Mujahideen? The Taliban didn't even exist until the mid-1990s, after the Soviet Union collapsed and years after they pulled out of Afghanistan.

    It is in no way comparable to the US funding random groups and destabilizing entire countries throughout the region.
    By "random groups", you mean the Kurdish forces that were by and large responsible for defeating ISIS on the ground.

    The US's insistence on continuing to bomb the Syrian government whilst they were fighting ISIS only served to make them stronger.
    What on earth are you talking about? The US hasn't been "bombing the Syrian government". Where do you get your information?

    As for fighting ISIS, that is a laughable claim. ISIS and the Assad regime had an effective ceasefire until fairly recently. Assad was happy for ISIS to gobble up eastern Syria because it made him look moderate by comparison, and it undermined the more nationalist opposition groups.

    In fact, the Assad regime bought most of the natural gas produced at the fields owned by ISIS; tens of millions of dollars were paid by the regime to ISIS. And the Assad regime really only got in on the fight against ISIS at the very end, when it had been pretty much demolished by the Kurds and the Iraqi Army.

    The idea that Assad is some great bullwark against Islamism would be hilarious if it weren't such sad, pathetic propaganda put about by the conspiracy theorists, RT, Wikileaks-followers etc. Assad happily hosted Al-Qaeda during the 2000s, gave them safehaven in Syria and allowed them to launch attacks into Iraq after the US occupation. And in 2011, he opened the prisons and released thousands of Islamists knowing they would immediately take up arms against him, which would allow him to say, "See! All the people fighting me are Islamic terrorists".

    It's a pity that people like you fell for it.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by chemicalreagent)
    Russia is basically declaring war.

    Cant we do something about it?! attack their internet or something like they do to us?
    Sanctions are the most effective way to punish Russia. While Russia still possesses significant military forces, they are basically a third-rate power. Their economy is around the size of Australia's (both c. $1.4 trillion US).

    If we sanction their economy, cut them off from international trade, stop wealthy Russians from getting visas or being able to do business internationally, prevent them from sending their children to university in the West, seize assets they hold in Western banks, isolate their oil sector, then they will buckle soon enough.

    Unfortunately President Trump has refused to implement additional sanctions that were passed by Congress (by both parties; in the senate, 98 out of 100 senators voted for new sanctions to punish Russia). Trump has made it clear he will ever punish Russia.

    Despite being absolutely rude and obnoxious about pretty much every world leader, including (and especially) US allies like Germany, US rivals like China, everyone, there is one world leader he never criticises or attacks; Putin. He has never said one bad word about Putin in public.

    Realistically, we will have to wait for the strike back against Russia until after Trump is out of office. Hopefully sometime in 2019 if he is impeached, but at the latest 2020.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    The left first supported Assad then they began to support the rebels then the kurds and now the russians.
    The right first supported the Russians then they began to support Assad then the rebels and now the kurds.

    This is why I'm a centrist.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AlexanderHam)
    Err, no. The United States never funded the Taliban.

    Perhaps you are confusing the Taliban with the Mujahideen? The Taliban didn't even exist until the mid-1990s, after the Soviet Union collapsed and years after they pulled out of Afghanistan.



    By "random groups", you mean the Kurdish forces that were by and large responsible for defeating ISIS on the ground.



    What on earth are you talking about? The US hasn't been "bombing the Syrian government". Where do you get your information?

    As for fighting ISIS, that is a laughable claim. ISIS and the Assad regime had an effective ceasefire until fairly recently. Assad was happy for ISIS to gobble up eastern Syria because it made him look moderate by comparison, and it undermined the more nationalist opposition groups.

    In fact, the Assad regime bought most of the natural gas produced at the fields owned by ISIS; tens of millions of dollars were paid by the regime to ISIS. And the Assad regime really only got in on the fight against ISIS at the very end, when it had been pretty much demolished by the Kurds and the Iraqi Army.

    The idea that Assad is some great bullwark against Islamism would be hilarious if it weren't such sad, pathetic propaganda put about by the conspiracy theorists, RT, Wikileaks-followers etc. Assad happily hosted Al-Qaeda during the 2000s, gave them safehaven in Syria and allowed them to launch attacks into Iraq after the US occupation. And in 2011, he opened the prisons and released thousands of Islamists knowing they would immediately take up arms against him, which would allow him to say, "See! All the people fighting me are Islamic terrorists".

    It's a pity that people like you fell for it.
    Most of your argument is just claiming that what I said is false when everything I said is documented by mainstream media. Its an admitted fact that the Taliban was used by the US to indirectly fight the USSR, my point is that they became the Taliban. The US's incompetence in Iraq allowed ISIS to capture US military hardware. It is a well documented fact that America carries out strikes again the Syrian government, that is the very subject of this thread.

    Yes Syria bought oil from Isis, but how else would they get fuel when under US sanctions, effectively you can blame that arrangement on America. I never claimed that Syria is some kind of shining light of democracy or "bulwark against Islamism" but they are one of the most moderate governments in the region and replacing them would go as well as it did in Libya, which at one point under Gaddafi was the richest state in Africa with free healthcare and is now the center of the North African Slave trade. Establishing a Kurdish state in Syria won't even happen due to its proximity to Turkey which is an ally of the US, who also bought oil from ISIS by the way. On that point, you do understand that the US funded many free Syrian army groups and still continue to, right? By claiming that Assad released prisoners into the FSA to discredit them are you basically saying that the US is knowingly funding terrorists?

    It insane how you can somehow claim to have an insight into the exact motivations of Assad. You're effectively either denying my argument or attacking an misinterpreted version in which i clam Syria can do no wrong.


    edit: You have to remember that the rebels controlled the more valuable land and as such were of greater priority to the Syrian Army. The Kurds effectively control an emptry region now thanks to their heroic fighting. And the US lead coalition is so staunchly against ISIS that when they attacked Israel, ISIS apologized.


    oh and here is a cool picture for you https://media.salon.com/2015/11/osam...ndependent.jpg
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AlexanderHam)
    Sanctions are the most effective way to punish Russia. While Russia still possesses significant military forces, they are basically a third-rate power. Their economy is around the size of Australia's (both c. $1.4 trillion US).

    If we sanction their economy, cut them off from international trade, stop wealthy Russians from getting visas or being able to do business internationally, prevent them from sending their children to university in the West, seize assets they hold in Western banks, isolate their oil sector, then they will buckle soon enough.

    Unfortunately President Trump has refused to implement additional sanctions that were passed by Congress (by both parties; in the senate, 98 out of 100 senators voted for new sanctions to punish Russia). Trump has made it clear he will ever punish Russia.

    Despite being absolutely rude and obnoxious about pretty much every world leader, including (and especially) US allies like Germany, US rivals like China, everyone, there is one world leader he never criticises or attacks; Putin. He has never said one bad word about Putin in public.

    Realistically, we will have to wait for the strike back against Russia until after Trump is out of office. Hopefully sometime in 2019 if he is impeached, but at the latest 2020.
    Also I might add that your jingoistic interventionist attitude reminds me of the neo-conservative agenda prior to the Iraq war. Effectively you want to destroy a countries economy and make the standard of living even worse for millions of Russians over not getting to overthrow another middle eastern government.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    As much as you’d like to see it happen, Assad and most of Syria don’t want the Kurds to secede North-East Syria. Keeping Syria in one piece is his priority and he’s called for Russian help which is the Syrian governments business.

    America has no business being there but as usual they don’t have a problem poking their heads in.
    • Community Assistant
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Community Assistant
    (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).
    I'm sorry are saying these people are mercenaries or Russian troops here?

    This is insanity. Putin only respects one thing, and that is force. He will continue pushing the envelope, pushing us and prodding us and poking us, until we poke back him back!
    by living up to the mandate the Syrian government gave him - and not America? :rolleyes:

    The irony is that the hard-left and far-right claim it is the West that is the provocative one, and that anyone who dares question the beloved Putin is a warmonger who wants World War 3. Concerned about Russian hacking? "Warmonger! You want World War 3". Support us standing by our treaties and alliances, and defending our eastern european allies? "Warmonger! You want World War 3". Support any American political candidate other than Trump or Jill Stein? You get the picture.

    Thinking people can quite clearly see who the real warmongers are.
    You seem to be conveniently forgetting that the US/NATO fly bombers and spy planes up to the Russian aerial boarder, positioning an offensive missile system along their boarder, deploying heavy weapons up to their boarder, withdrawing from treaties such as the ABMT, moving an offensive military alliance up to their boarder. To be frank the list goes on.
    Whilst one wont entertain the notion that Russia is by any stretch blameless in these little tit-for-tat exchanges this idea that the west - and in particular America - are somehow blameless or the lesser of two evils is frankly preposterous.

    Also i'm curious, whenever you post along these lines you always seem to mention that the only people who sympathise with the Russian perspective are either far right or left... why exactly?
    • Community Assistant
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Community Assistant
    (Original post by chemicalreagent)
    Russia is basically declaring war.
    How'd you figure that?

    Cant we do something about it?! attack their internet or something like they do to us?
    Oh dear.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by the0)
    Most of your argument is just claiming that what I said is false when everything I said is documented by mainstream media. Its an admitted fact that the Taliban was used by the US to indirectly fight the USSR
    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;

    Mullah Mohammad Omar in September 1994 in his hometown of Kandahar with 50 students founded a group that became known as the Taliban.[73][74][75]
    Omar had since 1992 been studying in the Sang-i-Hisar madrassa in Maiwand (northern Kandahar Province), was disappointed that Islamic law had not been installed in Afghanistan after the ousting of communist rule, and now with his group pledged to rid Afghanistan of warlords and criminals.[73]


    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.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (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;

    [/sup]

    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.
    I not even sure what you are trying to say here. I never claimed that the Mujahideen was founded by bin-laden. Just that he worked with them and he and others who went on to join the Taliban received funding from the US as a result. And and that like in the article I linked he was praised as a freedom fighter by western media.
    Online

    16
    ReputationRep:
    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.
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    There was apparently a policy, [which cannot be proven or disproven] that during the cold war, it would be unnaceptable for the main superpowers to wipe each other out, and leave some tin pot south american or african dictatorship alone to become the next superpower.

    Thats why just two 100 megaton Russian Nukes would destroy our entire country, and yet there are at least 7000 commisioned nukes in the world. [That we know about, and many more decommisioned]

    Thats how crazy our leaders are.
 
 
 
Poll
How are you feeling in the run-up to Results Day 2018?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.