According to Russia’s Izvestia newspaper, the Russian military has deployed a substantial new group of warplanes into Syria, to be operated out of the Hmeymim base, near Latakia. The Russian Defense Ministry has yet to confirm the new deployment, which is said to include more advanced planes.
The move reflects increased fighting, particularly in the area around Aleppo, and a desire by Russian officials to get more forces into the region as the US threatens unspecified “non-diplomatic” actions against them for continuing to fight against the Nusra Front in Aleppo.
Russia has a substantial number of airplanes operating inside Syria, but the most advanced planes they have simply can’t operate out of the runways available to them inside Syria. This has forced them to fly from southern Russia, and briefly from an airbase in Iran, though Iran quickly put a stop to that in the face of some diplomatic tensions.
Since the ceasefire in Syria collapsed a week and a half ago, the Russian military has been increasing its aid to the Assad government, particularly as it relates to fighting ISIS and Nusra. They have also spurned US demands to halt all attacks and ground all their planes, insisting that the US is a big reason why the ceasefire ended unsuccessfully.
With the kind of planes Russia is sending to Syria I would suggest Russia maybe about ready to impose a no fly zone over Syria like we did over Iraq and Libya . If Russia imposed a no fly zone over Syria . We do not have the kind of planes there that could stop them . But Russia has the kind of planes and missiles that could stop us from flying over Syria . At least for a few days or long enough to get the argument before the United Nations security council .This would be a big embarrassment for NATO and the United States . Russia could also call on the United Nation for a ruling on the legality of Syria imposing a no fly zone or even the legality of NATO opposing a Syrian no fly zone . The world believes and international laws says the foreign Jihadist and NATO don’t have any rights to be in Syria . This would be a great victory for Russia to kick NATO out of Syria maybe even with out firing a single shot
I agree that a no-fly zone imposed by Russia (with agreement by Syria) would be legal, and a NATO/US imposed no-fly zone would be illegal, but either way it would result in direct confrontation between the US and Russia. Neither side will back down. I fear this is inevitable.
“But Russia has the kind of planes and missiles that could stop us from flying over Syria . At least for a few days or long enough to get the argument before the United Nations security council”
It would be a high risk, high return gamble for the Russians, because the US and its regional allies certainly have the forces necessary to suppress Russian/Syrian air defences in the region and establish air superiority there, but not without an extended (and blatantly illegal) campaign that would risk a world war.
If the Syrians and Russians were to gamble by declaring a (perfectly legal) exclusion of US and other foreign aircraft from Syrian airspace, the risk is that the Clintonite extremists in the US regime and military likely responsible for the recent attack on Syrian troops at Deir Ezzor might respond by defying it and daring them to shot down a US plane over Syria. We know that the US doesn’t regard law as an issue except for propaganda purposes – it is the ultimate rogue state in this sense.
If Russia responds by shooting down a US plane, the US sphere media will be almost lockstep in declaring Russia to have acted aggressively and murderously, and in calling for the US regime to act in order to retain “credibility”. And if push comes to shove, the US and its regional allies have escalation superiority – they will win a military conflict in that region, though probably not without losses.
We would be in a massively dangerous situation – far more dangerous than the Cuban Missile Crisis.
I’m not saying the Russians aren’t capable of it and absolutely won’t do it if they are pushed hard enough, but I read Putin as much more cautious type than that.
If Russia wanted a no-fly zone over Syria, surely their new S500 air defense system would be installed and no Western pilot would commit suicide trying to defy it.
One option Russia has is a Syrian no-fly zone for drones.
Also, if Russia established a no-fly zone for all fighter-bombers, it could blow all foreign planes out of the sky stating that it assumed they were drones, as they had given NATO and all fair warning.
No air defence system can hold out indefinitely against the kind of saturation attacks with stand off missiles that the US and its regional allies would mount if an all out effort were to be made. Syria is not Moscow (it isn’t even Yugoslavia), and there’s a limit to the resources Russia would or could deploy effectively there, bearing in mind they are surrounded and outnumbered, and too far away for easy support and resupply, or extraction, when it comes down to it. If the Russian air defence systems operate to spec and aren’t compromised or subverted, then they might well inflict a few casualties on the way, but I don’t doubt it would be arranged so that most of those would fall to the Gulf air forces rather than to US aircrew.
“One option Russia has is a Syrian no-fly zone for drones.
Also, if Russia established a no-fly zone for all fighter-bombers, it could blow all foreign planes out of the sky stating that it assumed they were drones, as they had given NATO and all fair warning.”
It really doesn’t matter what Russia says or whether Russia is in the right or not, because the mainstream media throughout the US sphere will report it as Russian aggression anyway, and manufacture the necessary political cover for whatever action the US regime decides upon.
The escalation risk is the main concern for the US regime US-uber-alles types. Air war over Syria means suppressing or destroying the Soviet Mediterranean fleet, which means risking a Russian hit on a US ship or two, and expands the conflict out of the immediate theatre. Who knows where all that will end, especially once submarine warfare is involved. It means the Russians might decide to take out US and regional bases in Turkey and Saudi Arabia. Etc.
This is what the world likely faces, imo, if and when Clinton gets in.
Well, US/NATO would have to get all that gear in first to even make the saturation attack. And I’m not even sure they would attempt this given the heavy losses this would imply. If it came to that then the real battle would most likely take place along the supply lines and not in the sky above Syria. And like most people predict, this would quickly escalate into a full blown global War. Let’s not find out… (please vote Trump :x)
“No air defence system can hold out indefinitely against the kind of saturation attacks with stand off missiles that the US and its regional allies would mount if an all out effort were to be made.”
As I said, not without a bloodbath on their part. And don’t expect “regional allies” to be foolish enough to launch an all-out attack on Syria in co-ordination with the US. The US will go it alone (and without public support) and possibly get embarrassed.
“If the Russian air defence systems operate to spec and aren’t compromised or subverted, then they might well inflict a few casualties on the way, ”
Virtually no 4th generation fighter is survivable against that system, and almost all aircraft of “regional allies” fit that bill. We wouldn’t be talking about a “few” casualties but a massive blood bath.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S-400_(missile)
The S-400 is an EXTREMELY capable system. Don’t let US bravado lead you to believe otherwise. The US couldn’t defeat it without a bloodbath and possible riots in the streets. The S-500 is nearing completion as well. Perhaps it is ready enough for beta testing?
Anyway, if it looks as if Clinton will win, I think the Russians should impose a no-fly zone before that nut takes office.That way, they can limit illegal weapons shipments into the country. If the empire tries anything, they should start shipping weapons to the Taliban.
“I’m not saying the Russians aren’t capable of it and absolutely won’t do it if they are pushed hard enough, but I read Putin as much more cautious type than that.”
Everyone has a red line. Personally, I’d never let an evil empire surround me with military forces, then send weapons to terrorists to kill my people without a military conflict. I’d also nuke that big naval base in Bahrain before losing in Syria.
“-This has forced them to fly from southern Russia, and briefly from an airbase in Iran, though Iran quickly put a stop to that in the face of some diplomatic tensions.”
This is no longer the case, Whatever disagreement lay between Iran and Russia has been resolved, and flights from Iranian territory are once again approved.
In addition, to say that Russia is “insisting that the US is a big reason why the ceasefire ended unsuccessfully” doesn’t really reflect the fact that the attack on Syrian troops was the reason. It’s not just that the Russians “insist”, there’s not really any debate about it.
“Whatever disagreement lay between Iran and Russia has been resolved, and flights from Iranian territory are once again approved.”
That’s interesting. Have you a source and any links to useful discussions of the issue?
I found the fallout from the recent high profile Russian operations from an Iranian base very interesting, and my impression is it was not so much “diplomatic tensions” as internal Iranian political pressure that put a halt to it and forced the Iranian military to back down on the obviously sensible (both militarily and diplomatically) policy of allowing the Russians to operate from Iranian bases while the war in Syria continues. But I’d be interesting to see informed discussion of the events in question.
Meanwhile I’ve not noticed reports of a renewal of operations.
Article 145
No foreigner will be accepted into the Army or security forces of the country.
Article 146
The establishment of any kind of foreign military base in Iran, even for peaceful purposes, is forbidden
https://www.constituteproject.org/constitution/Iran_1989.pdf?lang=en
I’m aware of the constitutional issue, but I don’t think that would be held to apply to temporary operation from Iranian bases, bearing in mind it’s the Supreme Leader who wants the Russians operating in Syria. It will be argued it just forbids the establishment of foreign run bases.
I think the issue is merely the way to finess the clarity of Constitution and the reality of the need for Russian planes to have a pit stop. The initial reports if Ruusian planes using Iranian bases were bombastic and undermined the operation. In Iran there are still some powerful american interests that cannot wait for a chance to pounce on the military and the government. Sputnik and other Russian media also made same mustake by almost saying that Iran has become a site for Russian base. Itvwas necessary to stop those toungues from wagging and take away political weapon from pro-western tycoons in Iran that had a hay day accusing military of violating constitution. Now essentially things are back to normal. Russian planes need to stop over for refueling and probably for loading weapons. Without pit stop planes need more fuel thus less weight for weapons. These do not technically violate constitution as aRussian planes are on the same mission as Iranian. Iran actually needed this controversy in order to get the Gray Shark to expose himself — and get the condemnation by thebpublic opinion that supports Syrian government. This is East — and politics is ofen based on a provoked crisis in hope of getting the oponent to bite — then to emerge a winner in public opinion. Syrian crisis has helped immensely in removing the rose colored glasses from some of the wealthier layers of Teheran society that believed in the munificence of western intentions. Now, public has been better informed then ever — as the forbidden fruit of Western paradise has lost its appeal. But the hard core of some tycoons are still looking for the way to undermine the credibility of the government.
glad you brought up the quoted — clever — way of inserting something isn’t so.
russia ”insisting?” as if this is meant to substitute for the fact , proven, that the USA recalcitrance and SERIAL violations as well as mendacity aren’t the REAL reasons the talks and agreements failed..
so , to draw away from THAT — THE word and phrase “russia insisting that” — is inserted . …to change the focus of ”blame” away from the USA — AND IN A SUBTLE WAY shift that blame to ”russia insisting”…
There’s a lot of macho talk here about the the brinkmanship that is currently escalating in Syria. The Russian strategy as I see it is to prevent — unarguably successful so far — the US regime change effort and thus compel a “political solution” — which to me means a cessation of hostilities and elections which Assad will win — and by this process wrap the whole business up.
The US sees defeat in this process and won’t go along. But it has no “Plan B”, so it falls back, for the moment, on continued war, which absent escalation, is a losing strategy Thus the escalation. Thus the Deir Ezzor attack, the “outraged” rhetoric, and the desperate renewal of arms shipments — possibly more lethal and dangerous arms shipments — to the rebels.
So we approach the end game, or perhaps the beginning of the end game. Syria, with Russian help, is about to take back Aleppo by force, the “cease fire” approach to the “political solution” (ie, face-saving defeat) having been rejected by someone(!?) on the US side.
So now we’re in machismoville until someone blinks, which always holds the sphincter-tightening possibility of runaway escalation leading to nuclear war. Lots of folks here playing the armchair warrior game of no-fly zones and tough-guy shoot-downs.
But, as another commenter wrote, Putin is a cautious fellow, so even if Obama is a weakling and Carter is a hothead, Putin must have an option — perhaps several — to halt the escalation before it leads to armageddon.
Despite my limited knowledge of military matters, I see a number of possibilities: (1) prevention by deterrence: garrison Deir Ezzor with long-wave stealth-defeating radar and S-400 advanced AA missiles; (2) Air-to-air electronic “neutralization” rather than “kenetic” warfare (cf USS Donald Cook), and finally (3) anti-satellite warfare: destroy the US military satellite fleet, thus rendering the Netcentric US military blind, deaf, and dumb, and crippling the US military’s ability to conduct force-projection warfare. This last is the most severe, but as no American would experience any violence, it would simultaneously cripple military capability without generating a politically-convincing casus belli.
Dangerous business all the same. But what do I know?
I think what you’re saying makes a lot of sense.
Moscow don’t want to “spend” nor risk more than they have to in order to reach their objectives. From their perspective even a partial win is good enough. I also think they could take out US/Coalition drones all day long with little consequence.
Apparently Russian electronic warfare capabilities have startled NATO. They have clearly put a lot of effort into this.
On the other hand much of the US/NATO equipment used today are quite easy to jam. This isn’t a problem when you’re fighting “terrorists” or some small “rouge” state with limited capability. Russia is however in a different league. It will take a long time before all that equipment has been replaced.
Rogue. “Rouge”, French for “red”, is the makeup women use to give their cheeks a rosy glow.
America has to be taught that it is in no position to “demand” anything in Syria.
Putin gave a speech this year attended by a large group of Western reporters, wherein he blamed Western corporate media for putting our world on the brink of a nuclear war by all their lies.
Question is, Jason Ditz, why has he not said a word about that speech? Is it because of his mainstream media approach to the news?
John,
OK, so you want a reporting job? Here you go:
Want in one hand. Defecate in the other. Report which hand got full first.
People need to realize that Jason writes news reports, not editorials.
Russia doesn’t have to use anti-aircraft missiles, they already have A2/AD bubble tech in Syria, but since the US started flying there, and diplomacy was sought, they stopped using the Krasuka-4. Russian A2/AD equipment makes all airspace inviolable by anything NATO possesses. No planes, no guided missiles. Some say Russia can take out all our ICBMs and Navy warheads, make them drop like toothpicks from the sky, harming nobody.
although there is no saying whether the USA has ”solved” a particular problem of EM ”full spectrum” war by russia —
there is at least that incident in 2014?
the USS DONALD COOKE — cruiser or destroyer — of the most advanced variety the USA has was in the Black Sea and quite openly sailed towards russia’s Sevastopol navy base in crimea…
as if to dare, perhaps,
russians sent up two MIG 27’s i think — and quite intentionally showed they were not tipped with the usual missiles — and flew several times around and over the US ship even just meters from the towers –
the ship and helicopters completely froze — no systems would work…and stopped cold…like a sitting duck…
then the russians flew away – and the electronics in the ship went back to life…
the ‘message’ was made clear…at which the ship went at full speed towards the US ROMANIAN base at the western shores of the black sea.
the reports said that about 2 dozen american sailors demanded to be re-assigned to germany or elsewhere having realized how vulnerable they were …
there are youtubes of that actually happening.
a russian commander was asked about what they did (among russian websites of course) – and answered something like :
“the more sophisticated and complex their system – the easier it is to knock it with simple devices “.
what the planes did show was some kind of box fitted to the plane’s belly ..