RUSSIAN EXPEDITIONARY FORCE IN SYRIA - ANOTHER POSSIBLE EXPLANATION

By Patrick BAHZAD

Following Parts 1 and 2 of "Russian expeditionary force in Syria", posted recently on SST, various narratives were offered as an explanation for this alleged move and its potential implications. Col. LANG gave the most up-to-date summary of the recent sequence of events. While it is difficult to assess the scope of the Russian involvement, it would be premature to assume a large scale Russian deployment is underway. As Col. LANG duly notes, what seems beyond doubt is that "Russia has decided to raise the level of its intervention and risk in the Syrian Civil War" and that "the ultimate scope and size of that increased role are unclear as yet".

Rumours, comments and half-truths are very common in fluid environments such as this. Various news-outlets are offering different theories regarding a large-scale Russian operation about to start in Syria. With information and evidence being often sketchy at best, it is most likely that various players in and outside the region are trying to push their agenda, either vis-à-vis Syria or vis-à-vis Russia. Trusting partisan and biased information, i.e. MSM accounts quoting "official sources", would obviously be a mistake. That is why this piece offers a totally different read on the reasons and goals of the Russian move, just for the sake of argument.

Preventing a another Libya

Before getting to the core of the scenario that could explain events on the ground, it may be useful to recall the Libyan precedent: a "no fly zone" implemented by NATO under a UN-resolution was hijacked – in the Russians' view – to support the anti-Gaddafi insurgents and give them close air support for several months, until the Libyan dictator was finally ousted from power.

Ever since the start of the civil war in Syria, the Russians have always made it clear that they would not tolerate another version of the Libyan precedent. In 2013 already, Russian officials made numerous statements formally objecting to a "no fly zone". A few very strongly worded declarations by President Putin himself didn't leave any doubt as to the Russians' willingness to actively oppose such a development.

What has happened in Syria in recent months ?

Looking at recent military operations in Syria, Col. LANG rightly observed that due to Coalition airstrikes in Northern Syria, the Syrian air force was unable to fly combat missions in support of their ground forces, which partially explains the Jihadi insurgents' gains in the region of Aleppo, as well as the extension of the Kurdish YPG "liberated areas" in Northern Syria.

The difference is of course that the YPG militias mainly fought ISIS and tried to establish a buffer zone along the Turkish border, in order to disrupt ISIS logistics. At the same time, various factions of the "Free Syrian Army" (FSA), as well as Jahbat al-Nusra (JaN), mainly fought SAA units and managed to defeat them.

What actually happened is that while US and Coalition airstrikes mainly targeted the Islamic State, they also represented a threat to Syrian air force missions against other rebel groups, because of Coalition aircraft patrolling the Syrian skies and Patriot missiles installed just North of the border. This precipitated and encouraged FSA as well as JaN groups to extend their offensive operations and make territorial gains in the region of Aleppo, or in the southern enclave controlled by JaN close to the Jordanian border.

Possible strategy behind these events

Based on the developments mentioned above, but also taking into account some of the recurrent background noise and chatter that can be heard way outside the beltway – remember Petreaus' suggestion about "Jabhat al Nusra reconcilables" or Anne-Marie Slaughter's recent call for a "no fly zone" over Syria – it is pretty easy to figure out what some of the armchair strategists in DC had in mind.

Quite simple in its premises, their strategy is based on increasing the tempo of Coalition airstrikes against the Islamic State, particularly in Syria, thus winning over public opinion for such operations, and supporting Kurdish YPG militias all over the North. At the same time, efforts – quite unlucky and unsuccessful so far – to recruit and train parts of the FSA, and possibly the "reasonable fringe" of Jahbat al-Nusra, are continuing.

The aim is to arm these groups and turn them loose – officially – on the Islamic State, giving them the same air support YPG groups have been receiving, provided the main thrust is against ISIS held territory or disputed areas. Territory that is firmly in the Syrian government's hands would be off limits in such a scenario, but given that these areas have become quite small in recent months, it is pretty safe to assume that about 75 % to 80 % of Syrian territory would be up for grabs.

In other words, the support of Kurdish peshmergas on the one hand, the help and training of "moderate" Syrian rebels on the other, would be combined with the benefits of a "no fly zone" or at least extensive air support. The official rationale for such a "no fly zone" would be solely the struggle against ISIS, of course, because that would be the easiest way – and actually the only one –to sell such a strategy to the US public.

Russian stance on Syria

Needless to say that if the Syrian air force was unable to support its ground troops not just in the North, but anywhere in Syria, the balance of power would inexorably shift towards the opposition groups and a de facto partition of Syria would be unavoidable. To the Russians, this is unacceptable. They may be willing to let Assad go, but not to abandon Syria as an ally and a Russian asset in the "grand game".

Syria is still a sovereign country and there hasn't been any UN-resolution that could bolster foreign intervention without the consent of the Syrian government. Furthermore, Syria has an extensive defense agreement with the Russian Federation and it would be perfectly within President Bashar al-Assad's prerogatives to call in Russian military help in his fight against "terrorism" or foreign aggression.

There have been a lot of back-channel discussions and open negotiations going in recent weeks, with Russia mediating between Syrian officials and rebel representatives. It is quite possible that the Russians have been trying to implement a negotiated deal of their own, given that they are probably aware time is against them, and against al-Assad.

A negotiated settlement ?

The possible Russian roadmap could provide for a transitional period following a ceasefire agreed to by representative elements of the opposition and the current regime, followed by the establishment of a government of national unity (with Bashar al-Assad stepping down "in the interest of the country"). This is all conjecture of course, but the fact remains that an insurgent delegation recently visited Moscow for talks with Russian (and possibly Syrian) officials. The President of the Syrian National Council, the main rebel body, was leading this delegation.

What came out of these talks – or should we say negotiations ? – is only rumour, but this rumour has it that a deal was struck for the nomination of a new intelligence chief, if a ceasefire and transitional phase are indeed implemented. The man for that job is supposedly no other than General Mustafa Tlass, formerly a close associate of the al-Assad clan, who jumped ship in 2011 but never formally sided with the rebels. He has been living in France ever since he left Syria.

Now of course, such a settlement to which the US administration would not have been part to would have the potential to drive the Neo-Cons, R2Pers and other D.C. hawks absolutely mad. Not only would it mean that the Syrian regime would not be destroyed, but it would possibly keep a strong foothold in Syrian politics, even if the country was to be partitioned along areas of influence. The biggest downside to such a negotiated solution though would be, that fighting the Islamic State could not be used anymore as a pretence for supporting the actions of the anti-Assad rebels.

The Syrians - and the Russians - certainly realize that contingency plans are also a necessity for them, whether the alleged settlement initiative succeeds or fails. The recent announcement of a second and larger Russian base on the Syrian coast is certainly part of such contingency plans. Both a naval base and a logistics base, it could help stabilize the heartland of the Al-Assad clan and bolster the Alawi minority's claim and dominance over these lands, cutting of any sea access to whatever Sunni/Jihadi political construct could be established further inland. 

Putting a serious dent into Coalition plans

This is why the establishment of a "no fly zone" and increased operational tempo is so crucial to its most vocal proponents. Short of destroying the regime before any settlement is announced, Bashar al-Assad has to be weakened and his power base eroded to the point where even opposition groups currently willing to sign off on a negotiated peace might possibly change their mind.

This is the context in which Russian troop and equipment movements were recently spotted, allegedly. It all started on August 16th, when a Turkish News Agency (BGN) published a statement announcing that Russia had delivered 6 MIG-31s to Syria. Those planes' specifications and weapons systems make them an unlikely candidate for close air support to Syrian ground forces, which makes the delivery all the more interesting.

Actually, the MIG-31s, possibly with a Russian crew aboard, are interceptors. They are designed to track, identify and destroy hostile aircraft. The fact they were stationed in Mezze airbase, with a large Russian security and logistics detail, implies the Russians meant business. What aircraft could these planes be possibly intercepting though ? Obviously, not the Coalition jets flying missions against the Islamic State.  The Russians aren't that mad … or dumb.

However, if a "no fly zone" was imposed over Syrian skies without any form of basis in international or UN-law, what would there be to prevent the Russians from answering a call for help from the sill legitimate Syrian government ? Now that would be a worrying development and it should be taken seriously ! However, should there be any truth to such a theoretical construct, the MIG-31s would probably target something totally different from Coalition fighter jets.

How a "no fly zone" works

If you take Libya as the example of what the Russians want to avoid at all cost, it's fairly easy to guess what their interceptors would be looking for. It's not the Patriot missiles stationed in Turkey. They only have a limited reach, meaning they can destroy targets up to a distance of about 70 km, enough to interdict Syrian air force operations all along the border, but they are useless for any action deep in Syrian territory.

Furthermore, the Patriot's radars don't bring any added value when it comes to identifying enemy moves on the ground. The key component in both a "no fly zone" and in monitoring moves on and off the ground, all over Syrian territory, are AWACS warning and control aircraft.

The Coalition is currently using such aircraft. Several countries are equipped with such planes, notably the United States and Saudi Arabia, but also The United-Kingdom and France. As long as the areas of interest for possible coalition airstrikes are limited to territory close to an international border, AWACS planes can remain out of Syrian airspace.Their powerful radars can monitor anything that happens from a safe distance.

However, if the goal of the coalition was to extend "interdiction areas" or to create "safe areas" deep inside Syria, there would be only one way of doing this: AWACS planes would need to fly over Syrian territory, as any operation of that kind while remaining outside Syrian airspace would require a unreasonable number of planes to cover enough ground.

Targeting the key component

That is where the MIG-31s come in. Sending in these planes, their crews, as well as all the necessary logistics into Syria, could be a clear message intended at disrupting any idea the Coalition might have of establishing "safe zones", "security perimeters" or "no fly zones", whatever you want to call them, without actual backing from international law.

Based on current Syrian-Russian defence agreements, Russian – or Syrian – MIG31s would be fully justified in shooting down any aircraft deemed hostile over Syrian territory. The MIG-31s are well equipped for that kind of mission: they can take off and reach a flight altitude of over 30 000 feet in under three minutes, making them immune from any MANPADs the rebels might be armed with.

Coordinates of an AWACS plane - or any other aircraft for that matter - could be sent in from radar stations on the ground, and the signal could not be jammed nor intercepted. The MIG-31 is also equipped with multimode radar, allowing for onboard monitoring over long distances,  and it is armed with BVR missiles that have a reach of up to 400 km. Due to the ballistic trajectory of these missiles, their interception also would be very difficult.

In other words, once they are in the air, the MIG-31s could fire their missiles and, at that point, nothing could stop them from reaching their target, whether that is an AWACS or possibly even a fighter jet preparing for close support mission of anti-government forces.

Now, of course, if an AWACS was shut down by a Russian jet, that could be the starting point to something like WW3. The Russians don't want that, and neither do we. So what this means, is that their troop deployment is signalling us something: they know what we are up to and they are not willing to let go of it.

Unless, of course, they decide to shoot down some of GCC aircraft that are flying over Syria already. If they do so while GCC planes are implementing an illegal "no fly zone" over a sovereign country, that might put the Coalition into a tight spot.

How to react to such an act of war, knowing the shoot-down is legit, and the fly over wasn't ? But these questions are exactly the intention behind such an alleged deployment. Keep the adversary guessing, wondering about all the "what if's" and potentially altering his plans without a single shot being fired, and maybe even without a single plane being stationed permanently at Mezze.

Additionally, rumour also has it that more Russian advisers will be sent to the front lines, to bolster Syrian defence lines around Damascus and in the North West of the country, specifically along the Alawi populated coastal strip. Again, speculating about numbers would be futile at this point, but if the Russians intended to send a message together with these planes and military advisers, that message should be heard loud and clear.

Comments

[ISL]

PB,

Your scenario makes sense - from Bloomberg, the following quote:

“It’s a signal that we won’t stick to Assad at all costs, but we consider the most important thing is to preserve Syria as a state,” Zvyagelskaya said. “Otherwise you risk total chaos.”

backs your (and the colonel's affirmation) re:the goal is the state of Syrian. With Crimea, Russia did rather than talk and not do - as the US tends often to do - (and when Russia starts to talk, things have been already well in motion).

So the question is will the Obamaites back down? I think so.
But will Erdogan and the Saudis back down? I dont think so as they have been playing the US consistently, no reason for them not to continue.

[b]

Either the Russians are using a load of Maskirovka or the rumors about Russian involvement are untrue. My bet is on no.2.

"No MiG-31s for Damascus: Russia Denies Sending Interceptors to Syria"
http://www.sputniknews.com/military/20150822/1026049778/no-mig-31-for-syria.html

---

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-09-04/syria-s-assad-accepts-early-parliamentary-elections-putin-says
/quote/
“It’s too early” to talk about Russian military action in Syria, though “we are considering various options,” Putin said. Russia is actively helping the Assad government with weapons and military training, he said.

Putin’s comments came after reports this week that Russia is ramping up its involvement in Syria. Russian troops are fighting with Assad’s forces and images of what appeared to be Russian planes and drones in the skies over Syria have been published, the U.K.’s The Telegraph newspaper reported on Sept. 2. Russia’s Defence Ministry has denied any direct military intervention.
/endquote/

[turcopolier]

PB

Your piece posits a Russian willingness to engage AWACS, SLAR equipped RC-135, and/or coalition fighter aircraft enforcing a no fly zone within Syria. Entry into such a zone would also cause a reaction from ground based air defense. IMO this would lead to WW3. IMO the MIG-31 interceptors are more likely to be intended to counter unimpeded Israeli depredations. I would look to see Russian CAS aircraft brought in for the real battle. Other than that we are in agreement. IMO Russia is determined to block dissolution of the Syrian state. pl

[Patrick Bahzad]

Quoting "bloomberg", "sputnik" or "Telegraph" on a topic such as this ? I don't really see the point ... Maybe you should track their reports, and not their quotes, back to the source(s). That would give some added value, maybe.

That being said, I'm not sure you understand the difference between "sending a signal" and getting actually involved.

[Patrick Bahzad]

PL,

I agree it would lead to WW3, most likely. Unless indeed they are after Israeli incursions, or possibly target GCC aircraft only and not NATO planes. That would be a dilemma for US and NATO, how to react to that.

But basically, yes, if MIG presence was confirmed, or if there had been temporary presence of those planes at Mezze airbase, I would see it more as a signal, telling us that things might spiral out of control, if we don't put a lead on the "loonies" who put us into this mess and want to drag us deeper into it.

I also think the Russia-Iran discontent is being overplayed by certain groups in D.C.

[David Habakkuk]

Patrick Bahzad,

Thanks for this fascinating analysis, which I am attempting to digest.

A few ignorant questions:

1. Is the avoidance of a 'de facto' partition of Syria, at this late stage, a feasible objective? If in your judgement it is, then it would be helpful to have more clarification about the kind of accommodation between political forces it would involve.

2. If the avoidance of such a 'de facto' partition is a feasible objective, in your view, is it one that is in Western interests? Or is there a realisable objective which is preferable, in the Western interests? (I am dodging the question of whether the interests of different parts of 'the West' are different.)

3. If the avoidance of such a 'de facto' partition is not a feasible objective, what is the least worst solution which Western powers could set as a realistic objective?

[JerseyJeffersonian]

Colonel,

Yes, it is past time for the air wing of Jahbat al-Nusra, a/k/a the Israeli air force, to be encouraged to reconsider the advisability of their actions inside of Syria. If it takes Russian air-to-air interception capabilities in country, well then, so be it.

[VietnamVet]

PB,

Clearly Western rulers are intent on dismantling Westphalia States, war profiteering and regime change. With what NewsHour calls trench warfare ongoing in Ukraine, their Syrian ally splintering and economic sanctions, Russia apparently has be prodded into action. I agree this risks World War III.

This is exactly how End Day scripts play out. The media avoids the truth as panic spreads. Refugees trying to walk through the Channel Tunnel to safety in England shut down the high speed rail system stranding passengers.

[William R. Cumming]

What countries have formal Treaty obligation with the former Nation-State called Syria?

[Norbert M. Salamon]

Sir:
If indeed Russia thinks that the US/puppet disturbances are against the national interest of Russia, the possibility of MIG 31 [if actually present I Syria] is a clear signal that Russia is fed up.

Then the possibility that a mis-guess by US, especially in view of the economic problems in the Homeland, would actually lead to WW3.

The constant presence of US Naval power in the Black Sea, the numerous military exercises in E Europe, the presence of advanced aircraft in Germany, the numerous regime change efforts in the near area{ex SSR-s], new sanctions all indicate that too many Res Lines are being regularly crossed.
I hope there are some adults in US, aside from the warmongering females in Dept. of State, UN etc; else we will not have to worry about economic collapse, global warming, degradation of ecology. sea level rising, and all other important global issues and personal issues in general.

[oofda]

Austrian media reports that Su-34 "Fullback" fighter-bombers have been seen in Syria. These are strike aircraft- the successors to the SU-24 "Fencers"

[Fred]

WRC,

What do you mean "former"?

[bth]

PB, what particularly alarmed me about the "Russians in Syria" stories was their broad, almost coordinated sourcing and the sequence of shallow cross-referenced news stories.

I watch this carefully with open sourced material and this story is more consistent with an organized IP push out of Israel or the neocon crowd - Israeli news, UK (Telegraph, Guardian), Australian pickup and the WaPo. This sequence shows up when the Israelis make a move in Gaza for example or early on in the Libyan civil war, or when there is a push on in congress and indeed even early in the Iraq war.

This sequence is different than one that would come out of Russia. The pattern of news sources is different as is the method of cross referencing which would put a heavier emphasis on blogs, Canadians, Germans and verbose perfectly spelled intellectual postings. If the Russians were in fact sending a message that a redline is about to be crossed to the west, why would it be so ambiguous? Also this blog would be hit with hundreds of trolling messages as occurs when a thread is posted regarding Ukraine.

Another possibility is that Assad might be desperately trying to get the Russians to engage and commit by pulling them out of the closet so to speak. But then the news source sequence is again inconsistent with that.

[Patrick Bahzad]

I Don't see the same media sequence. It's been tracked down to a first Statement by Turkish news agency in mid August. That the Izzies and neocons are trying to get on the band wagon , for their own reasons , can't be discounted of course. Regarding the why of such an MO, could be plenty of reasons, like doing as little as possible for maximum result (force multiplier), keeping your adversary guessing and avoiding fallout in press (plausible deniability). There's also the genuine anti-ISIS angle you shouldn't overlook.

[C L]

Most of the analysis here misses the larger Russian global fears.

Russia's involvement in Syria is for self preservation.

The Russians have their eye on the imminent mass migration of middle-class Arab refugees with no where to go.
These are mainly migrants not refugees, most are middle class merchants/professionals, they choose to migrate away from the terror of Islamic fanatics rule.

Europes' borders will shut down under the strain of the vanguard of migrants.
The Americas have Oceans to protect them.
Africa is undesirable and succumbing to the Islamic militants.
Asia/Ociana too far away.

This leaves one direction - Russia's soft underbelly of 'Stan satellite states with 'Stans populations politics & economies very similar to the Arab migrants socio/economic/politic upbringing. (Different dictators - same ineffective bureaucracies, same underground economies etc…) The money the migrants have with them has more buying power in the Stans compared with the costs of living in Western Europe.

Once the turmoil overtakes Turkey, then the Stans will fall. Kurdistan, Turkmenistan etc.. and the land route is open to the north for all the Arab middle class regardless of sectarian affinity to move to a better life.
This migration will quickly wreak havoc in that region oppressed social order. and into the rest of the landmass.

Russia has strong first hand experience in dealing with the expansion of militant Islam. They do not like it.
Starting in Afghanistan - now in the Caucasus and numerous terrorist attacks in their Motherland.

Russia has strong cultural memory of mass migrations conflict & deaths during the turmoils of last century (WW1 WW2, revolutions etc.. ) They did not like it.
That chaos was finally stabilised by the communist totalitarian regime which clamped down on all social mobility.

So this leaves one game to play - Containment of wannabe migrants. -
Create economic safe havens in feasible spaces,
Syria's Mediterranean coast is Ideal example, defendable, supply-able by sea & economically sustainable for a vibrant society. The gas/petroleum pipelines from the crescent terminate there bringing some wealth and Agri/industry, social order etc… (all hard to create from scratch) are still functioning. Save that, create a haven for the migrants - avoid the threat to Russian way of life.

Russia is less worried about the religious fundamentalists who will migrate/flee to their own religious brethren and battle it out against the unbelievers creating pockets of religious intolerance - e.g DAESH. That will remain part of the great game.

As to an Israel - Russia conflict, not in the cards. The emigration of over 1 Million 'communist educated' Russians to Israel translates to good contacts & communications between the 2 countries. More importantly they now share 'cultural' & 'metaphysical' values. Russia isn't upset by Israeli abuse of its neighbours because the Russians behave in the same way and they don't have a 'soft spot' for Islamic militants of any stripe - except as customers for their arms.

[turcopolier]

CL

Thanks for sorting us out, pl

[William R. Cumming]

Nation-states are not really nation-states that cannot control their borders or airspace. Some other label is necessary. And perhaps in futuro control of digital media within that nation-states borders.

Could be wrong as always!

[Tyler]

VV,

"Refugees trying to walk through the Channel Tunnel to safety in England"

Escaping the literal Hell that is all the European countries right now, I'm sure, for the safety of iphones and gimmedats in the UK.

I can't believe I'm the first one to call out this laughable turn of phrase.

[SteveG]

WRC
As the U.S. cannot or will not
control its borders are we well
on our way to a failed state??
I think so.

[alba etie]

C L
If there is such affinity betwixt the Izzies & Russia perhaps Leader Putin can persuade Leader Natanyahu to stop flying CAS for al Nusra and other Liver Eaters fighting Assad . Also too - maybe Leader Putin can help sell the Iran Nuclear deal in Tel Aviv..

[Will]

Lot of holes in the argument.
1. lots of intermarriage and social bonds b/n former soviets and syrians.
2. middle class professionals are not a destabilizing influence b/ desirable immigrants-especially to a country that has had a demographic problem.
3. Israel is not hitting the Islamists, indeed it's Al Qaeda in Syria's artillery and airforce. Israel has been hitting the secular government forces b/c contrary to Russian interests, it wants failed states on its borders. You know Netanyahu's line, we can't make peace b/c it's a "dangerous neighborhood" so we have to to keep all the pieces we have conquered for "security."

Agreed that a failed state ISIS Syria is a threat to many countries. The Saudis, Gulf states, Turkey, & Israel don't care about this. One wants to grab or hold land and the others to spread on-secular Wahabi and Brotherhood doctrine. Robert Ford and his ilk will be filed in the same binder as Feith, Bremer, Perle, Wolfwitz et al. Obama is at heart a non-interventionist and he has some sympatico with Islam, indeed his middle name is that of one of the Prophet's grandsons.

Sure some of these European countries are racist but an awareness of names makes it clear that migrants have made their way there. besides the elephant in the room of course are the Ashkenazi. Consider the etymologies of these names: Pasquale, Guderian, Canaris, & Lewinski, known as Manstein. Wasn't Pushkin part African? (wiki "Pushkin was born into Russian nobility in Moscow. His matrilineal great grandfather was Abram Gannibal, who was brought over as a slave from what is now Cameroon.")

Indeed, the US has benefited from Syrian blood, consider Steve Jobs & Mitch Daniels, and Syrian professionals here would offset the tone of the American Ashkenazi and Israeli Firster Cuban derived personalities such as Rubio, Cruz, and Ros-Lehtinen.

[Will]

It is a different world from the 19th Century when the Great Powers protected Christians in the Ottoman controlled Levant. Russia looked after the Eastern Orthodox and exacted concessions for their protection from the Sublime Porte and France looked after the Catholic affiliated Maronites. Syria has long been a bastion of Eastern Orthodox Christianity. That connection has even entered our language as a "road to Damascus moment." Antioch, the Syrian city the French gave to Turkey, was the first place the followers of Jesus were called “Christians."
In the 20th century, Middle East Christians have suffered in the European/American/early Soviet disproportionate backing for unlimited Israeli expansion. France helped Israel with nuclear Dimona (b/c they were pissed off at Egypt for backing Algerian rebels) and LBJ connived with Israel in the 1967 war land grabs. He even threw the USS Liberty under the bus. Likewise, the U.S. extirpated the Iraqi secular state and there are nowIraqi Christian refugees all over the world. There are a million Syrian refugees in Lebanon. Ironically, in the past, Leb. president Franjieh invited the Syrians to intervene to protect the Christians. They overstayed their welcome but finally left. Now they are back in greater numbers as refugees. Perhaps, Russia will come back to its historical roots. The Metropolitan Ilya (probably Lyas a form of Elias/Elizah) of Beirut has a connection with the Soviet rebound of WW2. He had a vision that Stalin should have processions with the Icon of St Mary of Kazan in Leningrad, Moscow, and Stalingrad and that would turn things around. Incredibly, Stalin did just that. You can believe in miracles or as Thales said that the gods may have created the world but left its day to day operations to Nature, but that is a historical fact that these things happened.
Likewise the French have long held an interest in protecting the Maronites in Lebanon. Back around 1860 they protected the Christians in the Maronite/Druze war.
Lebanon and Syria have long been considered by some in Assad's words to be "one country with two governments." In fact under the Ottoman governance it was all called Syria. That the nominally Christian powers would help protect Levant Christians (as well as non takfiri salafist jihadist Muslims and other minorities) would be congruent with their past. You can forget America for the Neocons are still in power. Consider that Victoria Nuland is in charge of Ukraine portfolio. But perhaps, Russia and France will awaken to their historical roots. Because if Syria goes, then Lebanon and Jordan will burn.
(possibly that fool Erdogan’s Turkey too)

[Patrick Bahzad]

CL,

Great clarity of vision ! Thx for that ...

[Patrick Bahzad]

So far, all media reports about Su-34 can be traced back to one single social media posting by a JaN source, showing pictures of what looks like ONE Su-34 allegedly flying over Idlib area.

If that Austrian media has a different source, I'd be interested to see it !

[turcopolier]

PB

http://theaviationist.com/2015/09/02/russians-against-isis-over-syria/

Is this your reference? I take it that the presence of SU-34 would indicate Russian Air Force presence since the aircraft has not been sold abroad. Also, this is a ground or naval target attack aircraft, not an interceptor. pl