Talk:Russian deployment in Syria

...and Russia

 * ''Moved from Talk:Syrian Government Forces

According to a Turkish source, "Six MiG-31 fighter jets from Russia have landed in Damascus, in partial fulfillment of a protocol signed between Moscow and the Syrian regime in 2007" --Resup (talk) 19:53, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

It is said that a group of Russian pilots and planes are expected to begin arriving to a government-controlled part of Syria. It is expected that they will play a role in countering IS. --Resup (talk) 14:20, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Apparently the MiG-31 delivery was denied by Russia (edit: here), at least that is what seems to be consensus on this German blog. But they spotted a modern BTR-82A on the Syrian battlefield and discuss that a Russian warship with military vehicles on open deck was spotted southbound in the Bosporus on August 20. The latter site has a list at the end of this article which suggests that there is something to the frequent "Syria Express" from Russia to Tartous sources like Syria Perspective are bragging about. --CE (talk) 18:59, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
 * More on the topic here: New evidence proves Russian military directly engaging in Syrian Civil War - 29 August 2015

Kerry was concerned by reports of Russian involvement, called Lavrov. Kerry said that this can lead to escalation, and possibly clash with Western anti-IS coalition. Contacts on the issue will continue. Also in the same article: Putin said that participating in hostilities is not currently on agenda, but Russia provides Syria with quite significant assistance, including equipment, training of military personnel, weapons. Speaking about the support of Syria's weapons, Putin sai that we are talking about contracts signed some 5-7 years ago. "We are fulfilling all of them in full"  --Resup (talk) 13:07, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Russian aerial campaign

 * ''Discussed on Russian Airstrikes in Syria page.

Mig-31s? (In response to earlier reports which were not accurate with respect to plane model): There is a curious old article by Kommersant, a respected Russian business journal. It refers to 'multiple sources in miliary-industrial complex' for information that a contract was signed to deliver five Mig 31 to Syria. Production of Mig 31 was halted in 1994 for economic reasons. The head of the federal industrial agency of Russia at the time, confirmed that there is an export contract, but declined to name the buyer. Assistant director of Mig Vladimir Vypriazhkin confirmed that export orders 'have started to appear', and that they offer Mig 31 as a 'trade-in' deal to those countries who have Mig 25. At the time, Syria and Libya had Mig 25, and India stopped using it for wear and tear reasons. Komersant reminded that Iran will also benefit, since there is mutual defense treaty between Syria and Iran (still in force by 2012, and likely in force today). Mig 31 was designed to counter cruise missiles in particular, and can be armed with long-range missiles. Unsure what happened to the contract, perhaps put on ice on Israel objections. Maybe it is attempted to revive this now after the Iran deal. --Resup (talk) 02:26, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Fall of Mosul
This is what I wrote on Facebook on June 11th, 2014, right after the Fall of Mosul


 * ''Roadmap to #WWIII – or how to avoid one.
 * ''The United Stated and her European minions will now be asked the question:
 * ''Whose side are you on? Are you with the Islamic State in Iraq and the Leviant, formerly known as Al-Qaida in Iraq or against them?
 * ''If you are against ISIS, what are you going to do about it?
 * ''If the US cannot produce a unequivocal, satisfactory and comprehensive answer, then it will be for #Russia, #China, #Iran, #Syria, #Hezbollah and #BRICS to secure world peace and stability.
 * ''As a first step Russia will have to – in cooperation with CIS, SCO & CSTO – liberate #Novorossiya, secure Kiev and pacify #Galicia.
 * ''All fronts of this global campaign of destabilization are now interconnected, Libya, Syria, Iraq, Pakistan, #Ukraine. Syria and Hezbollah will have to send military advisers to the Donbass front.

-- Petri Krohn (talk) 18:29, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Why to 'deploy' in Syria?
Don't know but this counters Western color revolution/Maidan tactics, supporting a government in this case, unlike Ukraine, so something legally more sound. This helps to preserve a tightly managed regime which may be seen as having some affinity to present day Russia, with Russia quite clearly better of in comparison. This gives a market for weapons sales. If this weapons come to use, it will increase oil prices, a major export item. I don't think a major military engagement is an actual plan at this time, or imposing some proper order to the situation; but it may develop in one of those ways in the future, depending on how the West will play this. --Resup (talk) 10:26, 16 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Strelkov version (posted on social media,and quoting his sources) is that it was somehow arranged or encouraged by US administration to involve Russia in fighting IS, and seized upon Russia in a hope of partnering or mending relations with the only superpower. Nothing wrong so far as far as I am concerned, and at least somewhat plausible, as US knew about this in advance (according to Putin), with only muted criticism initially.   Than a hat trick by Russia to make this pro-Assad, not anti-IS, sort of allowed initially,  than  eventually indirectly opposed with others' helping hands, leading to further deteriorating relations overall. If as described,  both sides are in the wrong, I'd say. For Russia, acting out of deeply held mistrust, to the West and its own pro-Western opposition,  and undercutting presumably dumb so called Western 'partner', yet hoping that some magic will emerge out of it; but no magic seems to be on horizon, apart from potentially more warfare. For the US, pretending that  Wahhabis (with presentable spokesmen/graphics designer)  would qualify for democratic opposition, and all the other dirty tricks from the well-known arsenal. Result of all this is going to be more chaos and lives and livelihoods lost, for the vast majority of the participants.   At the moment their seem to be no developments, and no leaders, likely to significantly change such course, unless by some miracle. With new leaders, maybe, but who knows what they are really up to and how even good intentions will play out in the real world. --Resup (talk) 22:55, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Why to withdraw from Syria?
Seems like perfect timing for such an announcement ...--Resup (talk) 19:09, 14 March 2016 (UTC)