Friday, September 30, 2016

The Saker — The war against Syria: both sides go to “plan B”


The saker games "plan B" for the US and the Russian response. What's at stake? Only WWIII.
Please consider that before you go to vote.
Patrick Lawrence

9 comments:

Bob said...

The Saker is confused as to what a "no-fly zone" is. Nevertheless, the risks are clear.

Tom Hickey said...

No, he is not confused. He was using the description of General Joseph Dunford, Chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff, to Congress.

Establishing a no-fly zone means controlling an air space.

Sen. Roger Wicker (R-Mississippi) asked about what it would take for the US to impose a no-fly zone over Syria, using the phrase “control the airspace.”

“Right now… for us to control all of the airspace in Syria would require us to go to war against Syria and Russia,” Dunford replied.


https://www.rt.com/usa/360317-carter-dunford-syria-russia-senate/

Bob said...

That's not the same as gaining air superiority. What the Saker described is what happened in Iraq at the onset of the 2nd Gulf War. As if the US were about to launch a ground invasion?

The risks of a no-fly zone are real enough, so why is he describing these fantastical interventions?

Tom Hickey said...

Imp;using a no-fly zone in Syria would involve destroying Russia's S-300, S400 and AWACs systems in Syria.

The prelude to establishing a no-fly zone is first destroying installations that would impede air control since a no-fly zone implies using one's own aircraft to patrol the zone.

The alternative is simply declaring a no-fly zone and daring Russia to shoot down a US plane. Gen. Dunford has said that such a plan is a non-starter militarily.

In the first place, the US has no legal standing to insert itself militarily into a sovereign space against the will of the sovereign. Russia on the other hand has been invited by the sovereign. Shooting down an intruder is permitted international law, as it was argued in the case of the Russian aircraft that Turkey shot down. (Erdogan later admitted that the the plane was in Syrian air space when shot down.)

The US is already committing naked aggression but starting a war is a much more serious step. The US military would be legally bound to refuse to carry out such an order, or else the officers involved would be liable for the ultimate war crime of illegal aggression against a sovereign state.

BTW, US ally Turkey has already invaded Syria to set up a safe zone, read carve out a piece of Syria.

Eventually this behavior is going to result in war crime trials unless the US can prevail in world domination and declare that what the US does is automatically legal because American exceptionalism.

This heading into deep doo-doo.

Bob said...

The prelude to establishing a no-fly zone is first destroying installations that would impede air control since a no-fly zone implies using one's own aircraft to patrol the zone.

The alternative is simply declaring a no-fly zone and daring Russia to shoot down a US plane. Gen. Dunford has said that such a plan is a non-starter militarily.


You have the order reversed. The prelude involves daring the Russians to shoot down US planes. It involves blaming the Russians for any escalation. It's political theater. The risk is that it will develop into a wider war.

The legality of all this is of no consequence to Washington or its allies.

Tom Hickey said...

That is a "political" non-fly zone, not a military one.

Declaring a no-fly zone is meaningless.

The US would have to try to keep Russian planes grounded to enforce a no-fly zone. Just how would the US do this without shooting first?

Bob said...

By shooting down a Russian or Syrian plane. They may claim it was done in self-defense, or according to a no-fly zone declaration. The point is that this can be done now, without going through the military operations described by The Saker.

It would cost the US some planes, but that is unavoidable. An assault on Russian air defense installations would entail greater losses.

Which option is more consistent with Washington's meddling over the past year?

Looking at this from the "need" perspective doesn't clarify matters.

Tom Hickey said...

Well, we are probably going to find out. Washington is now contemplating a military solution and the US propaganda machine led by the NYT is full-on demonizing Russia in preparation for hostilities.


Looks like I many have been right in speculating about Obama preparing an October surprise to put HRC in the WH by upping the ante in Syria, as well as farthing the US goal in the region to partition Syria.

Bob said...

I forgot to mention another element: Alongside the official motive of wanting to protect civilians in Aleppo, is the opportunity to destroy SAA ground forces from the air.

Obama and Kerry have not acted in good faith in their negotiations with Russia. I'm skeptical of the narrative that there is a split between the Pentagon and the White House. No one has been sacked. Would not blame Putin for assessing this and assuming the worst.