Nov 22 (3/3): Ground Up-Date: More Intensification

So, brief wrap on the ground, as much of it is just adjustments to the existing situation. More slow intensification.

While sitting around playing Parcheesi or whatever it is they do out east when not patrolling, Russia continues to go even more HAM on Idlib alongside the SAA including maybe upped airstrikes. SAA also apparently dropped a bunch of barrel bombs on a TFSA stronghold near Kobane.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CxwJAV07iMs

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gDPbwXsacQs

So, if you’re keeping score, in some places Russia patrols the border, in others, they just sorta watch, in others they let SAA hit TFSA from the air, and in others they join SAA and go HAM on the TFSA.

Which means the struggle over the M4 continues, especially northeast of Ayn Issa where the road to Tal Abiad crosses the M4, without me being able to see anything decisive on it.

I think somewhere in all those situations that basically checks almost every box for what they could possibly be doing with themselves, but all in the same war.

Oh: Plus cramping the US’s style:

RUSSIA HAS CHOSEN TO establish a new military base in a part of Syria perilously close to an area that American troops have been charged with defending, heightening the risk of a confrontation from either an unintentional skirmish or a deliberate provocation.

For obvious reasons, the locals continue to communicate how cool they are with the Russians.

Meanwhile, the “demographic change” of the region Tyrkey is undertaking continues.

And just when you thought things couldn’t get any worse:

South Front: RUSSIAN STRIKE WIPED OUT HEADQUARTERS OF TURKISH-BACKED MILITANTS IN IDLIB (VIDEOS)

 

 

 

Nov 22 (2/3): Elon Musk’s ISIS-mobile

I don’t know if this will have legs outside of the middle east, but these are amazing.

And then my brother brought this to my attention.

Image result for mask jackhammer

ZMart100

A little background on the top image for those who weren’t watching Syria closely. From 2014-2017 ISIS operated what they called “The Workshop” outside of Raqqa. It refurbished and upgraded captured armor. They used the sort of serial numbers photoshopped onto the side of the Tesla above. There is a good blog on The Workshop here, including the story of “206” which I will briefly recount. The “206” came off of this BMP-1.

ISIS used it in an attack against Kweres airbase. The attack failed and the regime forces then took over “206”.

The Tesla most closely resembles the 200 series BMP-1 VBIEDs (the 200 series were converted BMP-1s, both fighting vehicles and VBIEDs). To make the VBIED, ISIS would remove the turret (often to put it onto a pickup), pack the interior with explosives and weld the doors shut.

Also, ISIS had a second workshop in Deir ez-Zor (aka Wilyat al Kahir in various spellings) that was notorious for producing armored monstrosities such as this bulldozer VBIED.

 

Nov 22 (1/3): Slander of Heroes

Some free thinkers are Bothsidesing the Free Burma Rangers.

Note: The title of this post is intended to make clear my position. In spite of that, I will be as thorough about my process of coming to that conclusion as I possibly can so anyone else can draw conclusions for themselves. In that vein, my post explaining the Free Burma Rangers and the White Helmets (written before I became aware of the conspiracy theories surrounding the latter group) here.

So, to be more specific, we can call this a subset of Bothsidsing, “They’re No Angels-ing “ David Eubank and pals.

I don’t think I need a disclosure for how I feel about FBR given previous posts, but I’ll endeavor to be as thorough as I can in providing information so everyone can decide for themselves or, if interested, do further research on their own. I mean, that’s what I always try to do and have received positive feedback for it, but it seemed to bear special mention here.

So, here’s the spark to what is now a conversation, at times heated, on the twitters right now.

When I first saw this, I just sorta rolled my eyes and thought: Somebody’s always got to be That Guy.

Of course, I’m also sensitive to the demands of self-promotion in his field, so there’s that. But some hills still strike me as strange ones to die on, if you’ll pardon the expression.

Anyway, here’s the piece he’s referring to, which is actually an interesting read for a lot of FBR detail. But, as always, there’s some shit to parse.

<OK FOR SOME REASON MEDIUM PIECES DON’T EMBED IN WORDPRESS>:

Medium (Offbeat Research): Are the Free Burma Rangers involved in fighting alongside the SDF?

Here’s what it should look like if I had the right plug-in or something.

medium piece free burma rangers

So, let’s first dispense with the question which, based on previous experience and described in previous posts (The War on Twitter P1, P2, P3)) we should ask whenever we see anything like this (besides reading it, I  mean 😉 ):

Is this an information op?

I don’t know. Or rather, I don’t know if it’s, say, a Russian planned op, for example. This doesn’t have the massive blunt force nature of the Russian ones I’ve been able to see unfold, but not all are like that.

Fundamentally, though, the Russian theory of military deception—it even has a name, Maskirovka (wiki link) as part of the deep operations theory (wiki link) they pioneered like 100 years ago—doesn’t require something like this to be a planned op.

To illustrate, here’s a great video that @Barbed Wire Bob found for me on the subject from War is Boring, also on Medium, which means it also won’t fucking embed and is messing up my formatting too:

Medium (War is Boring): Russian forces marked as peacekeepers and the Russians might mount a humanitarian mission as an excuse for invasion.

war is boring russia humanitarian aid

Once something like this happens—when a story like this breaks—their agents on social media know to share and concern troll it, probably without being told, and their groomed assets just do that stuff anyway in predictable ways—sorta the definition of an asset.

So whether or not this was “intentional” drops out with what social scientists call “observational equivalence,” which means that looking at the outcome doesn’t allow you to discern what the cause is because two (or more) different causes will lead to the same effect, so how do you figure out which it was?

Well, sometimes, as per above and in this case, it doesn’t actually mater: We know that it’s happening. So let’s look at it.

To begin, there are all sorts of hand-wringing concern trolls—

Google search definiton

concern trolling defintion

urbandictionary.com definition

concern troll definition urban dictionary

—out there, some who appear to be legit people and while others are just trolls.

You can go online and tool around and see for yourself, but here’s the first of these types of Tweets I clicked through on:

Tweet:

deniz denizli FBR slander tweet

Twitterer:

deniz denizli FBR slander

(Note: The account has since been deleted and a porn account is in it’s place.)

Intriguing start. Let’s go to the Google translate app because stupid fucking Twitter app doesn’t have their translate functionality apply to descriptions—the website does—for reasons I cannot ken accept how many people care these days about verifying whom you’re listening, huh? Jerks.

So, here goes:

deniz denizli translation

GAH! I mean, I guess at least it’s a philosophy.

Ok, good talk. Agent or asset? Dunno. Don’t really care. She’s retweeting as an agent would, so she’s effectively an asset to whomever wants this put out, even if it’s simply the authors.

Anyone can figure out a lot of this FakeNews crap with a few simple click throughs. I have to think a lot of this disinformation problem could be alleviated to a degree, except that people apparently just don’t want to click through even to save the Republic. But I digress.

So that’s the scene. Needless to say, the FBR supporters on the ground are apoplectic. But that doesn’t make them right, yeah? So it makes sense to look at the original piece a bit first or their response won’t make any sense because we don’t know what the various responses are referring to yet.

So, as I said, the piece is very thorough and has lots of interesting detail.

It also has lots of fuzzy and suggestive passages of the, “If that is your real name…” variety:

Interview with David Eubank, describing him as an aid worker. (source)

Despite this contentious and muddled history, the existence of the FBR and their actions across Syria consistently blur the line of humanitarian aid and targeted activism. While media and interviews with the FBR have framed the group as a humanitarian organization, this is an oversimplification of the actions and efforts being undertaken by the FBR on the front lines in northeastern Syria, much of which appears to actively endanger the safety of volunteers as well as that of Eubank’s family.

Anyway, within the intermingled breathless commentary and deep dives into facts which are pretty interesting—and there’s lots of images I hadn’t seen before, which is good work—there is this basic argument:

Conclusion: The FBR may actually be combatants in the conflict, and not just the humanitarian workers they claim to be.

Argument/Evidence:

  • They are frequently armed and use military style equipment such as armored vehicles for ambulances.
  • Members have been seen firing weapons in combat zones.
  • Their ambulances frequently have poor markings and are often very dirty.

Obviously this matters because, as the authors lay out, although humanitarian workers are allowed arms and the right of self defense, they are not allowed to be partisan combatants and retain their status. The authors have helpfully (Seriously, this is way better than looking it up myself) supplied the relevant links.

Convention (I) for the Amelioration of the Condition of the Wounded and Sick in Armed Forces in the Field. Geneva, 12 August 1949.

CONDITIONS NOT DEPRIVING MEDICAL UNITS AND ESTABLISHMENTS OF PROTECTION

ARTICLE 22

The following conditions shall not be considered as depriving a medical unit or establishment of the protection guaranteed by Article 19 [ Link ]  :

(1) That the personnel of the unit or establishment are armed, and that they use the arms in their own defence, or in that of the wounded and sick in their charge.

(2) That in the absence of armed orderlies, the unit or establishment is protected by a picket or by sentries or by an escort.

(3) That small arms and ammunition taken from the wounded and sick and not yet handed to the proper service, are found in the unit or establishment.

(4) That personnel and material of the veterinary service are found in the unit or establishment, without forming an integral part thereof.

(5) That the humanitarian activities of medical units and establishments or of their personnel extend to the care of civilian wounded or sick.

Now, given that, if the FBR are ever involved in offensive action, they cease to be protected under international treaty.

Convention (I) for the Amelioration of the Condition of the Wounded and Sick in Armed Forces in the Field. Geneva, 12 August 1949.

DISCONTINUANCE OF PROTECTION OF MEDICAL ESTABLISHMENTS AND UNITS

ARTICLE 21

The protection to which fixed establishments and mobile medical units of the Medical Service are entitled shall not cease unless they are used to commit, outside their humanitarian duties, acts harmful to the enemy. Protection may, however, cease only after a due warning has been given, naming, in all appropriate cases, a reasonable time limit and after such warning has remained unheeded.

We will, for the moment, put aside the incredibly important legal institutional issue of “Who the Fuck Do They Think Is Enforcing International Law in Syria?” for the moment.

(Law makes people so weird. Law in this absence of a state or umbrella organization to enforce it really isn’t a terribly practical approach to understanding the real world that we, as people, actually live in. I blame the lawyers for all of this. [Disclosure: My father was a lawyer.])

So, their third claim is a little different from the first two in that one is more about why Turkish forces might not actually be targeting the ambulances they have attacked, the strikes actually being the fault of the BMR for not doing a better job identifying themselves.

The idea has theoretical merit. The rejoinder is that we’ve had Green Berets over there for years with only 6 deaths and there have been few if any incidents of Russians or US forces being hit in any of the recent engagement (actually, some Russians were promptly shelled on Turkish incursion like a month ago, but Russia denied it despite video). So deconfliction plans are in place and have been very effective where implemented.

This all suggests to me that Turkish and Turkish backed forces can manage to identify who they don’t want to hit when they want to, and it’s worth mentioning that’s one of the primary reasons you use drones anyway. But yes, there is a theoretical possibility here and there are a lot of obvious reasons to try to keep your vehicle well marked and clean if you’re a rescue worker, even if you’re in a desert combat zone.

So, as the saying goes, I report, you decide, but that’s also the least important point because that’s more about Turkish responsibility or lack their of for attacking FBR units; the much more important issue here is whether or not the Free Burma Rangers have active culpability by virtue of being enemy combatants rather than drivers of dirty ambulances, which would be more about irresponsibility or negligence.

The main issue is obviously whether or not FBR are using their weapons to engage in offensive military operations.

Now, speaking of I Report You Decide, it is no secret that Eubank and the Free Burma Rangers work alongside combatants in their work, as has been thoroughly documented and, for that matter, praised.

To refresh our memory:

FOXNews: Video shows ex-Special Forces soldier-turned-aid worker dodge ISIS sniper fire to save little girl during battle for Mosul

You need to click through to the article to see this next video.

FOXNews (Video): US aid worker helps displaced civilians in northern Syria
Oct. 30, 2019 – 1:49 – David Eubank of the volunteer group the Free Burma Rangers says it’s not too late for the U.S. to intervene; Benjamin Hall reports.

So that part is no secret. The issue is whether they are affirmatively engaging an enemy in offensive combat.

So that’s what needs investigating.

In that vein, as a brief aside, I love the way they describe in their article “tooling around on InstaGram” as though it’s some complex research technique:

In order to identify the man in the video and confirm whether he was a foreign fighter, a medic with the FBR, or a member of the YPG, we began by mapping out the FBR’s online networks via SOCMINT sources. By looking at conversations, friends lists, and different interactions via publicly available social media pages, then cross-referencing various visual and contextual elements within these sources, we were able to determine that the man seen firing in the video is Jason Torlano, a volunteer medic with the FBR.

Honestly, to me, this sounds like a precocious teenager trying to explain to his parents how he wasn’t actually screwing around on the internet instead of doing his homework. Please: That’s a working description of FaceBooking. Nice job, Encyclopedia Brown. I used to see this nonsense all the time when I taught, though I admit, this is some rarefied high quality nonsense.

It might be elite FaceBooking, but anyone who’s graded papers is gonna raise an eyebrow here. Since that’s really essentially what we’re doing here—evaluating an argument and evidence—I felt I needed to point out that that set my bullshit detector off.

But even more than that, I zeroed in on this (emphasis added):

Similarly, under IHL, medics may carry arms and defend themselves and those under their care with force if attacked. These protections are lost if medics use their arms offensively rather than defensively. The FBR appear to be privy to this fact, as their spokesperson noted that while some of their volunteers carry arms and actively engage in combat, “at no time in Iraq, Burma, or Syria have we taken offensive action.”

The authors are implying saying-not-saying-just-saying style that if they made that claim, it’s probably be to cover their own ass and not the truth.

In legalese, this is called an “impermissible adverse inference.” In regular terms, nobody who takes rights seriously believes that we may draw negative conclusions from someone asserting their own human rights, of which the right to self defense is a primary fundamental right, and this goes all the way back to frickin’ Hobbes in the 1600s.

People know this instinctively in practice, and it spans political affiliation among people who believe in rights.

Check two common versions in America:

  • Liberal: Exercising one’s right to a lawyer does not mean someone is a criminal.
  • Conservative: Exercising one’s right to bear arms does not make one a criminal.

Now, do people lose sight of the rights of others in the heat of disagreement? Sure. But the basic premise holds that adverse inference is basically a shady tactic attempted by attorneys to sow doubt.

It is wholly inappropriate to a professional researcher or analyst, and doubly so when one is discussing rights as a central issue to the argument.

So, those are my criticisms, I linked to the piece above for anyone interested in diving deeper for themselves. As I said, there’s a lot of interesting stuff in it and some cool pics.

But stuff like this makes me want to check the authorship.

I’ll make it as easy as possible for you to check it out for yourself:

This article was put together through the collaborative work of Noor Nahas @NoorNahas1, Arslon Xudosi @Arslon_Xudosi, and Jett Goldsmith @JettGoldsmith

Now, bracketing the intellectual dishonesty I pointed out before, this piece is being shared around by, among others, people who explicitly believe SDF=YPG=PKK=terrorist, which has been the position of Turkey and its partisans used to justify the incursion into Syria and which has been essentially rejected by the US military.

If you think the Free Burma Rangers are providing humanitarian relief exclusively for terrorists, then you’re going to be skeptical of them.

I get that. Although the little girl Eubank saved in that video above didn’t look like a terrorist to me.

(As an aside, while I’ve stated previously that here is a special corner of hell for people who shoot at medics—a popular theme in war movies [Saving Private Ryan has a particularly good version]—I realized this morning that I’d never thought about, say, ISIS having medics. But they must, right? And the proto-caliphate must have had hospitals? How do I feel about these as targets? Bombing a hospital is probably still fucked up, but… it’s not so much that I think it’s OK or not OK to shoot an ISIS medic but that it never occurred to me think of bad guys having medics. I had a GIJoe medic action figure: Lifeline!—

lifeline

—but not a COBRA one. I need think about this.)

So yeah, I can see how, bracketing a whole bunch of issues, helping terrorists is going to make you question even a humanitarian’s intentions. And even if their intentions are good, you might find them misguided and harmful. Machiavelli would probably say shoot the medic for the greater good.

So that’s my analysis. Given the magic of social media, the people on the ground who feel, let’s call it antipathy, for the argument,can speak for themselves. And they do.

Here are two Tweets, the first refers to the second from our friend Dani Ellis of Marie Claire.uk fame, who has rather more to say.

Here’s the whole thing so you don’t have to keep clicking:

Seen a bunch of hatchet jobs and ignorant chat about @FreeBurmaRangrs and trying not to get too pissed off about it. Here’s what I have experienced working both around them and directly with them:

Firstly, and I thought obviously, they are not part of or even politically aligned with any of the structures, either civil or military, here in Syria. They give out arm patches & tshirts and likewise fly YPG flags etc out of mutual respect from a year of working alongside locals

I have never witnessed any kind of proselytising. Many in the group are christian, but some are not, and while I have often seen them pray and sing christian songs, never have I seen them require or even include religion in their interactions and work with people on the ground.

They are unashamedly armed and most of them are formed soldiers or at least have combat training. They are operating in some of the most dangerous environments on the planet; just watch some of their videos from Mosul to understand what they go up against to save lives.

Similarly they do not hide the fact that they have armoured vehicles, and the lives of several of their members (including @DaveEubankFBR ) were saved by this fact when Zau Seng was killed by a mortar which landed a few metres away from them.

When they first arrived their vehicles were white w/large red crosses & crescents painted on them, as well as ‘ambulance’ in English and Arabic. Only after multiple local ambulances were destroyed & many medics killed by Turkish air strikes they switched to camouflaging with mud

Here is a basic fact that none of the OSINT or armchair analysts seem to want to take into account: short of a Turkish flag 🇹🇷 nothing painted on your vehicles will save you from attack here. If you want to save lives you *must* have protection & be prepared to defend yourselves

And FBR have done exactly that: they have saved 100s of lives. They have delivered tonnes of aid and worked 24/7 to improve the miserable situation that the Turkish state has created here. They have never asked for anything in return and even lost one of their dearest friends.

Does anyone else here agree with their politics or methods 100%? No, of course not. But they are not part of some sinister plot or conspiracy either. They are defying bureaucratic understanding of what aid is & many people are alive today who would not be, if it weren’t for them

And then there are the Twitter wars. Again, you can check this out for yourself—there are a few people outright excoriating FBR, but in general there are two main groups.

The “against FBR” Tweets are mostly super Concern Troll-y (I need to remember to make screen caps this time; I need to get better about my receipts now that I know how often Tweets get deleted in this quagmire.)

The “pro FBR” side is mostly Fuck You:

(Note: One man’s opinion, but that blue hat next to the name where a blue check would go is disingenuous as fuck. And pretty clever. I just wanted to point out that this Tweet is representative, but I don’t want anyone thinking that’s a validated account.)

My personal 2¢ is that the fact that one “side” is attacking through concern trolling and bothsidesing it and saying “Who is to know?” or wringing hands and clutching pearls in ways that are so fundamentally similar means that it’s a play—a disingenuous information operation. This matches very closely to the process I mentioned before. That doesn’t mean it’s not true, of course. It does mean that the story is consistently being weaponized in a certain familiar way that is used to distort information.

But the real way to figure things out is to get at the data and to fit it to the arguments, which I have endeavored to do as far as possible here.

But I would be remiss if I didn’t conclude with my first impression, from even before I did all this research:

Who the fuck looks at an armored ambulance and doesn’t immediately think, “Who the fuck shoots at an ambulance?”

candylandriots

I just read that Medium article about the FBR. I agree that their sourcing is very thin. You have one video of a guy firing a few rounds, that may or may not be Jason Torlano. There is no context for the firing, but appears to be cover the rescue effort.

I especially liked how the authors managed to claim that teaching locals how to clear land mines and battlefield communications implies that they’re up to nefarious activity. That’s…something.

Reverend

Now that you mention it, while perhaps theoretically sound in terms of the prudence of avoiding “a bad look,” there are serious practical flaws in the argument that land mine removal should only be conducted by non-military trained personnel.

Like: It’s stupid.

 

Nov 21 (5/5): A View of a “Cease Fire”

So this isn’t so much gratuitous imagery of more of the same, which I try to avoid posting, but rather an effective illustration of:

  • What’s going on in the west when “nobody is watching/cares.”
  • What the people in the east are afraid of.
  • Why there is reason to believe the grinding nature of the battle in the east is a function of the powers to be wanting it that way, because this is what they are willing to do in this conflict when they want to.

The shelling depicted below is going on west of Aleppo.

So pretty much everyone in Syria live in terror that this will happen to them at any point. The idea of a ceasefire is farcical to them.

And, as per Rojava’s constant messaging, people on the ground are aware of how much of this is made possible by the difficulty people have understanding what is going on.

Like, they get it. Even the people opposed to one another all get this.

Nov 21 (4/5): “two kids in a lot”

Some of these people are really up on their understanding of conflict in theoretical and historical context. Comes with the whole revolutionary bit.

This guy gets it.

So does she.

How the fuck do you settle a town? Like, if there’s an existing town, what is the settling that is being done?

This is like saying Clay Buchholz settled his schoolmates’ laptops when he was in college.

Of course, the problems this creates for the people already living in northern Syria are manifold. For example, as part of the process, Turkey is reopening the opening in the border at Tal Abiad that the SDF shut down for the fight against ISIS.

Turkey has been notorious about letting jihadis move back and forth across the border for years. It’s kinda a rueful joke in the west where they’ve never had the kind of organization that Rojava, to say noting of a whole bunch of Green Berets, had to staunch the flow.

This move re-engages the issue of how well understood it is on the ground that militant jihadis are being deployed i this conflict.

<WARNING: GRAPHIC IMAGES BELOW (TWITTER VIDEO)>

Like, some time ago the international community was willing to express fears about ethnic clashes. But now pretty much everyone accepts that yeah, racism, tribalism, religious bigotry, etc. are primary drivers on the ground despite that claims the various state governments are making.

Like, it’s far from a theoretical concern when there is mounting video evidence. Here’s an example:

26983

<SECOND WARNING: GUY GETS SHOT>

The fascination some of these guys have with documenting their crimes is really something.

Of course, the issue of identity and definition is rather central to this conflict, with respect to who gets to kill whom.

Which makes some of the consequences of Assad’s Russian backed proposal that the SDF join the Syrian Army wonderfully humorous.

The problem of definitions and who is allowed to kill whom had already been weaponized by Turkey. This is a fascinating twist.

Now if the idea of people swapping hats changing who kills whom seems a little too po-mo—

—then, recall this from a Nov 18 post:

From the point of view of boots on the ground, it’s just Kabuki theater.  Or rather, as someone I know put it, it’s a performative act but Kabuki is meant to call attention to itself and have its meaning best understood by elites, so it’s the negotiations that are Kabuki and really are just distracting us from a war that is about anybody but the people actually fighting it who are pawns for other interests. But as with many things, it’s not symmetrical in effect; the Kabuki theater offers appearances constructive activity while actually providing legitimacy and cover for a status quo that is characterized by ongoing violence.

And now consider Russian’s media broadcasting of this:

It’s just the world we’re living in.

 

Nov 21 (3/5): Ground Game: M4 All in Play

Ground Game: M4 All in Play

So, here’s the big picture on the ground, as I see it anyway.

Rojava is staying that they’re really OK with the Russians there—in fact, they wish the Russians were doing more, sorta like they said they would.

Like, they’re really going out of their way to distinguish between the Russian presence and the Turkish presence, even in norms of civility.

That omission gets what they mean across quite clearly, I think.

Russia’s role becomes especially important at this juncture—a fact of which Russia seems to be enormously aware because of how the conflict has professed geographically, which has been pretty clear all along:

Control of the M4.

So, Russia has taken the US base in Sarrin, as per the flag that CNN discovered, and Kobani is in play. That’s on the west end of the M4, where the battles have shut it down.

The other place where there has been serious fighting you’ll recall (outside of the western part of Syria, of course) is Tal Tamer. I haven’t been updating with images because it’s just more of the same: artillery, skirmishes, drones, US helicopters acting vaguely menacing but not engaging. It’s just the same shit grinding along. It feels gratuitous to disaster porn the subject.

And then recall there have been the various reports, as noted previously, of rumors about whether the M4 is open or not near Tal Tamer. And also the rumors, which the SDF denies, that an arrangement has been reached to transfer control of Tal Tamer to Russian and Syria forces.

Again, I’m not trained in military tactics, but I think I see what is going on here:

26981

Control of the M4 is vital not just for kinetic military purposes and troop movements, but for the delivery of aid, food, the local economy, everything.

Which is to say, the SDF need to control it way more than, say Turkey, because they get hard screwed if they lose access in a way the Turkish forces do not.

What the hell happens if Russia controls it remains to be seen. But they are definitely suggesting their role as they guide negotiations or whatever voodoo Jedi mind shit Putin means when he speaks of the negotiations.

Nov 21 (2/5): The Dancing Bear

a.k.a. From Russia with Bullshit

So everyone in the world basically understands that Russia is winning. Nobody is completely sure what they’re doing because it’s 4-dimensional chess, but everyone is quite confident that, at least for the moment, they are winning.

In terms of trying to figure out what they’re up to, in the useful context of their statements suggesting they will determine the fate of Kobani, this way super totally way unquestionably independent Russian academia based think tank gave this story to RUDAW who, I think wisely, printed the raw data of the Q&A to avoid getting whatever bullshit might be involved on them by way of interpretation.

Irina Zvyagelskaya, head of Middle East Studies at the Institute of World Economy and International Relations says Kurds in Syria will not be satisfied with anything less than autonomy and believes President Bashar al-Assad considers himself the winner of Syrian conflict.

Zvyagelskaya adds that Moscow wants to have good relations with Kurds in Rojava and could assist in resolving internal issues.

Rudaw English spoke to Zvyagelskaya at the Middle East Peace and Security Forum in Duhok on Wednesday.

Russia has become a big power player in the region, in particular Syria. What kind of future does Moscow want for Syria?

We believe that actually this future should be discussed at official negotiations between the opposition and government parties. But, if you speak about Russia, what Russia really wants is a stabilized Syria where there will be no danger from terrorist groups like ISIS. Such a Syria would be a very important ally of Russia and we have economic interest, trade interests and political interests. But only a stabilized Syria can provide this.

Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) say their negotiations with the Syrian government with the help of Russia is not going well. How does Russia see the future of SDF in Syria given that it is the most well-organized force?

Well, I believe again that we should wait for the result of the negotiations. Russia, like the international community, can assist the SDF, but Russia cannot deliver the results of the negotiations

How does Russia want to resolve the Kurdish issue in Syria?

Well, Russia believes that Kurds should be given probably something, probably autonomy. But the question is will they again manage to negotiate with Assad. I know President Assad is not very favorable towards autonomy. He can speak about the sort of decentralization, just grant certain power for local authorities. Whether the Kurds will be satisfied with such arrangements, I do not know. I believe that Kurds will insist on a sort of autonomy. But autonomies are also very different. You know, some of them are fully autonomous, some of them more or less are limited. What Kurds will be able to get from Assad, I do not know.

In your view, why is autonomy difficult at this stage?

Well, I believe that Assad believes he is a winner. He does not want other parties to dictate to him what should he do. For him, a unified Syria is the best result of the war.

Is Russia of the opinion that in order to strengthen its position in the region, it should have good relations with all Kurds?

I believe that Russia is sure that it should have good relations not only with the Kurds, but with all states and non-state actors in the region. And how you can see we have good relations with Israel, Hamas, Saudi Arabia, Kurds and Iraq. It is really a very fundamental achievement of the Russian policy.

I don’t understand why US media can’t figure this out. If a government is feeding you bullshit, just emphasize in the reporting, “THIS IS WHAT THEY SAID,” without even taking a position on truth or falsity. Why is this so hard?

Anyway, Russia has been and now continues to signal hard that, while they’re not the ones who will determine the outcomes that must rest in negotiations, what they really want is a reconsolidation of territory in Syria, and they are open to a region for relative autonomy for “the Kurds” within this arrangement.

That’s obviously a big deal. Its also fun to watch Russia emphasize the negotiations and how they are just a facilitator, as though they don’t have final say as long as the US stays on the bench.

World coverage that looks at Syria is mainly focusing on the fact that it appears that Russia and friends basically think they can do fuck all in Syria, based on the substantial evidence that they are doing fuck all in Syria, and therefore they think they can. Q.E.D.

Don’t forget that Russia is the primary peacekeeper their now,  as exemplified in this hard hitting “What makes you so beautiful?” piece out of a DC think tank that looks pretty fraudulent but I can’t be bothered to look—it’s real or it’s propaganda which is pretty real because it’s what they want us to know anyway, so it almost doesn’t matter. Agent, Asset, whatever: It’s a pipeline from Russia and that’s what becomes important to know.

MEI: Russia’s military police face their toughest challenge yet in north Syria

So yeah, it’s instructive to see what the non-participant media of the world thinks. And they think this is awful.

Japan Times: Turkey says U.S. and Russia have ‘not fulfilled’ Syria deals and thus it may have to attack Kurds again

Meanwhile, the US media seems dedicated to no learning anything and relying on offcial sources still up to and including uncritical acceptance of Turkish claims about the “YPG” they are fighting in the region.

Reuters: Turkey says talking with Russia over Kurdish YPG in northeast Syria

Akar said Turkey had determined that the YPG was still present in the Manbij region “wearing the clothes of the (Syrian government) regime elements”, and had asked Russia to address the issue. Talks with Russia on increasing patrols in Tel Rifat were ongoing, he said.

The Reuters people do manage to note that Russia and Syria have had… well, their cease fires in Syria have been problematic in the past.

The two countries agreed in 2018 to establish a de-escalation zone in Idlib region of northwest Syria. Idlib is the last remaining major rebel stronghold and is home to some three million Syrians, some of whom fled violence in other parts of the country.

Despite the agreement, fighting has continued in Idlib. An attack by Syrian government forces on Wednesday killed at least 15 at a displaced persons camp, rescue workers said. [nL8N2806E8

Akar said on Thursday that a permanent ceasefire could be established in Idlib when government forces withdraw behind the lines previously agreed with Russia.

So, I guess they discovered that this shit hasn’t worked out in the past in western Syrian. But the statement that Idlib is the last major rebel stronghold” makes implications that basically erase what’s happening everywhere east of there.

And this is fucking Reuters. I know they emphasize the empirical and verifiable, but all that is verifiable there is that Turkey said that stuff. Do they have internet at Reuters?

As a side note, Israeli media claiming Russia snitched on them. I don’t know what to make of this at all besides it being vaguely hysterical, so here it is:

Haaretz: Russia Outs Israel and Jordan in Syria-Iraq Border Strike
‘The intensity of Israel’s missile and bomb attacks increased sharply,’ Foreign Ministry says in a statement accusing Israel of violating Jordanian airspace

So let’s circle back to something that came up before that @absintheofmalaise brought up in another discussion about the fallout from US withdrawal in Syria:

Reverend:

Edit: If you want a dose of incompetence, [USER=37260]@Marciano490[/USER] , you can consider the security risk that some have expressed.

Specifically, the SDF has been working closely with US Special Forces for three years now. They’ve had an intimate look at US force capabilities, techniques, extent of intel, etc.

And we just forced them into a military alliance where they potentially may be working and fighting side by side with Syrians, Russians, and the odd Iranian here and there, all because we abandoned them.

So, this story is blowing up today.

Business Insider: Trump’s betrayal of the Kurds gifted military intelligence to Russia

Today, it’s blowing up. As opposed to Oct 21 when we were already talking about it here.

And when I say blowing up, I mean I’m being fucking spammed by it. I’ve gotten hit through Business Insider, Insider, MSN.com, Apple News, Flip, etc.

I’ve never seen this before except from places like Russian media, but this clearly isn’t that.

You know what that means: Let’s google the author, Victor Madeira. Aaaaaaand… Yup. He’s a British spook.

Wikispooks: Victor Madeira

Anyway, specifically, he’s all about recreating parallel mirroring information ops to counter Russia’s program.

Now, keep in mind that one of the things we’ve learned from the Russian intervention in the 2016 elections is that what works best is not propaganda pumping up what they want people to like, but rather making fake reports saying good things about people or entities the target audience might be inclined to hate. For example, pro NRA articles targeted at right wingers would have little effect, but an article feigning being pro-Planned Parenthood and taking a strident approving tone might drive the audience to utter distraction.

So, I report, you decide: A British information ops spook has released an article into the world focusing on an old detail about how Trump let Russia punk our Special Forces by giving up their secrets.

I don’t fully know what to make of this, but I may enjoy watching this one develop.

Meanwhile, the old guard GOP/foreign policy community types continue to lose their minds. This guy from AEI looks like he might cry.

I hope someone’s keeping an eye on Brett McGurk right now. Based on his Twitter feed, he should be among friends right now.

barbed wire Bob

This might help you figure out what Russia is doing.

On 18 January 2017, Russia and Syria signed an agreement, effective forthwith, whereunder Russia would be allowed to expand and use the naval facility at Tartus for 49 years on a free-of-charge basis and enjoy sovereign jurisdiction over the base.[5][6][7] The treaty allows Russia to keep 11 warships at Tartus, including nuclear vessels;[8] it stipulates privileges and full immunity from Syria′s jurisdiction for Russia′s personnel and materiel at the facility.[9]

Wkiedia: Russian naval facility in Tartus

That‘s all they really care about. Of course they get the added benefit of spitting in the U.S’s soup and boosting their prestige in the world. The proposed autonomy for the Kurds is interesting because, in a way, it’s a giant F.U. to the Turks but they may believe that is the price to pay to assure the Assad regime survives. More likely it’s just lip service to make themselves look good and paint the US as bad since nobody in the region wants to see a Kurdish autonomous state (except for the Kurds).

my 2 cents

Reverend

Oh fersure —Tom Clancy used to hammer the whole naval base that doesn’t freeze over angle to everything Russia does. And that’s a really good point to bring up here.

When I say what are they gonna do, I mean, like, they have it arranged such that they’re going to punk somebody to get what they want. It’s just not yet clear who or how.

Whatever they do, it certainly won’t be out of a feeling of friendship; beyond normal real politic, I think Russia disdains pretty much everyone in Syria that isn’t wearing a Russia military patch.

But yeah, it’d be nuts to bet against Russia keeping their naval (and, less importantly , air bases) in the region. But what shape Assad controlled Syria takes remains to be seen. Russia appears to want something close to a reestablishment of the pre-civil war boundaries, but whether or not they will get everything they want and/or it is acceptable to the other parties (or if Russia will tell them what is acceptable) isn’t yet clear, I don’t think.

And I also agree with your point that dangling autonomy for the Kurds is a big fuck you to Turkey and a side swipe at Assad. And it definitely is an assertion of leverage.

It’s also a credible threat because while they don’t support Rojava, a weak state that happens to be great at fighting ISIS isn’t the worst thing to have hanging around here. Plus it increases their ability to put pressure on Iran independent of working through Assad with respect to Iran’s northern corridor of influence.

Speaking of corridors of influence and naval bases, here’s Dani Ellis’s two cents:

Ya’ nailed it.

I can’t believe NATO tweeted that out today. Jerks.

barbed wire Bob

What I can’t figure out is what Erdogan thinks he will get out of this accommodation with Russia? Historically the Russian have coveted Turkish territory up to and including Istanbul itself and Turkey should remember that. The last thing Turkey needs is a major Russian base south of them. At the same time, their actions are basically alienating the allies they need to help keep Russia in check. The only thing I can think of is that he is so fixated on the Kurds that nothing else matters. Erdogan is starting to remind me of Conrad von Hotzendorf and the Russian moves remind me of this painting.

Reverend

<TIME PASSES>

Marciano490

That sounds like the Navy’s recruiting motto for 6 year olds.

There’s a bit of tension in trumpeting how you’re growing and restoring the military while also claiming you need to pull forces back or out, no? At best, it’s saying you’re going to be spending more money on fewer places, but how will those places be determined? It’s almost like Trump’s using the US military to develop a protection racket with him as the bag man.

Jimbodandy

Almost like? He has said it using different words.

Reverend

I personally think the East India Company thing was on point.

It’s as much rueful as funny.

barbed wire Bob

I said it earlier but Trump isn’t Clive. He’s more like this guy.

die hard white knight

Reverend

I must have missed 60 Minutes. What are you saying?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Nov 21 (1/5): Comics of Conflict Past

Check out the years on these.

 

 

 

 

Nov 20 (8/8): Erdogan Tries to Throw Everyone in Jail

How long is everyone going to put up with this crap?

Der Spiegel reported the German federal government fears that Turkey’s authorities and its secret service MIT have seized data and files of about 50 Turkish citizens who have applied for asylum in Germany while arresting the lawyer in September.

Among the applicants are prominent Kurds and supporters of prominent cleric Fethullah Gulen, who is living in exile in the US and is blamed by Ankara for an attempted coup in 2016.

The embassy had instructed the Turkish lawyer to obtain information in Ankara for asylum procedures of Turkish citizens in Germany.

That’s one way to prevent dissidents from reaching the diaspora to tell the world. Can’t risk unleashing another Enes Kanter on the world.

I can’t believe Europe is… whatever.

Granted that last one concerns people might be morons. But that shouldn’t be illegal.

Nov 20 (7/8): Extradite Our Allies?

Here is just one example—and as you can see it’s being covered abroad—but Congress critters are starting to discuss the idea the we should at least help the people who fought with us escape.

It’s a noble thought. Since this is a significant tack away from “We have to help the SDF,” I have to think that this is reflective of bad news for the people of northern and northeast Syria.

Some video: