Russian Air Campaign in Syria

[Orionblamblam]

The Russian way of war may be crude, but it's been more successful post-1999 than the American way of war.

The Russian *aims* in war post-1999 have been quite different from American aims in war. The US has gone to war in order to force regime changes; Russia has done so in order to conquer territory. This continues in Syria; it's pretty clear that Russia is trying to prop up the Assad regime in order to score itself a naval base in the Med.

Something I find entertaining... one of the sad excuses given for the conquest and annexation of eastern Ukraine was a constant drone about Ukrainian fascists/neo-Nazis. But now the Russians are supporting Assad and the Ba-ath party... which is, like Saddam's Iraqi Ba'ath party, basically Arab fascism. The Ba'athists derived much of their ideology and motivation directly from the Nazis... and here's Russia, propping them up.


Part of your problem is that you continue to go on about campaigns against a fictional organization (this mythical "Daesh" you keep bringing up) while ignoring the very real Islamic State.

 

[sferrin]

The ratio quoted was based on statistics regarding munitions expended - I think that is going to be a hell of a lot more accurate than a handful of press photos.

"A handful of press photos"? Please. I'm talking about any of the thousands of photos and videos from the Middle East in the last 10 years. Unless you think there is some kind of "don't show dumb bombs" gag order in place?

 

[Avimimus]

The ratio quoted was based on statistics regarding munitions expended - I think that is going to be a hell of a lot more accurate than a handful of press photos.

"A handful of press photos"? Please. I'm talking about any of the thousands of photos and videos from the Middle East in the last 10 years. Unless you think there is some kind of "don't show dumb bombs" gag order in place?

Earlier it was suggest that the Russians are doing just that: Getting people to photograph the 'sexy' advanced platforms with the guided weapons and ignore the legacy platforms... I wouldn't be surprised if journalists & military staff alike think that a guided bomb makes a prettier photo (it doesn't even require a gag order or deliberate propaganda goals in that case).

But, arguing about that point is worthy of ridicule. Why? Because the air-force keeps track of how many weapons of each type it uses. There is something called logistics! The numbers are out there.

Dismissing the military's own numbers for what weapons they are using is idiotic. I can't think of any reason to focus only on journalistic photographs other than obfuscation for the purposes of propaganda.

 

[Avimimus]

Part of your problem is that you continue to go on about campaigns against a fictional organization (this mythical "Daesh" you keep bringing up) while ignoring the very real Islamic State.

The Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL; Arabic: الدولة الإسلامية في العراق والشام‎) = Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS, /ˈaɪsɨs/) = Islamic State of Iraq and ash-Sham = Islamic State (IS) = Daesh (داعش, Arabic pronunciation: [ˈdaːʕiʃ]).


I know you guy's have already made up your minds that lastdingo is a Soviet propaganda agent (rather than, for example, some guy who's obsessed with retro-approaches to close air support) - but that doesn't mean you shouldn't check to confirm that he's actually technically wrong. Just sayin'


P.S. I bet if you ask him he'll endorse putting the OV-10 back into production.

 

[lastdingo]

Lastdingo,

Respectfully:
- Manufacturer's statistics for dispersion tend to be under idealised circumstances and not representative of actual use

An example: Approx. 15-20 m CEP is actually a Afghan War experience figure for the S-24 rocket from attack from ranges that make escape from ManPADS likely, not a manufacturer's statistic.


Regarding OV-10; I think the OV-10D would have been fine in many Third World scenarios (save for maintenance and MTBF issues of the newer avionics invovled). I'm a guy with interest in literal "defence", though, so I care primarily about systems that could be useful in an Eastern European conflict. That's the stuff that delivers deterrence value and thus national and collective security.

 

[Orionblamblam]

The Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL; Arabic: الدولة الإسلامية في العراق والشام‎) = Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS, /ˈaɪsɨs/) = Islamic State of Iraq and ash-Sham = Islamic State (IS)

Incorrect. ISIS or IS are correct; ISIL is not. "Islamic State" is of course correct. "Islamic State of Iraq and Syria" is correct, because IS of course runs sizable territories in Iraq and Syria. "Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant" is *not* correct, because the Levant basically means Israel, Cyprus, Jordan, Lebanon, portions of Turkey and portions of Syria. You might as well call them "Islamic State of Iraq and Monte Carlo."

= Daesh (داعش, Arabic pronunciation: [ˈdaːʕiʃ]).

"Daesh" is an insult name tacked on by Arab speakers. In Arabic it means something. In English -the language in primary usage on this forum - it means *nothing,* and is thus pointless. More to the point, as previously pointed out by referring to Islamic State by a meaningless word, you are - presumably unwittingly - trying to stuff the meaning of the group down a memory hole, ignoring the ideology that separates Islamic State from, say, the Boy Scouts of America.

 

[overscan (PaulMM)]

Incorrect. ISIS or IS are correct; ISIL is not. "Islamic State" is of course correct. "Islamic State of Iraq and Syria" is correct, because IS of course runs sizable territories in Iraq and Syria. "Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant" is *not* correct, because the Levant basically means Israel, Cyprus, Jordan, Lebanon, portions of Turkey and portions of Syria. You might as well call them "Islamic State of Iraq and Monte Carlo."

They can call themselves ISIL aspirationally, just like Taiwan claims to be the 'Republic of China' in defiance of geographic accuracy.

 

[sferrin]

Dismissing the military's own numbers for what weapons they are using is idiotic. I can't think of any reason to focus only on journalistic photographs other than obfuscation for the purposes of propaganda.

That's friggin' hilarious. If the numbers are out there show them. The only relatively recent one I've found is here:

http://time.com/3422702/isil-isis-syria-obama/

"Mayville noted that 96% of the weapons used were precision-guided. But he couldn’t—or wouldn’t—say what percentage of the weapons had been dropped by U.S. allies, instead of the Americans. Bahrain, Jordan, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates all fired bombs or missiles from aircraft, “with Qatar in a supporting role,” in the words of Rear Admiral John Kirby, the Pentagon spokesman. In other words, Qatar didn’t attack anything."

If dumb bombs were being used it would be easy to find shots of them. (There are Russian ones all over the place.) No need to get so defensive, the lack of photos of Western aircraft with dumb munitions vs the plethora of Russian aircraft with dumb munitions was merely an observation. Clearly it's part of a grand conspiracy.

 

[lastdingo]

It's reasonable to assume the counter-Assad air campaign would rely almost entirely on PGMs (save for night actions by gunships, for example) because it's launching its strikes from afar. To fly with 2 JDAMs + 2 drop tanks in place of 4 Mk 83s allows for a much longer loiter time between refuelling, for example.

The Russians are flying short-range sorties from Latakia. They can -if need be - ramp their activity up to eight sorties per day per Su-25 for a few days in a row, every sortie delivering tons of bombs. They could also sustain five sorties per day for weeks if there's enough ammunition and kerosene (figures taken from 'hot' periods of their Afghanistan War).

These are two very, very different approaches. Western air forces have become accustomed to use well-established mega air bases far away from the targets (both Libya bombing campaigns included strikes launched from England! Kosovo was bombed largely from Northern Italy. Afghanistan was bombed from Kuwait and Diego Garcia.), which requires aerial refuelling, "go" drugs, 12 hour rest periods between sorties and tends to yield sorties planned long in advance. The ordnance carried thus needs to be versatile. Bombs like GBU-54 are perfect for this, since carrying (equally versatile) iron bombs instead would increase the demand for refuelling out of proportion.

The Russians at Latakia can (though I don't know if they do) tailor their sorties to the situation on the ground up to approx. an hour ago. They can even have a squadron leader in the air over the objective calling in a particular quantity of particularly equipped Frogfoots and those could indeed arrive before he runs out of fuel - without any aerial refuelling. This is more reminiscent of what Il-2 Shturmoviks and particularly Fw 190F Schlachtflieger did than the long-range pounding that NATO has de facto adopted sometime between 1983 and 1999.

I suppose the Russian approach is cheaper, and it allows for the use of less versatile munitions (such as 80mm rockets, which are rather ineffective against targets in buildings - not sure if they use them, though). Its downside is the effort required for base security (it's suspenseful to see whether and what C-RAM or other counter-indirect fire security they will employ!), but NATO could have this by using Turkish airbases (if Turkey wasn't using bombing Da'esh as a mere fig leaf for bombing the PKK and was really, really opposed to Da'esh).


@Orionblamblam:
Guess what, you got no authority to dictate how others call a certain group. If I want to denigrate them and deny to recognise their statehood by calling them Da'esh then that's what I do. The only ones who can do anything about this are those with moderator privileges.

 

[Orionblamblam]

They can call themselves ISIL aspirationally, just like Taiwan claims to be the 'Republic of China'

Or "Great" Britain or "New" Zealand I suppose.

Anyway, aspriation doesn't necessarily equate to outcome.

 

[Orionblamblam]

Guess what, you got no authority to dictate how others call a certain group.

Guess what, nobody is claiming any such authority or is trying to dictate diddly squat to you. It's called "projection;" you would dictate the words people use, so you see any disagreement as the other guy trying to control *you.*

If I want to denigrate them and deny to recognise their statehood by calling them Da'esh then ...

... you fail to do so. "Da'esh" is not a derogatory term in the English language. It's meaningless. Might as well call the Catholics the Garblewonks or the Buddhists the Ferblons.

 

[lastdingo]

We can agree to disagree on the latter, I presume.
Feel free to provide at least a modicum of evidence for your earlier claim, though. Where did I try to dictate what words others shall use?

 

[Orionblamblam]

We can agree to disagree on the latter, I presume.
Feel free to provide at least a modicum of evidence for your earlier claim, though. Where did I try to dictate what words others shall use?

*You* are the one who is claiming, in the face of no evidence whatsoever, that someone is trying to "dictate" your words. Simple projection on your part.

 

[lastdingo]

Yeah, well, everybody can look up himself or herself who pretended to have authority to clarify what's correct and what's not, and I don't think I'm alone when I consider this an attempt to dictate how others have to call the group. Meanwhile, there's no way you can claim I "projected" without showing me trying to at least delegitimize others' choice of words.
--------------------------------------------------------------

Did we have this already?

Syria really is a mess.
Everyone who bombs Da'esh helps Al-Nusra if I'm not mistaken (they still do feud, don't they?) and of course FSA, Assad and Hezbollah.
Everyone who bombs FSA helps Assad, Al-Nusra, Da'esh and kinda Hezbollah.
Everyone who bombs Al-Nusra helps Da'esh, Assad, Hezbollah and possibly FSA.
Everyone who bombs Assad - wait, nobody does.
Just about nobody seems to like more than one faction, so everybody who bombs anyone does as a by-product help a faction which he loathes.


Concerning air power strategy:
The U.S./Saudi approach appears to be to first and foremost seek to hurt one faction (Da'esh), not to help a faction 'win' and end this war.
The Russian approach appears to be the opposite; maybe they don't really intend to help Assad 'win' this, but they don't hate the FSA rebels as much as the jihadists, and still focus on the FSA apparently. This means they're in the fight first and foremost to help a faction.
(I don't think they take this seriously as a munition proving, tactics development or crew training ground, though it might be 90% meant to bolster Russia s a great power or to break the stalemate in Eastern Europe by making themselves indispensable for the solution of the Syrian knot).
The Russians seem to have more luck in generating proxies, even if they need to invent them out of hot air (as in Eastern Ukraine). The U.S: hasn't found good proxies in Afghanistan, Libya or Syria.



Personally, I'd at this point prefer if Assad prevails and lets the Kurds have their de facto autonomy as did Saddam post-1991. A victory of the more likeable elements of the FSA is at best very distant in the future at this point, and the war apparently is worse than Assad's dictatorship was. Even a Bosnification with a perpetuated division is unlikely, since a perpetuated control of much terrain by Da'esh or Al-Nusra seems intolerable to the U.S., Saudi-Arabia, UK and likely even Russia.

----------
P.S.: BTW, why does the Washington Post use a map that draws Israel's and Syria's borders as if Israel's had annexed the Golan heights for real? AFAIK no such thing was ever recognised by the UNSC or U.S..

 

[Orionblamblam]

Yeah, well, everybody can look up himself or herself who pretended to have authority to clarify what's correct and what's not,

Goalpost relocation detected.

and I don't think I'm alone when I consider this an attempt to dictate how others have to call the group.

You might be surprised.

 

[GTX]

Is there any point to this thread anymore? It seems to have denigrated into a useless argument between a couple of players with hardly any mention of anything factual or technical.

 

[Avimimus]

Lastdingo,

Respectfully:
- Manufacturer's statistics for dispersion tend to be under idealised circumstances and not representative of actual use

An example: Approx. 15-20 m CEP is actually a Afghan War experience figure for the S-24 rocket from attack from ranges that make escape from ManPADS likely, not a manufacturer's statistic.

Thanks for this! I was mainly thinking of the 6 m claim for the S-8.

 

[Orionblamblam]

Is there any point to this thread anymore? It seems to have denigrated into a useless argument between a couple of players with hardly any mention of anything factual or technical.

You're right. The Russian bombing of Syria has clearly ended; there's no possibility of new information or news on the subject. Shut it down forever!

 

[Ian33]

The Russians are using 'dumb' weapons mainly to counter the GPS and sensor denied environment the US has created.

This bubble is the reason why the YPG (Kurd and Yazidi forces) are using very basic comms. Mobile phones are also being targetted.

On another note, the hushed up little birds are busy - there are between 8 and 10 present 'In theatre' and are proving their worth and then some.

My friend has had two land a hundred and fifty meters from him and not heard a thing - only the sudden dust storm gave them away.

 

[kaiserd]

The thread is worth while if we can all resist getting too ranty (me included) and keep discussions factual and not lead by (potentially biased) opinion.

The Russians are using 'dumb' weapons mainly to counter the GPS and sensor denied environment the US has created.

This bubble is the reason why the YPG (Kurd and Yazidi forces) are using very basic comms. Mobile phones are also being targetted.

Not sure I agree with the primacy of this factor re: the Russian airforce's use of non-precision weapons (propably more to do with the relative lack of stocks of fully up to date precision weapons, lack of modern targeting pods equivalent to most recent Sniper or Litening pods and other more basic capability factors) but the aspect you have raised could well be a contributory factor.
Presumably you are referring to equipment provided to rebels by the US or the Saudis?
Where would/ have ISIS sourced similar equipment?

On another note, the hushed up little birds are busy - there are between 8 and 10 present 'In theatre' and are proving their worth and then some.

My friend has had two land a hundred and fifty meters from him and not heard a thing - only the sudden dust storm gave them away.

"little birds"?
US special forces AH-6's or am I completely missing the point?
Presumably only across the border from "friendly territories" as deep inside Syria would be dangerous territory for AH-6s and US special forces. No one wants a shoot down or another horrific ISIS media show.

 

[bipa]

You're right. The Russian bombing of Syria has clearly ended; there's no possibility of new information or news on the subject. Shut it down forever!

Stuttering history...
Yanks, right time to smuggle a load of Stingers over there (if not already done) to some lesser hostile rebel group...?
If you thought it's already as messed up as it can get, think again...

 

[Avimimus]

Dismissing the military's own numbers for what weapons they are using is idiotic. I can't think of any reason to focus only on journalistic photographs other than obfuscation for the purposes of propaganda.

That's friggin' hilarious. If the numbers are out there show them. The only relatively recent one I've found is here:

http://time.com/3422702/isil-isis-syria-obama/

"Mayville noted that 96% of the weapons used were precision-guided. But he couldn’t—or wouldn’t—say what percentage of the weapons had been dropped by U.S. allies, instead of the Americans. Bahrain, Jordan, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates all fired bombs or missiles from aircraft, “with Qatar in a supporting role,” in the words of Rear Admiral John Kirby, the Pentagon spokesman. In other words, Qatar didn’t attack anything."

If dumb bombs were being used it would be easy to find shots of them. (There are Russian ones all over the place.) No need to get so defensive, the lack of photos of Western aircraft with dumb munitions vs the plethora of Russian aircraft with dumb munitions was merely an observation. Clearly it's part of a grand conspiracy.

When you posted this I'd just finished doing some research - and only now had the time to post it.

Yes, you are likely very much right. The numbers I had been referring to were from the initial Iraq and Afghanistan campaigns - so they are a bit out of date. The article you posted is one of the more recent sources. However it is important to remember that the USN has a history of preferring to use a higher ratio of precision weapons to unguided weapons than the air-force. Other recent sources suggest that the Australians used only precision guided weapons because they thought it would go over better with the Australian public.

See the attached file which shows a trend towards precision weapons.

In conclusion though: The barbaric Russians who are claimed to have a much greater tolerance for collateral damage? Well, we were just as dependent on unguided weapons during Desert Storm (and parts of Kosovo). So, if we don't have double standards - we should really condemn the use of weapons by the Coalition in 1991!!

P.S. I wasn't really defensive - I was just irritated. I've gotten tired of discussions which are full of opinion (and bias) but willingly ignore real numbers. It is easy to snap sometimes.

 

[kaiserd]

In conclusion though: The barbaric Russians who are claimed to have a much greater tolerance for collateral damage? Well, we were just as dependent on unguided weapons during Desert Storm (and parts of Kosovo). So, if we don't have double standards - we should really condemn the use of weapons by the Coalition in 1991!!

Hi Avimimus, the comparison with Desert Storm (and parts of Kosovo) is actually rather apt.
We are talking about approx 25 - 15 years ago and the US airforces, RAF and other NATO airforces state of the art re: targeting, munitions, systems, tactics and associated rules of engagements have advanced greatly.
If, say, the RAF or French airforces where still using the same weapons and associated tactics they were in 1991 they would be rightly condemned for lacking accuracy and not doing enough to avoid civilian casualties.
Why should Russia be treated differently in this regard, why should they be given greater slack in relation to potentially killing civilians? (Wouldn't doing so represent double standards on our part?)

 

[sferrin]

So, if we don't have double standards - we should really condemn the use of weapons by the Coalition in 1991!!

Right. Saddam raped and pillaged Kuwait and gased thousands of his own citizens but it was the Coalition who were the bad guys. : And just FYI the Coalition used every PGM capable aircraft it could get it's hands on, including the F-15E that had barely entered service. But yeah, let's try to excuse Russian use of dumb bombs today by citing a war that happened 25 years ago. Apologist much?

 

[Orionblamblam]

So, if we don't have double standards - we should really condemn the use of weapons by the Coalition in 1991!!

Conversely, that means if we're not to condemn the use of a tactic or weapon used today because we used it 25 years ago, that means that a weapon or tactic used 25 years before *that* should be equally cool to use today. So Syria should get ready to be doused in the Russian equivalent of Agent Orange.

 

[Ian33]

I've spoken to friends on the ground, and indeed, the GPS either is way, way off, totally jammed, or both on a fluctuating pattern. (That surely would screw with sending in a GPS guided weapon)

The Kurdish and allies have gone back to good old map and compass land nav, having ditched entirely the GPS.

 

[bobbymike]

https://www.facebook.com/ezraklein/videos/10153737513773410/

 

[lastdingo]

Right. Saddam raped and pillaged Kuwait and gased thousands of his own citizens but it was the Coalition who were the bad guys. : And just FYI the Coalition used every PGM capable aircraft it could get it's hands on, including the F-15E that had barely entered service. But yeah, let's try to excuse Russian use of dumb bombs today by citing a war that happened 25 years ago. Apologist much?

To fight a bad guy doesn't make oneself a good guy. To shake the bad guy's hand knowing he's a bad guy comes more close to this.
(By the way; the "rape and pillage" part was almost entirely propaganda fabrications. The Iraqis didn't rape and pillage in Kuwait more than did U.S. troops in France 1944.)

I don't think one needs to "excuse" dumb bombs. I have actually read the Geneva Conventions, and there was no ban on dumb bombs. The Cluster munitions ban (which wasn't ratified by the U.S.) doesn't do so either. What matters is the diligence and targeting decision.

"Dumb" or "iron" bombs are still normal, whereas PGMs are merely what air forces prefer to use before they run out of these more expensive munitions. It's ridiculous to pretend iron bombs are somehow unethical (only because some disliked great power uses them). That's like smearing improvised mines (because the own forces can use factory-made ones) or smearing the use of WP smoke munitions as chemical weapons (though admittedly, the emptied base ejection shells of WP munitions are still a major hazard).


BTW, I also remember some MK82 or Mk83 carpet bombing by B-52 and/or B-1B over Afghanistan in 2001, maybe 2002. So it's not really about '25 years ago'. Dumb bombs are not by their nature unethical munitions; they may be misused for war crimes just as PGMs can be (and have been) misused for the same. They can also be used legitimately, and the vast majority of nations with air forces could not afford using mostly or entirely PGMs.

 

[Void]

(By the way; the "rape and pillage" part was almost entirely propaganda fabrications. The Iraqis didn't rape and pillage in Kuwait more than did U.S. troops in France 1944.)

Have you noticed that when you try to establish moral equivalency, you end up comparing the atrocity in question to something the US or its allies did a long time before?

It's almost like some countries progress and others remain backwards as ever.

 

[lastdingo]

(By the way; the "rape and pillage" part was almost entirely propaganda fabrications. The Iraqis didn't rape and pillage in Kuwait more than did U.S. troops in France 1944.)

Have you noticed that when you try to establish moral equivalency, you end up comparing the atrocity in question to something the US or its allies did a long time before?

It's almost like some countries progress and others remain backwards as ever.

I'm not trying to establish any moral equivalence here. For obvious reasons, comparing Iraqi manners of 1990 with Soviet manners of 1945 or other such cases would have been a different argument. "Western" or "U.S." is the relevant benchmark, and thus often gets compared.
My point was that Iraqis didn't do much outrageous in Kuwait (it was really almost entirely propaganda fabrications, and anybody who wants can learn this with little research nowadays), about half of Kuwait's population was actually more free under Saddam than under its usual dictatorship. The propaganda of 1990-2003 has had lasting effects, so many people in the U.S. still have a very warped idea of what happened for real there, and what didn't.


My greater point was that it's irrelevant for ethics or international law whether you misbehave in a conflict with 'bad boys' or in a conflict as the 'bad boy'.
To bombard a hospital or a wedding is never right, for example. To bomb an opposing forces' truck convoy on a road in a war is never a war crime or terrorism in itself. Bias makes people see differences where there are none.
Yet again, to use unguided bombs is not bad in itself. It depends on how you use them. It's also a perfectly normal munition in NATO inventories.
Maybe the Russians are committing war crimes en masse in Syria - but the choice of dumb bombs and unguided rockets is no sufficient evidence for this (actually, one cannot really wage war without committing war crimes).

 

[kaiserd]

But the point is that unguided weapons haven't been a "normal" or proportionality significant part of the munitions actually used by NATO countries for many years.

And (allowing for mistakes etc) even when they were used, say in Afganistan, there would be tight rules of engagement re: their use to try to limit civilian casualties (for example B52's weren't let carpet bomb built up areas).

It is not that unguided weapons themselves or their use is illegal or a war crime, it is that there inherent lack of accuracy means that they are largely incompatible with the rules of engagement that are imposed by US/ NATO countries military top brass and politicians who for selfish as well as ethical reasons want to limit civilian losses.

Russia's apparent use of very significant amounts and proportions of non-guided munitions suggest much loser less controlled rules of engagement with much less concern for civilian losses; they are inevitably edging into war crime territory as more and more civilians pay the ultimate price for the Russian airforces lack of capabilities.

I can only speak for myself but I think that is why so many correspondents here feel so strongly about this aspect, and why counter-factual arguments about the supposed accuracy of non-guided weapons versus guided weapons sound so hollow and (potentially) cynical to us.

Given the Putin regimes practises re: distorting the truth, lying to their people and the world, complete lack of accountibity inbuilt into Russia's current political system, and the regimes history of resorting to brutality as the first resort, the omens are not good in respect of Russian armed forces showing due restraint and care re: minimising civilian deaths.

 

[r16]

Incorrect. ISIS or IS are correct; ISIL is not. "Islamic State" is of course correct. "Islamic State of Iraq and Syria" is correct, because IS of course runs sizable territories in Iraq and Syria. "Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant" is *not* correct, because the Levant basically means Israel, Cyprus, Jordan, Lebanon, portions of Turkey and portions of Syria. You might as well call them "Islamic State of Iraq and Monte Carlo."

the next target of ISIL is the capture of Istanbul , hence practically entire Turkey . It was after they sort of declared it on their "official" magazine that the Turkish Forces were compelled to start bombing ISIL positions and not because they killed a soldier on guard duty on the border .

 

[sferrin]

(By the way; the "rape and pillage" part was almost entirely propaganda fabrications. The Iraqis didn't rape and pillage in Kuwait more than did U.S. troops in France 1944.)

Have you noticed that when you try to establish moral equivalency, you end up comparing the atrocity in question to something the US or its allies did a long time before?

It's almost like some countries progress and others remain backwards as ever.

Shhhhhh. America is evil in dingo's eyes.

 

[sferrin]

(By the way; the "rape and pillage" part was almost entirely propaganda fabrications. The Iraqis didn't rape and pillage in Kuwait more than did U.S. troops in France 1944.)

You might want to check your history. Specifically the accounts of troops combing over the aftermath of the "highway of death".

Have you noticed that when you try to establish moral equivalency, you end up comparing the atrocity in question to something the US or its allies did a long time before?

Have you noticed that he's ever the apologist for those generally considered "bad guys"?

("My greater point was that it's irrelevant for ethics or international law whether you misbehave in a conflict with 'bad boys' or in a conflict as the 'bad boy'.
To bombard a hospital or a wedding is never right, for example. To bomb an opposing forces' truck convoy on a road in a war is never a war crime or terrorism in itself. Bias makes people see differences where there are none.
Yet again, to use unguided bombs is not bad in itself. It depends on how you use them. It's also a perfectly normal munition in NATO inventories.
Maybe the Russians are committing war crimes en masse in Syria - but the choice of dumb bombs and unguided rockets is no sufficient evidence for this (actually, one cannot really wage war without committing war crimes).

One side goes out of it's way to minimize civilian casualties, in some instances spending a great amount of money to fund the development of weapons specifically designed to do so. (Smaller PGMs, concrete-filled weapons, "dense metal" warheads, etc.) The side you're defending does not. Says a lot about your character no?

 

[lastdingo]

Shhhhhh. America is evil in dingo's eyes.

Everyone who starts or joins a war without necessity is evil in my opinion.

"Great is the guilt of an unnecessary war." - John Adams, Founding Father and 2nd President of the United States

Given the Putin regimes practises re: distorting the truth, lying to their people and the world, complete lack of accountibity inbuilt into Russia's current political system, and the regimes history of resorting to brutality as the first resort, the omens are not good in respect of Russian armed forces showing due restraint and care re: minimising civilian deaths.

Agreeing on that (though Western governments aren't exactly abstaining from lying).
I'm mostly pushing against what I consider a bias at work. Pushing back against a bias can by design never have the appearance of being balanced; it rather requires showing the other side instead of both sides of the coin.

Look, I'm a literal "defence" guy, and don't like small wars at all. The military uses the reference to PGMs and RoE as an excuse for killing scores of civilians, and I'm someone who's not getting convinced by this. Every single civilian killed by us in such small wars is one killed too much because the participation in these small wars is unnecessary to begin with, and quite often the wars would be over quicker if we hadn't intervened.

Now, after more than a decade with many thousands of civilians killed in Iraq, Afghanistan, Yemen etc, the Russians aren't confining their small wars to their backyard any more and the outrage of them joining the playground sandbox of Western politicians called "Syria" sounds very, very hypocritical to me.
In my opinion Western politicians and newspaper authors hate the Russian intervention because the Russians are supporting the (one) other side and mess up Western foreign policy designs, not because of supposed concern for the Syrian civilians.
The outrage over the levelling of Grozny was not very loud, after all.

The side you're defending does not.

Actually, the Russians have that KO gas and a wide range of less-lethal munitions. They also use helicopters over Syria, and their rocket and missile warheads are small compared to what B-1Bs tend to drop, for sure.



Now let's look at how nice and friendly and concerned about civilians the real world USAF (as opposed to the propaganda fantasy world USAF) over Syria truly is:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3068937/Flying-apocalypse-Astonishing-drone-footage-reveals-sheer-scale-destruction-Syrian-town-Kobane-stormed-ISIS-pounded-months-coalition-air-strikes.html


http://news.yahoo.com/battle-kobane-us-crews-recount-heavy-bombing-075326579.html

The 31-year-old Saksa had flown other missions in Afghanistan but what was different this time was "the sheer number of weapons dropped," he said by phone from Dyess Air Force Base in Texas.
B-1 pilot Major Brandon Miller, 38, has been deployed five times in warzones, but he had never before dropped as many bombs as during the battle for Kobane.
"I personally went Winchester three times," he said. Before that, he had never emptied his weapons bay.

An explosion following an air-strike is seen in the Syrian town of Kobani from near the Mursitpinar … In previous six-month tours over Afghanistan, it was typical for his squadron to unload 15 to 20 bombs.
But in their last deployment, the squadron dropped more than 2,000 bombs and hit more than 1,700 targets, he said.

Concrete bombs and "dense metal warheads" my ass.


"It became necessary to destroy the village in order to save it."
-- An American major after the destruction of the Vietnamese Village Ben Tre



The one thing that most of you guys don't seem to understand is that in war, every participant is hurting mankind. There are no white knight saviour war expeditions.* You're critical enough of Russia to expect them to kill scores of civilians (which they likely do), but apparently too naive to see that 'we' the West are doing great harm with our small wars as well. These small wars do not improve the world; that's mere propaganda.
'Our' politicians are playing with toys in sandboxes because 'we' were OK with giving much more of our money to the stockpiling of said toys than was necessary for the purpose of actual defence.
Now some other kid joined the sandbox, and long after our infantile politicians had stomped on many sand castles there the new kid stomps on some that our infantile politicians actually wanted preserved. They're crying now, and scores of people reflexively come to help and shout at the new kid.
It's ridiculous.


*: Ironically, the Vietnamese invasion of Cambodia to remove the Red Khmer may be candidate #1 for the white knight title among all foreign interventions.

 

[overscan (PaulMM)]

Western powers are in general is a real bind over the Arab spring events. We feel honour-bound to pay lip service to supporting the sudden outbreak of people-power overthrowing dictatorships, but at the same time are worried that, given a choice, the people might actually want an Islamic State style regime antithetical to Western interests, and meanwhile no-one in the West cares enough to risk seeing our troops dying in large numbers from a ground war intervention. We also hoped that any new regime resulting would be better disposed towards the West if we gave them some help along the way.

Plenty of bad things happen all round the world; it's generally only when Western interests are threatened that intervention occurs.Air strikes have become the default response where we want to been seen to be doing something (for good and/or bad reasons) without risking our own people too much. We try to minimise civilian casualties, sure, but at the end of the day its really Western casualties we want to avoid at all costs.

Russia is perfectly entitled to behave in the same way when it feels its interests are threatened, and I'm not sure I see a big difference morally in the actual intervention. Putin's regime is morally repugnant in general, sure, and probably cares less about minimising Syrian civilian casualties than Western leaders do while intervening, but I'm not sure we've seen much proof there's a big difference in practice.

What Russia has done is complicate Western plans to intervene to force the removal of Assad. You can debate the morals of supporting a dictator, but the West managed to live happily with a bunch of dictators in charge of Egypt and elsewere for many years as "better than anarchy". I'm not sure there wasn't a large nugget of truth in the old position.

 

[PlanesPictures]

"Putin's regime is morally repugnant in general, sure, and probably cares less about minimising Syrian civilian casualties than Western leaders do..."- it is really sad when from your side of river you see it so simple

 

[sferrin]

"Putin's regime is morally repugnant in general, sure, and probably cares less about minimising Syrian civilian casualties than Western leaders do..."- it is really sad when from your side of river you see it so simple

Russia doesn't have a history of being overly concerned with collateral damage.

 

[lastdingo]

To be fair, there's little reason to believe our politicians or soldiers have much more concern for civilians.
They're rather fearing the backlash a bit more if there was backlash felt recently.

Politicians are very, very detached from the horrors of war and soldiers very often radicalize very much during wartime, and many of them begin to think not only of enemies but even of the general population of the country as lesser human beings, complete with nicknames ("skinnies", "huns", "hajjis", "vink", "chink") used with a denigrating tone.

 

[sferrin]

To be fair, there's little reason to believe our politicians or soldiers have much more concern for civilians.

To be fair that is complete crap. In many instances we've used bombs filled with concrete specifically to avoid collateral damage. In others we've developed smaller PGMs, again, to prevent collateral damage. Dense Metal Explosives are another.