Russian strikes again expose US disarray

[lostinblue 1,989]

Russian strikes again expose US disarray

New York (AFP) - Russia's dramatic entry Wednesday into the Syrian war put the United States on the back foot once again and left Washington struggling to regain the military and diplomatic initiative.

As US Secretary of State John Kerry was in New York trying to coordinate with his Kremlin opposite number Sergei Lavrov, a Russian officer contacted the US embassy in Baghdad.

His message was simple: Russian jets are about to launch air strikes in Syria, please stay out of their way.

Kerry quickly protested to Lavrov that this was not in the spirit of Moscow's promise to agree a "de-confliction" mechanism to ensure Russian flights do not interfere with US-led operations.

But the strikes were already underway, potentially altering the balance of power in Syria back in favor of Bashar al-Assad's regime, and Washington was looking at a fait accompli.

Lavrov's next move was to promise to bring a motion before the UN Security Council to coordinate "all forces standing up against Islamic State and other terrorist structures."

This would be a plain victory for Assad, who invited the Russians to join his battle to cling on to power, and a defeat for the United States, which has demanded he step down.

The attacks came despite President Barack Obama sitting down with Russia's Vladimir Putin on Monday at the United Nations for 90 minutes of what both camps called "business-like" talks.

One week ago, Kerry -- despite being in frequent contact with Lavrov -- told reporters that Russia's deployment of war planes was consistent with their only defending their own base.

And just hours before the strikes began he appeared on CNN to say that Russia's involvement could be an "opportunity" to persuade them to apply pressure on Assad to moderate his behavior.

After the strikes Kerry addressed the UN Security Council, but even here his message was mixed.

He said the United States would welcome the Russian action if it reflected a "genuine commitment" towards destroying the IS group and not the moderate opposition rebels threatening Assad.

Even as he spoke, a US defense official in Washington briefed journalists that: "We have not seen any strikes against ISIL, what we have seen is strikes against Syrian opposition."

Defense Secretary Ash Carter was cautious, saying: "It does appear they were in areas where there were probably not ISIL forces."

- Perils of inaction -

The US administration's domestic critics, such as hawkish Senator John McCain, leapt on the apparent confusion.

confused our friends, encouraged our enemies, mistaken an excess of caution for prudence and replaced the risks of action with the perils of inaction," he said.

"Into the wreckage, into the wreckage of this administration's Middle East policy has now stepped Vladimir Putin."

Frustration is also mounting among Washington's allies in the Middle East, who support moves to defeat the Islamic State group, but also want to see Assad kicked out of office.

Saudi Foreign Minister Adel al-Jubeiri, speaking to journalists in New York on Tuesday, was cautious not to criticize the United States alone, bemoaning a "lack of robust action by all of us."

But he was clear on why the Russians had found an opening to insert themselves into the conflict.

"We've called for direct military intervention from day one. We've called for a no-fly zone. We've called for a no-drive zone. We've called for robust arming of the Syrian opposition," he said.

"That's what I mean by 'not enough happened.' That's why four years later we're in the situation we're in," he said.

Speaking privately, diplomats from US-led coalition countries say the Russian "escalation" effectively precludes stronger overt military pressure on Assad, for fear of a clash.

Meanwhile, the Arab allies dismiss Moscow's argument that working with Assad is the best way to defeat the Islamic State.

"They're calling for a coalition to fight Daesh, with Iran and Russia and Bashar al-Assad? Without him there would be no Daesh. He created Daesh," Jubeir scoffed, using the Arabic acronym for IS.

http://news.yahoo.com/russian-strikes-again-expose-us-disarray-201634156.html

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Putin is obviously trying to prop up Assad.

[Póg mo 1,749]

There is a Syrian opposition? The Russians must really have the whole precision bombing thing down.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

There is a Syrian opposition? The Russians must really have the whole precision bombing thing down.

Their approach to precision is controlling the state media to limit mention of civilian casualties.

Of course the US has a pretty poor reputation for doing that too - notorious for friendly fire against their allies, going back to WW2

Edited October 1, 2015 by Trumplestiltskin

[ready4ONE 5,400]

Meanwhile today it is expected that millions of Russian citizens will be bankrupt. Thanks for carrying the torch of deflection Comrade Lost. The Motherland needs all the good Comrads such as you!

[-relo- 105]

someone has to do it.

Edited October 1, 2015 by -relo-

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

I always wonder about people who see the projection of strength through military might as being an essential quality for a leader. Taking lessons from the wrong historical figures imo.

Putin runs a quasi totalitarian state ruled half by the secret service and half by the Russian mafia, not that there is much difference between the two these days.

[-relo- 105]

I always wonder about people who see the projection of strength through military might as being an essential quality for a leader. Taking lessons from the wrong historical figures imo.

Putin runs a quasi totalitarian state ruled half by the secret service and half by the Russian mafia, not that there is much difference between the two these days.

hugs & caring don't seem to be working on this bunch. maybe speaking the language they understand will.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

The point being it's not your war to fight, just as it isn't Russias.

They don't care about the people in Syria, just as the US doesn't. It's just about some BS geopolitical agenda.

[-relo- 105]

The point being it's not your war to fight, just as it isn't Russias.

They don't care about the people in Syria, just as the US doesn't. It's just about some BS geopolitical agenda.

an army of terrorist taking over large portions of countries isn't in anyone's best interest. like I said 'someone has to do it'. watching it happen isn't working.

[Ban Hammer 13,696]

Remember the final 2012 presidential debate - when asked the question about the greatest geopolitical threat.
Gov. Mitt Romney replied it was Russia and carefully explained why.
Barack Obama ridiculed Romney by stating, “Governor, the 80s are calling they want their foreign policy back.”

hmmm.

[lostinblue 1,989]

Remember the final 2012 presidential debate - when asked the question about the greatest geopolitical threat.

Gov. Mitt Romney replied it was Russia and carefully explained why.

Barack Obama ridiculed Romney by stating, “Governor, the 80s are calling they want their foreign policy back.”

hmmm.

Global warming is the worlds biggest threat according to the Kenyan ... ISIS .. just the JV team

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

If you believe they are actually attacking the terrorists, I guess...

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Global warming is the worlds biggest threat according to the Kenyan ... ISIS .. just the JV team

I still don't understand why you think that Syrias civil war is for the US to fight. If you could point to a previous military intervention the US has done in the middle east that's actually made things better, the idea would have more credibility...

As it stands, it's obvious what Putin is doing. Assad is his ally and supporting him (a terrible regime btw) preserves their influence in the middle east.

Its like Iraq, noone would dispute that saddam was a bad guy, but as we've seen - removing him has come at a cost that might not have been worth paying...

Edited October 1, 2015 by Trumplestiltskin

[decocker 7,198]

I still don't understand why you think that Syrias civil war is for the US to fight. If you could point to a previous military uneventful the US has done in the middle east that's actually made things better, the idea would have more credibility...

ALL WARS ARE BELONG TO US.