Four Safe No-Fly Zones Have Just Been Designated in Syria, Donald Trump Supports the Plan

a reply to: intrptr
I get that. In a related matter, by declaring these safe zones, it will free up te Syriaan army to redeploy on other fronts. a US general said three weeks ago in a CNN interview tht they expect to in Raqqa by summer. Summer is about a month away. I expect to see a build up of forces in the Der Ezoir pocket southeast of Raqqa in anticipation of this. If they cannot retake Raqqa, Rojava will control most of the Euphrates from Turkey to Iraq. Clearly this would not be to the benefit of Syrian interests. They will need at least one urban river port to really have any influence in their former land.

Lets see how this pans out. Many months back I initially said in other threads we would find out by memorial day who will ultimately gain control of Raqqa. It looks clear to me that my timeline was pretty accurate. it is now a race to Berlin!

a reply to: worldstarcountry

it is now a race to Berlin!

If by that you mean the race to stop the insurgents, I agree.

Understanding that "Coalition" airstrikes have "mistakenly" hit Syrian troops on the ground that were winning against the (many flavored) mercenary soldiers, trained, funded and backed by the (Assad must go) western covert operation.

In fact they were also used to kick off insurgent offensives on several occasions when syrian army positions were directly bombed 'accidentally', more recently when the Tomahawk cruise missile strike hit the Syrian air base (under false pretenses) and again when the Israelis bombed the Damascus airport.

If you liken the race to Berlin as a comparison to WWII, consider that air power, air supremacy is the goal first and foremost, then bombing air bases is key to gaining control of the air.

Further, that since these recent events the Russian have responded to declare no fly zones in these specific regions to prevent further attacks on the Syrian military and infrastructure (by accident or intention), it becomes clear that the game is changed so the "coalition' can no longer fly over syrian airspace with impunity.

Now the Syrian military ground units can focus on mopping up the insurgency without concern they may be 'accidentally' bombed by US, NATO or 'coalition' airstrikes and especially resupply airdrops.

It will be over shortly if the US complies.

If not then we'll see a return to Vietnam, where SAM missiles shot down dozens of US aircraft attacking North Vietnam in a drawn out bloody campaign.

a reply to: intrptr
Yes, the metaphor for WW2 is exactly where I am going with this. ISIS is obviously the NAZI's. Lets remember though, that the Europe front was concluded two years prior to the Pacific. So while this Middle Eastern front will be concluded before years end, we still have to be concerned with the Pacific front, North Korea.

It is of my opinion that things will go hot on the peninsula sometime after Raqqa is dealt with, regardless of which faction secures Raqqa or if it is split up between Rojava an Syria, which I have speculated since last year is a possibility.

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: tommyjo

Coalition air routes from the Mediterranean do not overfly Syria.

The whole reason Russia declared no fly zones was because NATO flies into Syrian airspace all day long.

Every single time they cross the Syrian border they break International Law regarding Sovereignty of Nations.

Not that warmongers care at all about that.

There you go yet again with the "NATO" thing. NATO has nothing to do with operations in Syria. I get that is a mindset but it is fact. Just because a country is a member of NATO doesn't mean that those forces are deployed as part of a NATO mission. I served 22 years in an RAF unit which was never assigned to NATO. You are failing to understand that just because a NATO member deploys forces in combat that they are in combat under a NATO mandate. Why is this so hard for you to understand? NATO countries also took part during 1991 in Iraq. Using your flawed logic you will be claiming that Iraq 1991 was a "NATO mission". Why can't you understand that NATO countries can deploy combat forces completely outside of NATO?

a reply to: tommyjo

Just because a country is a member of NATO doesn't mean that those forces are deployed as part of a NATO mission.

They all do their part. Not even going into that. You call them US, NATO, "Coalition" or whatever you want to...

They change terminology all the time to keep people like you confused.

a reply to: worldstarcountry

So while this Middle Eastern front will be concluded before years end, we still have to be concerned with the Pacific front, North Korea.

You think the globalist agenda crowd behind the scenes is going to give up on Syria? If they do, they have to give up on Iran and that upsets the apple cart. They want total control of the whole world.

But safe to sadly say they can never get that, history is full of examples of empires trying to control too much territory and winding up imploding from within because of debt, corruption besides running out of ammo.

This is no different. Look at all the conflicts we are currently embroiled bogged down in. Libyas a mess, Afghanistan, losing, Iraq, losing, Syria is gone on for 6 years now and still no solution.

As long as we're comparing this current cycle of endless war to WWII there is a perfect example, Hitler trying to open too many fronts at once.

a reply to: tommyjo
This kind of nitpicking is exactly why I have to put the following disclaimer every time I refer to NATO forces operating in Syria.

US/NATO*

*refers to NATO member states, and not NATO as operating under an official mandate

Seriously though, quite a hefty bit of NATO is represented in Combine Joint Task Force Inherent Resolve. In fact the one and only state not participating is Estonia. Now clearly the levels of commitment are not spread out evenly across the board and the majority of them are simply training Iraqi troops or provide logistical support such as resupply and use of bases and airspace. Airstrikes from Nato members inside Syria are limited to the United States, Canada, France, the Netherlands, Turkey, and the United Kingdom.[21]

Really the only reason, IMO this is not a NATO mandate is due to the participation of some of the Arab states, which gives NATO the cover that this is n international partnership, which it is.

As far as I am concerned, this is most certainly a NATO op of regime change backed by Arab support. But I try to respect technicalities, an therefore I add the disclaimer

Could this just be an excuse for Turkish armed occupation of Syria?

It is Turkey that are going to act as " ground monitors" in the de-escalation zones, right?

a reply to: Mousygretchen
Turkey, Russia and Iran will have people on the ground to maintain the peace in these zones. This will give the Syrian Army the opportunity to redeploy in other areas to combat the foreign terrorists.

Any western attempt at violation of the safe zones' premises will be responded on western assets.

originally posted by: intrptr

They all do their part. Not even going into that. You call them US, NATO, "Coalition" or whatever you want to...

They change terminology all the time to keep people like you confused.

LOL! Stop deluding yourself. If your claim is true then why are Russia not announcing this major breaking news? Explain why Russian news agencies don't report these western forces as "NATO"? Why doesn't Russian MoD report them as NATO?

It isn't rocket science. Explain how all these NATO countries can keep a "secret Syria mandate" without it leaking?

NATO Secretary-General Anders Fogh Rasmussen said the Western alliance had no intention of intervening in Syria even in the event of a U.N. mandate to protect civilians, and urged Middle East countries to find a way to end the spiraling violence. Rasmussen told Reuters Friday he also rejected the possibility of providing logistical support for proposed "humanitarian corridors" to ferry relief to towns and cities bearing the brunt of President Bashar al-Assad's crackdown on pro-democracy protesters. "We have no intention whatsoever to intervene in Syria," Rasmussen said in an interview, during a visit to mark the 60th anniversary of Turkey joining the alliance. While NATO had acted under a United Nations mandate to protect civilians in Libya and had also received active support from several fellow Arab countries, neither condition had been fulfilled in Syria. Asked if NATO's stance would change if the United Nations provided a mandate, Rasmussen was doubtful. "No, I don't think so because Syria is also a different society, it is much more complicated ethnically, politically, religiously. That's why I do believe that a regional solution should be found," he said."

Reuters link

Explain how "NATO" are keeping this Syria operation "secret". Think of all the nations involved and all the various governments and their various political affiliations? Explain how they can keep this mandate a complete secret? Answer because they can't. NATO as an organisation is not operating in Syria.

Libya which was under a NATO mandate.

Operation Unified Protector Link

Will you also be claiming that Iraq 2003 was a "NATO operation"?

The March 2003 campaign against Iraq was conducted by a coalition of forces from different countries, some of which were NATO member countries and some were not. NATO as an organization had no role in the decision to undertake the campaign or to conduct it.

NATO Int link

Your logic is flawed. That is why I call it a mindset.

Please explain why Russia didn't agree to a Memorandum of Understanding with "NATO" in regards to western aircraft operating in Syrian airspace?

Memorandum of Air Safety link

That is because "NATO" isn't operating in Syria. It has nothing to do with NATO and is the same status as 1991 or 2003 Iraq with a Coalition of forces completely separate from NATO or a NATO mandate.

The Russian government and military can understand this, so please explain why you can't?

originally posted by: worldstarcountry
a reply to: tommyjo

Really the only reason, IMO this is not a NATO mandate is due to the participation of some of the Arab states, which gives NATO the cover that this is n international partnership, which it is.

As far as I am concerned, this is most certainly a NATO op of regime change backed by Arab support. But I try to respect technicalities, an therefore I add the disclaimer

No it doesn't. You guys need to stop deluding yourselves. If NATO was involved it would be an open secret with a mandate just like Libya or Afghanistan. You couldn't keep it secret within an organisation like NATO. It is just ludicrous that you actually believe such a mandate could be kept secret. Not only from public and intense journalistic scrutiny but also the Russian Government and Military. It would have leaked like a sieve if there was some sort of secret NATO mandate for Syria. Russia would also be dealing with and interacting with NATO directly on technical matters and issues surrounding forces in the region. Certainly the Russians would be calling out NATO and demanding direct interaction with NATO command structures rather than dealing with individual nations and forces. It is just ludicrous that you actually believe that NATO could keep such a role hidden or "secret".

a reply to: worldstarcountry

Nice rundown but wasted wth the warmonger crowd. They don't even call it war, hiding their true intentions behind a false facade, changing the names, purposes and actual action to nice pretty sounding terminology.

Thats how you know what they are really about. They invade calling it 'intervention', arms are called 'aid'. Rules of engagement, collateral damage, military doctrine, all gentile euphemisms covering for waging aggressive war for conquest and control of territory and resources.

a reply to: intrptr
well hey man, thats just reality. Don't get too worked up over it. Lets just analyze it and see if we can figure out where the next phase is and what it encompasses and what the consequences may be by keeping tabs on the under reported little happenings here and there

a reply to: tommyjo
Yea ok bro, 27 of 28 nato member states are involved in Syriac in some capacity. It does not have to be a mandate. The intentions are pretty clear. Its not as if each and every NATO member took turns bombing Libya or putting boots on the ground there either.

I already acknowledged at least three times this is not an official mandate, and explained why I use a disclaimer as a result. But when 27 of the 28 member states are pulling the same M.O. as the last mandate, the world can read between the lines. The real leadership powers in NATO are USA, UK, France, Germany, Turkey and to an extent Poland. The rest are the vassals who follow orders through politics and economics.

Russia is the one and only reason Syria still has a government and Assad in power. It would have already been Libyad by now otherwise. It is not an official mandate because the world said "fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me" . A mandate is strictly for political and legal reasons. The same six members are always involved with the minimum 15-20 or so vassals following closely behind with whatever meager input they contribute whether it be a mandate or not.

Enough with the broken record though, I put a disclaimer for a reason to avoid this broken record circular argument. Do you have an opinion on the safe zones or not is the question?

If I were Jordan or Israel or anybody else plotting land attacks against Syria, I would remind them there's a cure!
Even NATO artillery bacteria has a cure ... It's called Penicillin:

sputniknews.com...

Russia, Iran and Turkey deepen talks on full implementation of de-escalation zones in Syria By Henri Feyerabend - 19/05/2017 0

On Thursday the 18.05. Russian, Iranian und Turkish officials held further talks about concrete steps and details of their planned etsablishment of de-escalation zones in Syria.
While many details have yet to be agreed upon, flights above the zones are already banned. The Russian Ministry of Defense, who’s units will enforce this rule, made clear, that violations will not be tolerated, even if announced beforehand.
The borders of the zones will have security lanes with checkpoints, to allow the movement of civilians and goods, while keeping the opposing parties of the Syrian conflict at distance. Turkey is rooting for a UN supervision of the agreement. The memorandum demands the guarantors themselves to provide supervisioning troops, but leaves the option to include third parties open. The next round of the talks will be held in Teheran May 21.
Below are more detailed maps published by the Russian Ministry of Defense, showing a first rough sketch of the 4 de-escalation zones, as designated by the guarantors:

Soon the US will have to make a choice. On that day, if we see Apollo Guardian, Global Guardian Crown Vigilance etc. as on Sept. 11th 2001, many US large cities where most of the population is concentrated, will cease to exist.
CLearly, EU govts are attempting to orchestrate provocations against Syria right now. This might as well be the west's last summer ...

The EU is attempting its utmost to wreck the US-backed, Russian plan for the de-escalation zones in Syria.
France and the UK conduct these seldom raids against some Syrian forces to blame the US. These periodic bombings in Syria are essentially a false flag to frame the US. The same way that the most recent terrorist attacks in Paris and London are false flags to attempt to reach consensus on attacking Syria.

West now is desperate. A repetition of the July/August 2013 events in Syria, is now a no-no. Counter targets would now be "real" western military bases, and there would be a significant counter attack this time around.