…from PressTV, Tehran
[ Editor’s Note: This was a smooth move by Russia, getting an airbase set up in northern Syria for protecting joint Turkish and Russian patrols – but from who I might ask? Will they be attacked by the SAA or the SDF Kurds? I don’t think so.
These helicopters can be used for a lot more important adversaries than the Kurds. If the US wants to defend getting its oil from ISIS who stole it from Syria, I certainly think that Russia could defend Syria’s oil WITH its permission.
At the end of the day, Russia’s always bothering to have a legal basis for its deployments – as opposed to the unipolar short-cut version of “We do what we want to do for whatever reasons we choose” – and that will help Russia win the credibility war. A growing number of Americans including veterans are beginning to understand the real US foreign policy: “We have the power to take what we want, why not use it.”
The US Special Operations command is risking putting a big stain on its reputation, in that many might view their morphing into what could be considered a mercenary force – guns for hire in an overseas Wild West show of grabbing resources, with the US taxpayer debt funding the effort.
Who are the big dummies in all this? Are any of the parents that put their kids into the military having second thoughts – some of whom opening admit they did so for the educational benefits, not really to defend the country?
Defend it from whom? Is Iran a bigger threat than Israel is to us?
Are China and Russia circling us with bases, or installing medium range missiles into “first strike” positions; for instance having to “protect Canada” from us to justify military intervention? Of course, these are ridiculous assertions until the US makes them.
It’s not more preposterous than the latest US fake explanation that US troops are returning to Syria to defend its oil fields from ISIS, when most of the remaining ISIS is under US and Turkish control. Who makes this sh_t up? … Jim W. Dean ]
Jim's Editor’s Notes are solely crowdfunded via PayPal
Jim's work includes research, field trips, Heritage TV Legacy archiving & more. Thanks for helping. Click to donate >>
– First published … November 08, 2019 –
Russia has deployed military helicopters to assist and protect its military police patrolling along Syria’s border with Turkey.
Russia’s Interfax news agency reported the deployment on Friday, citing a military pilot as saying that flights would be conducted on a daily basis in an altitude of 50-60 meters along several patrol routes.
Turkish and Russian troops have been engaged in joint patrols in northeastern Syria in a bid to verify the withdrawal of Kurdish militants from an area bordering Turkey.
Last month, an agreement was reached between Moscow and Ankara in Sochi on the parameters of a “safe zone,” an area void of Kurdish forces which Ankara regards as terrorists, to be drawn 30 kilometers deep into Syria from the Turkish border.
The Kurdish-led Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) were consequently given 150 hours to pull out troops from the region. The Kurds announced their complete withdrawal from the border area on Sunday.
Turkey has in response halted its military operation, which it launched into northern Syrian against US-aligned Kurdish forces on October 9. Sporadic clashes have been reported in the front line since.
Ankara launched the long-planned operation after Washington effectively granted the military operation a green light by calling for the withdrawal of US troops from northeastern Syria.
The SDF forces ultimately turned to Damascus for protection and Syrian troops began deploying in northeastern Syria to halt further Turkish advances. Numerous assaults on Syrian troops by Turkish forces have been reported thus far.
On Thursday, al-Masdar news agency cited a Syrian military source as saying that several tank battalions had been deployed in Hasakah’s Tal Tam district and the town of Ayn Issa north of Raqqa, reinforcing Syrian troops in areas where Turkish forces had previously sought to reach.
Al-Masdar described the deployments as a probable prelude to future clashes between Ankara and Damascus.
Pentagon ‘perplexed’ by Trump’s Syria strategy
Last month, US President Donald Trump backtracked on earlier orders to withdraw all troops from northeastern Syria, saying that the soldiers would remain there to “secure” the oilfields.
Trump has even said that US appropriation of the oil fields could be a fair “reimbursement” for Washington’s military deployment in the region.
Last week, the Pentagon further raised international concern when it threatened to use “military force” against any party, including the Syrian government and its allies, seeking to gain control of Syrian oilfields.
On Thursday, however, the Pentagon sought to dismiss some of those concerns, claiming that US troops were in Syria solely to defeat the Daesh Takfiri terrorists in partnership with the Kurdish-led Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) and that “deconfliction channels” could evade clashes with Damascus-aligned troops.
Oil revenues would only be used by the Kurdish forces, Pentagon spokesman Jonathan Hoffman said. The claims were, however, doubted by many observers.
On Friday, The Guardian, reported that Trump’s strategy in Syria had perplexed Pentagon officials as they “struggle to explain” the mission of up to a thousand troops in Syria. The paper highlighted that the Pentagon’s Thursday statement regarding oil revenue going exclusively to Kurdish forces “contradict the president.”
On Thursday, American news publication Foreign Policy described Trump’s mission regarding Syria’s oil fields to be seeking “murky goals” including weakening Syria’s government and competing for regional influence.
“This region is agricultural and oil rich, and that created leverage with Assad and Russia,” said Melissa Dalton, a senior fellow at the Center for Strategic and International Studies speaking to FP, referring to the Syrian president.
“If the actors on the ground maintain control over these resources, that would strengthen their hand in negotiations,” she added.
FP further highlighted that the troops recently deployed to Deir al-Zawr in northeastern Syria reinforced the existing troops in Tanf in countering what Washington sees as “Iranian influence” in the region.
Jim W. Dean is VT Editor Emeritus. He was an active editor on VT from 2010-2022. He was involved in operations, development, and writing, plus an active schedule of TV and radio interviews. He now writes and posts periodically for VT.
ATTENTION READERS
We See The World From All Sides and Want YOU To Be Fully InformedIn fact, intentional disinformation is a disgraceful scourge in media today. So to assuage any possible errant incorrect information posted herein, we strongly encourage you to seek corroboration from other non-VT sources before forming an educated opinion.
About VT - Policies & Disclosures - Comment Policy
The altitude of 50-60 meters?! Sometimes we think that military previous mistakes don’t give us experience at all. At this altitude flight any medium prepared insurgent can shoot down a helicopter with an RPG. And there are many who wish to arrange a provocation there.
Is there any save altitude for a helicopter, given the advances in modern missiles?
@Jay
It’s one thing to carry MANPADS and it will take precious time to put them into action (whoever shoots in the army knows that). And RPG any shepherd can carry with him in a bag and not cause suspicion from the air. I’m talking about the fact that the heights are small in the desert. And at that height, you can easily be ambushed. Even the fact that some attack helicopters are armored (can withstand 30mm shells), there may be little chance.
I’m not talking about tactics. For this, there are smart heads sit in the headquarters of the army. I’m talking about miscalculations. Why the hell did our bombers work on the ground without fighter cover? So we lost a few attack aircraft. And after that, along with the bombers began to raise air interceptors. And before that, what did they think about? That terrorists have only stones to throw at them?
All military manuals in the army are written in blood…
Comments are closed.