HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » Latest Breaking News (Forum) » Putin Hints Russia Will C...

Wed Sep 30, 2015, 01:24 AM

 

Putin Hints Russia Will Clip Israel’s Wings Over Syrian Skies

Source: Haaretz

Over 10 different attacks in Syria have been attributed to Israel over the past two and a half years - but Russia's presence in Syria could soon change that.

Amos Harel Sep 29, 2015 10:53 PM

Russian President Vladimir Putin told U.S. President Barack Obama, during their one-on-one meeting in New York early Tuesday, that he was concerned about the Israeli attacks in Syria. He was apparently not referring to the Israeli missiles in the Golan Heights, fired earlier in the week at two artillery positions of the Syrian army in the wake of stray fire into Israeli territory from battles between the rebels and the Syrian army.

Rather, Putin’s statement was more general, referring to over 10 strikes in Syrian territory that have been attributed to Israel over the past two and a half years.
n out-of-commission Israeli tank parks on a hill near the Israel-Syria border, August 21, 2015.
The Syrian area of Quneitra is seen in the background as an out-of-commission Israeli tank parks on a hill near the Israel-Syria border, August 21, 2015.Reuters

It showed that despite Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s meeting with Putin in Moscow last week, Russia intends to create new facts on the ground in Syria that will include restricting Israel’s freedom of movement in Syrian skies.

Defense Minister Moshe Ya’alon said Tuesday that Israel does not coordinate its actions in the north with Russia. “We have interests, and when they are threatened we act and we will continue to act, and that was also made clear to the president of Russia. We have no intention of giving up our ability to protect our interests and I advise that we not be tested,” Ya’alon said, adding, “We will continue to defend our red lines.”


Read more: Russian President Vladimir Putin told U.S. President Barack Obama, during their one-on-one meeting in New York early Tuesday, that he was concerned about the Israeli attacks in Syria. He was apparently not referring to the Israeli missiles in the Golan Heights, fired earlier in the week at two artillery positions of the Syrian army in the wake of stray fire into Israeli territory from battles between the rebels and the Syrian army. Rather, Putin’s statement was more general, referring to over 10 strikes in Syrian territory that have been attributed to Israel over the past two and a half years. n out-of-commission Israeli tank parks on a hill near the Israel-Syria border, August 21, 2015. The Syrian area of Quneitra is seen in the background as an out-of-commission Israeli tank parks on a hill near the Israel-Syria border, August 21, 2015.Reuters It showed that despite Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s meeting with Putin in Moscow last week, Russia intends to create new facts on the ground in Syria that will include restricting Israel’s freedom of movement in Syrian skies. Defense Minister Moshe Ya’alon said Tuesday that Israel does not coordinate its actions in the north with Russia. “We have interests, and when they are threatened we act and we will continue to act, and that was also made clear to the president of Russia. We have no intention of giving up our ability to protect our interests and I advise that we not be tested,” Ya’alon said, adding, “We will continue to defend our red lines.” read more: http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/.premium-1.678097

49 replies, 4646 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 49 replies Author Time Post
Reply Putin Hints Russia Will Clip Israel’s Wings Over Syrian Skies (Original post)
Purveyor Sep 2015 OP
Comrade Grumpy Sep 2015 #1
Elmer S. E. Dump Sep 2015 #13
6chars Sep 2015 #2
geek tragedy Sep 2015 #8
Oneironaut Sep 2015 #14
geek tragedy Sep 2015 #15
Chan790 Oct 2015 #46
leveymg Oct 2015 #28
geek tragedy Oct 2015 #29
leveymg Oct 2015 #31
geek tragedy Oct 2015 #33
leveymg Oct 2015 #36
Chan790 Oct 2015 #47
BlueEye Sep 2015 #3
7962 Sep 2015 #4
nyabingi Sep 2015 #6
geek tragedy Sep 2015 #7
BlueEye Sep 2015 #9
happyslug Sep 2015 #17
BlueEye Sep 2015 #19
happyslug Oct 2015 #34
leveymg Oct 2015 #39
Jesus Malverde Sep 2015 #21
leveymg Oct 2015 #32
nyabingi Sep 2015 #5
7962 Sep 2015 #10
nyabingi Oct 2015 #25
7962 Oct 2015 #37
nyabingi Oct 2015 #40
7962 Oct 2015 #41
nyabingi Oct 2015 #48
7962 Oct 2015 #49
GGJohn Sep 2015 #22
King_David Sep 2015 #24
leftynyc Oct 2015 #44
roamer65 Sep 2015 #11
The Traveler Sep 2015 #12
Massacure Sep 2015 #20
happyslug Oct 2015 #35
7962 Oct 2015 #38
happyslug Oct 2015 #42
leveymg Oct 2015 #43
bemildred Sep 2015 #16
ReactFlux Sep 2015 #18
Reter Sep 2015 #23
leftynyc Oct 2015 #45
still_one Oct 2015 #26
Sunlei Oct 2015 #27
leftyladyfrommo Oct 2015 #30

Response to Purveyor (Original post)

Wed Sep 30, 2015, 02:24 AM

1. Dang, Pootman!

 

This guy is really shaking shit up in Syria, and putting Israel on notice, too.

Maybe that dude really does ride sharks bare-chested.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Comrade Grumpy (Reply #1)

Wed Sep 30, 2015, 03:53 PM

13. I happen to have it on first-hand knowledge that he wrestled a bear once!

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Purveyor (Original post)

Wed Sep 30, 2015, 02:39 AM

2. yep

i think the suspected israeli strikes the article refers to were movements of (iranian) weapons/missiles to lebanon/hizbolla. this could play out in several ways. if Russia prevents that, it would leave Israel less able to strike and less feeling a need to strike. if Russia provides cover for Iran while Iran builds up its proxy hizbolla, then things could get messy. it is interesting how the US post-Bush has pretty much made the strategic choice to withdraw from the middle east, and allowed or encouraged Russia and Iran to move in. we shall see how that goes. there is a best case and a worst case.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 6chars (Reply #2)

Wed Sep 30, 2015, 11:07 AM

8. "the US post-Bush has pretty much made the strategic choice to withdraw from the middle east,

 

and allowed or encouraged Russia and Iran to move in."

This, boys and girls, is how the Neocons and PNAC warmongers think--that because we stopped occupying and invading countries in the middle east, that means we were aiding Russia and Iran.

They invent facts to justify their own discredited ideology.

Because bombing targets in Libya, Syria and Iraq, and squeezing the Assad regime to give up its chemical munitions with the threat of bombing the Syrian military, constitutes "withdrawing from the region."

These people--the same ones who wanted to scrap the Iran nuclear deal--are addicted to war and are dangerous.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to geek tragedy (Reply #8)

Wed Sep 30, 2015, 04:08 PM

14. That's a little harsh.

While I don't think the U.S. has withdrawn from the region like the poster said, he/she is right in a way - Russia is also vying for influence in the Middle East. With that being said, if they want to play with fire in that region like we (carelessly) did, then it's not like there's anything we can do to stop them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Oneironaut (Reply #14)

Wed Sep 30, 2015, 04:44 PM

15. the person is claiming that Obama is encouraging Iran and Russia to gain power

 

and influence.

People who talk like that are the same ones who compare Obama to Neville Chamberlain, etc. And view Bush's foreign policy as the good old days.

You'll be shocked to learn that that same poster was an outspoken opponent of the Iran nuclear deal.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to geek tragedy (Reply #15)

Fri Oct 2, 2015, 09:06 AM

46. The question for me is...why shouldn't we?

 

It's a lot closer to them than us and it's shaking up to be another "graveyard of empires"...why not encourage nations we have icy relations with who are enthusiastic to jump into the tar-pit of the Syrian conflict to do just that?

It seems like a good idea to me. Let Moscow and Tehran be the ones mired in the region instead of us. I don't think it's going to go any better for them than it went for us.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to geek tragedy (Reply #8)

Thu Oct 1, 2015, 10:52 AM

28. There was no withdrawal. The strategic mistake was as in Afghanistan, regime change by Saudi proxy

We gave the Saudis and Qataris carte blanche to build up Jihadi forces to take down Syria, and ISIS is the inevitable result. Meanwhile, at the same time that we run bombing runs over Syria, the USG officially maintains the fiction that KSA and the Gulf countries don't provide IS with most of its funding. That's a push me-pull you strategy that is guaranteed to fail and blow back again on us.

Russia's approach is much more focused -- maintain their bases and influence in Syria -- and they may succeed where we have tied ourselves into knots.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to leveymg (Reply #28)

Thu Oct 1, 2015, 10:53 AM

29. I don't know that we gave the oil sheikhdoms a green light so much

 

as there's not a huge amount we can do about it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to geek tragedy (Reply #29)

Thu Oct 1, 2015, 11:10 AM

31. There's a whole range of things we could do about, if we wanted to, starting with

compliance enforcement and anti-corruption investigations of Saudi-owned and captive companies in the US, and stepping up to freezing assets and embargo, to renditioning major Saudi and Qatari contributors.

None of them involve occupying offshore oil installations and terminals, but that's a final recourse.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to leveymg (Reply #31)

Thu Oct 1, 2015, 11:13 AM

33. the retaliation that would engender is too much for any president to risk

 

happening on his watch. People remember what happened to Jimmy Carter

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to geek tragedy (Reply #33)

Thu Oct 1, 2015, 02:37 PM

36. CIA, the Seven Sisters, the major TV networks certainly did make an example of Carter.

Last edited Fri Oct 2, 2015, 07:56 AM - Edit history (1)

I remember the "Iran oil shortage" which was neither. At the time, the Energy Dept. showed available crude oil supplies in storage inside the US during the "crisis" greater than at any time in a three year period.

The long lines at the pump was actually a shutdown of domestic refineries and intermediary gasoline distributors withholding product from the retail market. The Networks also did their part by creating a consumer panic. Gasoline prices doubled and tripled. Indeed, the price shock at the pump drove US consumption down sharply. After initial panic buying spurred by a perception of shortage, crude oil imports plummeted from a peak of 9m bbl/day in 1977 to a low of 5 m bbl/day in 1982.

The Saudis took the opportunity after 1981 by reducing production to maintain high spot market prices. Saudi oil production steadily increased after 1974 reaching a ten year peak in 1981 of 10m bbl/day, but production plunged dropping to a bottom in 1985 of a mere 4 m bbl/day in, rising again thereafter, finally recovering its previous high in 1993. https://books.google.com/books?id=w9qF5xuVA74C&pg=PA95&lpg=PA95&dq=Saudi+oil+production+1979-81&source=bl&ots=UsNpTDwfHK&sig=IdGJibbu2qlKUwWV7hjYd2ukZ1w&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CB8Q6AEwAWoVChMIg5Xg6fGhyAIVRNk-Ch3mJwAX#v=onepage&q=Saudi%20oil%20production%201979-81&f=false

But, that is not the conventional story, which blames high prices on the Iranian revolution. The political narrative pinned the resulting price spike on Carter.

Later Saudi cuts in production matched those in Iran during the revolution taking a further plunge after Iraq and Iran restored some production in 1982, but by then world prices had tripled. The Saudis ended up making more by exporting less.


http://www.wtrg.com/prices.htm
The Iranian revolution was the proximate cause of the highest price in post-WWII history. However, revolution's impact on prices would have been limited and of relatively short duration had it not been for subsequent events. In fact, shortly after the revolution, Iranian production was up to four million barrels per day.

In September 1980, Iran already weakened by the revolution was invaded by Iraq. By November, the combined production of both countries was only a million barrels per day. It was down 6.5 million barrels per day from a year before. As a consequence, worldwide crude oil production was 10 percent lower than in 1979.

The loss of production from the combined effects of the Iranian revolution and the Iraq-Iran War caused crude oil prices to more than double. The nominal price went from $14 in 1978 to $35 per barrel in 1981.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to geek tragedy (Reply #33)

Fri Oct 2, 2015, 09:13 AM

47. Usually I'm the cynic...

 

but I'm pretty sure the mere threat of being OFAC-listed for funding terrorists leaves every single member of the House of Saud dead by the beginning of the next workweek as their guards and security apparatus decide that dying in the face of popular revolt isn't worth it if their economy flatlines into dissolute poverty and they risk not getting paid.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Purveyor (Original post)

Wed Sep 30, 2015, 06:46 AM

3. Hopefully it doesn't come down to it.

But in a battle between the Israeli Air Force and the Russian Air Force in that region, I think Israel would prevail. Russia has moved a few dozen jets into Syria, of which more than half are ground attack planes that would not fair well in air-to-air combat. Of course, some of Putin's jets are high performance fighters, but Israel has literally hundreds of F-15s and F-16s, with highly trained pilots. Every year, Israel sends its best pilots to the Nevada desert to learn how to dogfight.

And Israel has its Patriot missile batteries in Golan Heights too, so the Russians would be vulnerable to that.

Anyway, I really hope this is all bluster, but Putin and his military should know Israel is always on hair-trigger, and things could escalate quickly.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BlueEye (Reply #3)

Wed Sep 30, 2015, 08:16 AM

4. I agree; Israel would easily top Russian pilots

 

I remember this story from years ago: 85 Syrian jets shot down and zero Israeli jets dropped. The most lopsided dogfight in history. granted, Syrian pilots arent Russians, but Israelis are the best in the region even if you include Russia.
Ground to air would be a bigger issue, but I doubt Israel will care who is running them if they try to shoot.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 7962 (Reply #4)

Wed Sep 30, 2015, 10:59 AM

6. YAY ISRAEL!!!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BlueEye (Reply #3)

Wed Sep 30, 2015, 11:03 AM

7. The Israelis have more to fear from Russian SAM systems. nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to geek tragedy (Reply #7)

Wed Sep 30, 2015, 12:08 PM

9. The Russians have moved the S-300 into Syria, yes.

It's a solid SAM platform, but not invincible. Given that the Israelis have demonstrated that they have air launched cruise missiles that can be fired from hundreds of miles away, the S-300 has vulnerabilities. Israel wouldn't have to be right on top of Russian targets to engage them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BlueEye (Reply #9)

Wed Sep 30, 2015, 05:49 PM

17. Yes the Israeli IDF kept the 175mm Gun for decades for use against AA batteries

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M107_self-propelled_gun

It has a range of 25 miles (40KM), Damascus is just outside its range from the occupied Golan Heights. In the Yom Kipper war, the M107 175mm gun was used to destroy 13 of the 15 destroyed SA-2 AA batteries destroyed by Israel in that conflict.

Now, the S-300 has much longer range then the old SA-2 but given what parts of Syria Assad still controls, the 175mm may be the best weapon against them (The Israelis have developed rocket assisted and base bleed rounds to increase the range of the 175mm gun, but the exact range is classified).

Israel also has access to cruise missiles and other stand off weapons so the 175mm gun may no longer be needed, but I mention it to show the S-300 has weaknesses and one is being subject to artillery fire.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to happyslug (Reply #17)

Wed Sep 30, 2015, 06:47 PM

19. I didn't know that, wow!

I guess it goes to show, just because a technology is old doesn't mean it can't play a pretty significant tactical role.

Thanks for sharing that!

And, as I originally mentioned, I really hope cooler heads prevail here and there is no Israeli/Russian/U.S. confrontation. I have read that there is a Russian liaison working closely with the IAF right now, so that is reassuring.

No matter what though, Israel is prepared.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BlueEye (Reply #19)

Thu Oct 1, 2015, 11:38 AM

34. Sometimes "Obsolete" Technology comes back

 

Last edited Thu Oct 1, 2015, 01:22 PM - Edit history (3)

In Iraq and Afghanistan, US Troops used 1950 era Recoilless Rifles and 1960 era M72 LAW (Light Anti-Tank Weapon) Rockets for they found them to be better then their high tech successors in a fight with an enemy with NO modern Armor. The main reason was the weapons were LIGHTER then the weapons that succeeded them AND more adaptable, for example the 106mm Recoilless rifle adopted in the 1950s could take on any tank, knock a hole in a wall AND fire anti-personal rounds, its successor the TOW missile was superior in knocking out tanks, but inferior in all of the any things the 106 mm Recoilless rifle could do (and the rounds for the recoilless rifle were MUCH cheaper, plus the TOW can NOT be used in severe cold, as in Alaska thus US Troops in Alaska always used the 106mm rifle during winter training).

When Napoleon entered Eastern Europe, he notices the Poles and Russians were still using lances, a weapon Western Europeans had abandoned in favor or Pistols 150 years before. Napoleon notice the Eastern Europeans used them as Second Line Cavalry, for with the Lance the trooper had a "long range" weapon in addition to his saber, but was NOT shooting bullets in the back of the cavalrymen in front of him. Lances survived till WWII, through boot to boot cavalry charges were obsolete due to increase infantry fire power by the 1850s. The Lance was liked for it could be used immediately if you ran into the enemy, If you had time to dismount Cavalry after about 1850 dismounted and fought as infantry (Contrary to how Cavalry is shown in the movies of the West, US Cavalry rarely fought on horseback, the horse was just a means to get to the battlefield)

Side note: Western European cavalry dropped the lance in the late 1600s at the same time the Infantry dropped the Pike. For the infantry, the switch from the pike to the bayonet was NOT that much of a change, the Bayonet Musket was shorter and heavier then a Pike, but could fire bullets. Tactical use of the Pike and the Bayonet was about the same. AS to the Lance, it was "replaced" by the pistol, but the pistol was a one shot weapon that could NOT be loaded during the charge. In any Melee, the Saber was preferred but every so often you needed something longer then a saber. By the late 1600s firearms were seen as the latest thing in combat and anything else was obsolete, even if the other weapons still were effective. It became the style to use firearms, thus every other weapon, except swords, were viewed as out of style and obsolete.

Thus the Lance was viewed as obsolete even through it was being successfully used in Europe and elsewhere and thus became "Obsolete" more to the demands of style then actual combat ineffectiveness till Napoleon brought the Lance back in the 1800s (The Lance then stayed an arm of the Cavalry till WWII, more due to style then effectiveness. After the introduction of the percussion cap and then repeating firearms, horse mounted cavalry charges were viewed as suicidal, thus the Lance was obsolete again by 1860 but used till 1942).


Second Side note: In the Great Cavalry fight between Custer and JEB Stuart during the Battle of Gettysburg in 1863, both sides fought as infantry. In the MOVIES it is often shown as a horse mounted cavalry charge, but in real life it was fought on foot, the horse were used to transport the trooper to the battlefield.


Thus the Lance survived as a Cavalry weapon till horse mounted units were finally abandoned in the 1950s (more do to massive introduction of trucks to move troops around then anything else, through 10 Helicopters were used to replaced the last 100 Mules in the US Army in 1957). Lances were used in WWII by the French in Syria. The last big use of the Lance was WWI by horse mounted messengers, they were under orders to avoid a fight, but to get the message through, thus run if possible, if come upon enemy troops if close so the Lance, if far, go a different way.

Third Side note: During the Afghan war of the 1980s, the US ended up air lifting mules to Pakistan so that the Afghan Guerrillas could be supplied through the various passes of the mountains of the border between Pakistan and Afghanistan. Given Soviet Air Superiority in that conflict, the use of planes and helicopters were out of the question, but mules could go through those passes thus the US shipped in hundred of mules to carry stinger AA missiles to the guerrillas to help offset the Soviet Air Superiority.


The bringing back of "obsolete" weapons is NOT reserved to western nations. THe Comanches are believed to have done the same thing. With the adoption of the horse, the Comanches became the powerhouse in the Southern Plains. As times went on, the Comanches started to wear heavier and heaver leather armor. This lead to the Comanches to drop using the bow, for the leather armor became so thick arrows could no longer penetrate the leather. Like the Knights of the Middle Ages, a Comanche warrior ended up going into combat with five horses. One to ride to the battlefield, one to ride in the actual battle, one to carry his leather armor, one for his "Page" to help him put his armor on, and one for his and the "pages" other gear (Which included additional Armor for the HORSE, for a rider with a dead horse was useless). The Weight of the rider and armor was to much for a horse to carry for any time period thus, the "War Horse" was NOT ridden to the battlefield, the Warrior rode a different horse, often a mare (and in this he duplicated what the Knights of Europe did in the Middle Ages, in the days of heavy armor).

Among the Comanches this Heavy Armored knight was the norm till the French in the mid 1700s started to trade muskets to the Tribes along the Mississippi and Red Rivers. The Muskets were powerful enough to penetrate the leather armor of the Comanches making the Leather armor knights easy targets. In response the Comanches drop the heavy armor, went for lighter and faster horses and returned to the bow, for its superior fire power over the muskets of the 1700s. Thus about 100 years after the Comanches abandoned the bow as obsolete, it came back as the premium weapon of the Comanches, and would remain so (along with the Lance), till the percussion cap was adopted in the US in 1842 (and even then the bow was competitive till the adoption of the repeating rifle in the 1880s).

Now, speaking of the bow, Britain did arm some of its Troops for D-Day with the Bow as a silent killing weapon. How much of this was war time propaganda and how much was true I can not say. I have NOT read any reports of the use of bow and arrows in the Normandy Campaign. On the other hand the Montagnards of the South Vietnam Highlands did use Cross bows during the Vietnam war. That we have documentation of. At the same time the comment was the Montagnards preferred the Weapons the Americans gave them to the cross bows in actual combat.

Just a comment because a weapon is obsolete today, does not mean it will be obsolete tomorrow. Like the bow, it may come back for what made it obsolete, itself became obsolete. It may come back for, like the case of the lance, it was "Obsolete" due to style (Firearms were all the rage in the 1600s, by the early 1800s everyone had them and thus old hat by 1800, permitting the advantages of the lance to over come the style of using a firearm).

Fourth Side Note: Please note some nations declared certain weapons obsolete (mostly bows and arrows) do to the fact bows are a weapon one must practice with on a regular basis, at least weekly but daily would be better AND the ruling elite no longer trusted their peasants.

Unlike, swords, Pikes, Lances, Shields, and other weapons, which can be kept in an armory under the control of the lord warlord, Bows to be effective have to be left with the peasants who are trained in their use. When the local warlords fear their local peasants, Archery is generally banned or otherwise discouraged (You see this in England in the 1500s for the old Archery fields tended to be on the land of the monks. When Henry VIII confiscated those lands, the peasants had no where to practice, given the same peasants supported the Monks, Henry VIII and later his sons and daughters all refused to replace the archery ranges and did all they could to discourage archery, while still hiring every archer they could till 1596, when Elizabeth I replaced her last Archers with more reliable musket men. Even then Archery survived in England till at least 1640 when a Battalion of Archers showed up for the first battle in the English Civil War, then sent home, most were Catholic and the Civil War was a War between Protestants and neither side trusted the Catholics. Cromwell did not BAN Archery, but he did nothing to encourage it, again the archers tend to be from the more Catholic Areas of England. You see the same thing in Shogun Japan, once the Shogun was in power archery was banned except for his supporters. i.e peasants could NOT train in archery but the Samurai could. In most of Europe archery was either banned or discouraged for the same reason, no one trusted the peasants. Thus by declaring Archery obsolete they could disarm their peasants. You see this even in Russia where Archery was effectively taught to Tarters till the late 1800s when repeating firearms finally made Archery obsolete in most combat situations.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to happyslug (Reply #17)

Thu Oct 1, 2015, 02:54 PM

39. The Russians have their own counterbattery capabilities. Israel can't just lob shells now.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BlueEye (Reply #3)

Wed Sep 30, 2015, 07:57 PM

21. Too easy

They can provide the assad forces with portable man pads and other AA defenses. What's interesting is Israel has many Russians immigrants, like their last foreign minister, who speak Russian fluently and still have connections back home.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BlueEye (Reply #3)

Thu Oct 1, 2015, 11:12 AM

32. Speaking of hair-triggers, one should avoid combat between nuclear-armed states.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Purveyor (Original post)

Wed Sep 30, 2015, 10:58 AM

5. Israel wants to keep its ability

to terrorize and kill its neighbors at will without any real opposition.

It's easy to beat up on relatively defenseless Arabs when you're given all of the goodies from US weapons manufacturers.

As soon as the BDS movement gains more steam around the globe, Israel will be forced to behave itself the same way South Africa eventually had to. A threat to a country's finances is much more powerful than guns and fighter jets.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nyabingi (Reply #5)

Wed Sep 30, 2015, 12:17 PM

10. Hey, if your neighbors plot for your destruction & lob rockets at you, you can flatten them.

 

In the past, other countries have learned that. Until the people stop voting terrorists into power, dont expect much to change. Hamas gets what they want, which is a battle they always lose.
So be it. Comparing Israel to S.A. is ridiculous. The black South Africans were not terrorizing the entire nation for years on end. I'm sure there were acts here and there but nothing to speak of compared to what israel has put up with for 50 years. Isnt it funny how Egypt has had very little trouble with Israel after they signed their peace treaty in the 70s? Maybe the Palestinians will wise up and do the same. But I doubt it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 7962 (Reply #10)

Thu Oct 1, 2015, 09:55 AM

25. Nelson Mandela was labeled a terrorist

not only by the racist South African apartheid regime but by the US, whom along with Israel were the major supporters of the South African racists. Israel today is filled with a bunch of racists who have to intention whatsoever of living peacefully beside any of their neighbors, and the Palestinians have the same right as anyone else to defend themselves when they under attack. I guess you'd rather they just cower in their schools and UN shelters and be killed without fighting back?

Israel flattened Gaza last year not because it faced an existential threat from the "rockets" fired by Hamas, but because Israelis simply enjoy massacring defenseless Arabs (as evidenced by photos of Israelis in lawn chairs on a hilltop cheering as their jets dropped bombs on Gaza). They deliberately target civilians who are no threat whatsoever and are never held accountable for it.

You can make all the excuses you want for Israeli actions, but the little Sparta is a criminal state and it will be held to account for its war crimes. What people like you don't want to admit is that Israel doesn't want to live in peace with its neighbors because Israel wants all of the land those people currently inhabit.

You can't make peace with people you want to displace and remove.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nyabingi (Reply #25)

Thu Oct 1, 2015, 02:42 PM

37. The Palestinians got in bed with the terrorists, Israel will continue to defeat them.

 

Thats life. Tough shit for them. As I mentioned before, Israels OTHER neighbors have made peace with them and there has been no trouble for decades. Why? Because people like the King of Jordan are smart enough to know where the future lies.
Isnt it funny how none of the neighboring states ever offer land to help create the Palestinian state, while Israel is supposed to? After all, Much of Jordan was "Trans-Jordan" in '47. No one offers to give them any land because they know they'd be asking for trouble.
Jordan, Egypt, Saudi Arabia all have proven that there can be peace. If you WANT it. Hamas & Hizbullah dont.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 7962 (Reply #37)

Thu Oct 1, 2015, 04:43 PM

40. Israel has made peace with some of its Arab neighbors

because Israel is not actively seeking to take their lands by force, plain and simple. These countries are sucking from the American teet just as much as Israel always has, having their "peace" rewarded by our tax dollars and military equipment. Don't think the actual citizens of these countries view Israel positively because they aren't engaged in warfare.

No one offered the Palestinians land because they already had a land - the land on which Israel was created.

The only way Israel can be forced to cease being a rogue and pariah state in this world is by making them comply financially. Israel will either have to give up its territorial ambitions of realizing their manifest destiny ("Judea and Samarra" and settle for what they have or be forced to do so under financial pressure. It would make sense for them demographically as well.

The tide of history is against racist colonial projects such as the one Israel has been engaged in, and they will eventually come to that realization.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nyabingi (Reply #40)

Thu Oct 1, 2015, 05:27 PM

41. They also "already had" a large part of Jordan. Why arent they included?

 

Why does no one ever mention Jordan when they start with the excuse of Israel taking palestine? Look at a map. Why doesnt Jordan have to give up anything? Because its not just about land, its about ridding the ME of Jews. just as Iran constantly says.
Israel could just line up a 100 bulldozers and clear the whole Gaza if they wanted to. but they dont
Stop dealing with terrorists and they'll have peace.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 7962 (Reply #41)

Fri Oct 2, 2015, 09:47 AM

48. Well Israel wouldn't just resort to outright genocide...

...even though some right-wing Israeli lawmakers have been calling for just that. Do people like you condemn this type of speech? I never see the backers of Israel's right-wing, especially those in the US, condemn any of the speech of Israeli politicians. They've said a lot worse of Palestinians than the things we normally hear coming from places like Iran. Israel's goal is to make the Palestinians lives so utterly miserable that they'll simply leave.

So you feel the adjacent countries like Jordan should just take the Palestinians in so that Israel can have what it wants, eh? It was Jordan who ran the Palestinians off of their land was it? If you're making that argument, why didn't Europe's Jews force the victors of WWII to make Germany cede a part of that country to establish Israel? It was Germany who literally tried to kill every Jewish person in sight, yet Europe's Jews decided to colonize a land none of them have any legitimate claim to. I'm sorry, but your religious texts don't count as legitimate sources.

Israel doesn't want peace because Israel wants every bit of land from the Mediterranean over to Jordan, and this is the reason the conflict will not end in Palestine.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nyabingi (Reply #48)

Fri Oct 2, 2015, 04:11 PM

49. If you think the Israelis have said worse than the Arabs, you're beyond reality

 

The Israelis have been accused of using Arab children's blood to make FOOD.
They've been accused of exporting melons infected with AIDS
They've been accused of making sharks attack Arabs
And thats just a few of the ridiculous assertions made by the Arabs. And not just rumors, much of this stuff is put out in newspapers as fact. It happens all the time.

Of course there have been far right whackjobs in Israel who have said stupid things. But their words have never been the official position of the government leaders. Like Iran's threats are. And Hamas. Their official positions are to rid the earth of Israel


And if you go back far enough, Israel was there firs anyway. Regardless of who forced the partition in 47, Jordan still benefited from it. If theres any talk about taking from Israel to give to the palestinians, it should also include them
If everyone really wanted a palestinian country, everyone would join in to help make it happen. The reality is, most of the Arab countries really dont want anything to do with them. Thats why they keep them in camps instead of letting them assimilate into the country. Even during the last Gaza war, Egypt helped Israel.

Post #44 gives you a perfect example of the real world

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nyabingi (Reply #5)

Wed Sep 30, 2015, 08:11 PM

22. So much bullshit in so little words.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GGJohn (Reply #22)

Wed Sep 30, 2015, 10:57 PM

24. +1

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nyabingi (Reply #5)

Fri Oct 2, 2015, 07:52 AM

44. Good luck with getting thinking people

 

on board with trashing Israel while the elected leaders in gaza - the terrorist hamas - praise murder in the streets as heroism:

http://www.jpost.com/Breaking-News/Hamas-praises-fatal-shooting-of-couple-in-West-Bank-as-heroic-terror-attack-419713

The BDS movement is going nowhere.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Purveyor (Original post)

Wed Sep 30, 2015, 12:44 PM

11. The Israelis have been warned by Putin to leave Iranian and Hezbollah interests alone.

Let's see if they heed that warning.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Purveyor (Original post)

Wed Sep 30, 2015, 01:39 PM

12. Russia's Air Forces have been upgraded

 

Older platforms have been refurbished and refitted with modern avionics, targeting and fire control systems. They have their own inventory of new missiles. And they have some new platforms. But most of this gear has not seen battle. A good way to evaluate your new hardware is to have a little skirmish with a suitably equipped and trained proxy. You don't have to win that to learn what ya need to know, either.

I haven't looked into what aircraft they've moved or are moving into the region. But I'm pretty sure there's a big chunk of the Russian Air Force that wouldn't mind seeing how their pilots and new machines perform against American made aircraft flown by really good pilots. If they can hold their own against the Israeli Air Force, it establishes that the balance of air power really has shifted a bit, and that American military planners would have to assess a higher cost to achieving air superiority in an engagement with Russian forces.

Trav

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The Traveler (Reply #12)

Wed Sep 30, 2015, 07:23 PM

20. I don't think the Russian Air Force really scares the Pentagon.

The F-35 gets a bad rap for being maneuverable, but it is really designed for ground strikes whereas the F-22 is meant to be the dog fighter. Either way though, the range on the AIM-120 missile is close to a hundred miles, and the Russian's don't have anything that will detect an F-35 or F-22 that far out.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Massacure (Reply #20)

Thu Oct 1, 2015, 02:29 PM

35. The F-22 is considered only marginally better then the F-15

 

The Russia Flanker is considered the equal to the F-15 when it comes to flight and maneuverability but inferior in electronics. The F-22 has increased ability to avoid radar detection and "lock on" over the F-15 but equal in most other areas (With some reports of decrease maneuverability due the efforts to make it less detectable by radar).

This in most opinions the US Advantage is NOT in the US planes themselves, the F-15 or F-22, but the electronics in those planes. It is in the electronics that the US has a solid lead, but it is a lead NOT as wide as it was just 20 years ago. Furthermore we are hitting some limits on electronics, more in the form of decline in the effect of the advantage as oppose to advantage itself. Russian electronics is considered 10 to 15 years behind US technology. Til 2000, that 10 to 15 year gap made a huge difference, in the 1960s was was the difference between Punch cards and electronic tapes. In the 1970s that difference was the difference between calculators and the first home computers. in the 1990s, it was the difference between Word processors and computers and the lasts electric typewriters. In 2005 it was the difference between LCD Flat Screens AND black and white monitors.

Notice the last one, Flat Screens and black and white monitors. That is the 15 year difference in 2005. No one had black and white monitors in 2005 (Color monitors had replaced them in the 1990s) but in many ways, what you could do on a flat screen you could do on a black and white screen. It is not as colorful or clear but the results will be the same if what you are doing is writing a paper.

In many ways that is the wall electronics are hitting today. The huge advantages of the 1960s through 1990 of the latest technology is no longer occurring. People are using 10-15 year old computers and are satisfied with their performance. Are those old computers as good as the latest computer? No, but what people are using them for, they are good enough. The Gamers, the CAD users and those who want the latest in thing will see how bad those old computers are, but the most places on the net will still be access by computers 10 to 15 years old. The same with the electronics in today's fighters, if you look closely you will see that the US planes have clear advantages over Russian planes based on the latest electronic, but you will also see the difference in actual combat is NOT that great. Training and luck can overcome the difference in electronics, thus the Flanker can equal the F-15 and the F-22 if used carefully with tactics that avoids the advantages of US superior electronics.

In an even fight, and most fights are NOT, the F-15 and F-22 have the overall advantage due to superior electronics, but if the Flanker can overcome those advantages, the Flanker can take out both planes.

One last comment, during Vietnam A-1s prop attack planes took out two jet powered MIG-17s in 1965. It is a case of what was considered a slow attack plane, taking out a faster fighter by using its advantages, including SLOWER SPEED, to take out a faster jet. The same with the Flanker and even the SU-25, if they are careful and do NOT fight the F-22 or F-15's battle, they can take out a F-15 or F-22 as the A-1s did to the MIG-17s in 1965:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Douglas_A-1_Skyraider#Cathay_Pacific_VR-HEU_Incident

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to happyslug (Reply #35)

Thu Oct 1, 2015, 02:46 PM

38. Dont forget the pilots. Another big advantage.

 

We saw as far back as WW2 that better pilots flying inferior aircraft could still be victorious. I doubt Israeli pilots would fear the Russians, nor do I think the Russians would even try to take them on. Too big of an embarrassment if they fail

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 7962 (Reply #38)

Thu Oct 1, 2015, 08:16 PM

42. The Russians have been improving their Air Force since Putin took over in 2000

 

The US Air Force loved citing their 15 to 1 ratio of MIG-15 shot down to each F-86 Sabre shot down but the Russians claim where Russian Pilots were involved it was 2 to 1 in favor of the MIG-15. This is also complicated by the fact the MIG being flown by Chinese and North Korean Pilots had orders to go after the B-29s bombing their forces, while the F-86 primary target was the MIG-15s.

In Vietnam the ratio fell to 2 to 1 in favor of US Pilots, the North Vietnamese pilots were almost as good as US pilots, and flying generally a generation behind the US planes. The F-15 was developed to improve on that ratio but it took the Russians another 20 years to come out with their SU-27 in 1977, but did not get all of the bugs out of the design till 1985, then the Soviet Union Collapsed in 1989 and the SU-27 basically was kept flying with no improvements till after 2000 when Putin started to put money back into his military.

Thus the SU-27 really did not come into its own till after 2001. The US Air Force learned enough about it in the 1990s to say on flying terms it is the equal to the F-15. The US Air Force Advantage is in electronics. Russian Pilots of today are considered as good as the Soviet Pilots of the 1980s (and they were considered as good as any US Pilots). Thus I doubt there is an real advantage in pilot skills. The Advantage is in electronics and that is the big difference in most air battles in the last 40 years.

AS tro taking on the Israeli pilots, the Pilots of the SU-25 have huge fears, for the SU-25 would be a sitting duck for any F-15s. The SU-24 have a better chance against the F-15, but not much for the SU-24 is primarily a bomber. The real question is the SU-27 Flanker. If I was the Russians I would use the SU-24s and SU-25s and see what Israel does. If Israel does nothing, the Russians will do nothing. If the Israelis sent in their F-15s, then I see the SU-27s coming into play. I suspect the Russians will keep the SU-27s in reserve and only send them out when the Russians think the Israeli's F-15s are committed to attacking the SU-25s or the SU-24s.

Remember Israel has only 43 F-15s, Saudi Arabia has 70.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonnell_Douglas_F-15_Eagle

Another source says Israel has 58 F-15s and an additional 25 F-15E Strike Eagles, the attack version of the F-15.

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

Compared to the two SU-27 the 43 F-15 is a lot and Israel may NOT want to go after those Su-25s and SU-24 with their F-15s in case it is a set up.

One Comment, Israel MAY not send in its planes, instead leave it up to Israel two biggest unofficial and unadmitted (But very close) allies, Turkey and Saudi Arabia for any air attacks against Syria. Turkey flies NO F-15s, Turkey flies F-16s instead. Turkey has 236 F-16s.

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

Israel has 344 F-16s to support its F-15s.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Massacure (Reply #20)

Fri Oct 2, 2015, 07:44 AM

43. I think the Russians disagree, as does war-is-boring


https://medium.com/war-is-boring/no-the-f-35-can-t-fight-at-long-range-either-5508913252dd

But that doesn’t mean these aircraft are equals when it comes to emitting and detecting that heat. Remember, the F-35 has one huge and very hot engine.

True, Lockheed designed the JSF’s fuel tanks to help sop up some of the extra thermal energy the plane generates. But take a look at the F-35’s engine nozzle. It’s round. Highly stealthy planes such as America’s B-2 bomber and F-22 fighter both boast flat engine nozzles that spread out their exhaust plumes, cutting back on the telltale IR signature.

Even with its radar off, an F-35 could struggle to hide from enemy planes — to say nothing of enemy forces on the ground. Consider all those long-wavelength, low-band radars that Russia, China and Iran are building right next to potential hotspots in Europe, East Asia and the Middle East.

“You can’t stealthify against long-wavelength radars,” says Pierre Sprey, an experienced engineer who worked on both the F-16 and the A-10 ground attack plane.

These giant arrays can detect tiny objects at great distances. Tehran insists its Ghadir radar can spot jets more than 300 miles away. Russian arms-dealer Rosoboronexport claims the Rezonans-NE can detect stealth planes nearly 750 miles distant.

Using these radars, earthbound spotters could point warplanes toward incoming F-35s, even if the planes’ pilots can’t find the JSFs with their own radars or heat sensors. “You’re not invisible,” Sprey says of anyone flying the F-35.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Purveyor (Original post)

Wed Sep 30, 2015, 04:59 PM

16. Russia’s Syria gambit

---

In February 2012, when the conflict in Syria had just begun to become brutal, the Russian Ambassador to the UN, Vitaly Churkin, told the Finnish diplomat Martti Ahtisaari to carry a message to the Western capitals. The Russians, Mr. Churkin said, would be willing to broker a deal between the government and the opposition, including the eventual removal of Bashar al-Assad from the presidency. The West, Mr. Ahtisaari recently said, rejected the deal. They seemed to want nothing less than the humiliation and removal of the Assad government. Their slogan at that time was, “Assad must go.” Three years later, Mr. Assad continues to control the most important urban centers of Syria, but he is much weaker. Mr. Assad, in many ways, is already gone. The military support of the Lebanese militia Hezbollah, Iran and Russia makes it clear that the Syrian army is no longer capable of holding its own against the rebels and IS.

The IS has indicated firmly that it is not prepared to negotiate. It will need to have its support base undercut so that its least ideological followers will dissipate. For this, pressure on Turkey to close its border and pressure on the Gulf Arab Sheikhs to stop their individual donations to well-known jihadi financial networks will be essential.

The shadow armies

Mr. Assad’s army has not moved directly against IS. Its enemies are closer — the proxy armies of Turkey (Ahrar as-Sham) and Saudi Arabia (Jaish al-Islam) as well as al-Qaeda’s ferocious affiliate (Jabhat al-Nusra). The Russian entry into Syria will also not directly take on the IS. Between the Russian troops and IS lies a swathe of land held by these proxy armies. The reaction from Riyadh and Ankara to the eventuality of a conflict of their proxies with the Russians will reveal the future course of action in Syria. The entry of the Russian troops seems both to protect Moscow’s interests in western Syria and to put pressure on the regional powers to rein in their proxies. If these groups lose their external supporters, they will wither. That seems the likely Russian gambit. Moscow does not want a repetition of the Afghan humiliation and is aiming to use its military presence to drive a diplomatic process amongst Syria’s regional adversaries — Turkey and Saudi Arabia.

What is certain is that the narrative on Syria of the Gulf Arabs, the Turks and the West has collapsed. The extremists now control the fight. It is a dangerous situation that allowed the growth of IS — itself a product of the 2003 illegal war on Iraq. The expansion of IS has threatened Turkey’s integrity and its domestic politics. The chaos has spread to Europe through the massive refugee crisis. Russia and Iran have placed a new narrative on the table, to concentrate on the destruction of IS and al-Qaeda’s Jabhat al-Nusra. It is a narrative that has become increasingly appealing even in the Western capitals.

http://www.thehindu.com/opinion/columns/russias-syria-gambit/article7707958.ece

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Purveyor (Original post)

Wed Sep 30, 2015, 06:02 PM

18. They should send in the DRONES

 

like we do, with people who will not follow our commands.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Purveyor (Original post)

Wed Sep 30, 2015, 10:47 PM

23. If that happens, let them duke it out

 

No more wars for Israel.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Reter (Reply #23)

Fri Oct 2, 2015, 07:55 AM

45. It puzzles me when

 

people post bullshit like we fight on behalf of the Israeli's when it's so fucking obvious that we seem to only fight for the benefit of Saudi Arabia. Why doesn't anyone want to talk about THAT obvious truth?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Purveyor (Original post)

Thu Oct 1, 2015, 10:17 AM

26. If Afghanistan is any indicator, I think Russia will have more concerns than Israel in Syria.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Purveyor (Original post)

Thu Oct 1, 2015, 10:27 AM

27. maybe russia should hire republicans to put up a border wall to keep IS out of russia

IMO, Putin seems like he is trying to hide 'something' in Syria.

He's to protective of Assad government for "whatever" he (and china) are hiding from aerial view to just be his ally Assad he blusters over.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Purveyor (Original post)

Thu Oct 1, 2015, 10:57 AM

30. There is not going to be a Middle East left.

These idiots are just going to grind it right into the ground. It will simply be a vast swath of desert that is no man's land.

Syria used to be a place with thriving cities and business. Now its just a pile of rocks.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread