[pikachu]

A demarcation line has to exist, the question is only where it actually runs. If the agreed upon line was north of Jaadin but SDF had moved on it anyway and the USAF helped them with it, then that is obviously a huge breakdown in the agreement and we could expect to see exactly what you said - Russia&Syria would have to immediately withdraw, or at least threaten to withdraw their protection from SDF, and give Turkey a green light to attack. Chances that this will actually happen? Close to zero. I give you 90% probability that the clashes will cease within a within a day or few days with Jaadin under SDF control, and the Russian/Syrian protection agreement with SDF against Turkey will stay as well.

The protection agreement is exactly what gives Russia and SAR leverage in determining where the demarcation line runs. If SDF decides to violate or "unilaterally alter" the demarcation line by throwing all its bets with the US, then the continuation of the protection agreement loses its entire purpose.

[Igor Antunov]

We will see. SDF seems to be floundering in Raqqa City, ping pong is in full swing. Could take months. I think Tigers should split, move east and south at this point.

[pikachu]

"As for the events on the ground in the Syrian Arab Republic, … it is necessary to fully respect sovereignty and territorial integrity of Syria. Therefore, any actions on the ground, and there are many involved parties, including those who carry out military operations, must be coordinated with Damascus," Lavrov said.
https://sputniknews.com/middleeast/2017 ... et-lavrov/

This is all that Russia had to say about it so far. Yeah I'm pretty sure that if the US had misplaced the demarcation line, let alone just made one up on the spot, AND shot down a Syrian warplane to boot, I'm sure Russia would have something to say about that.

By the way, in further developments it seems that SAA captured Rasafa and SDF captured Shuwayhan. With that in mind, it seems very likely that the demarcation line that the DOD referred to is a simple horizontal East-West line running at about 35°40'00"N latitude. If you put that on the map and assume that this line extends to the Eastern border of Syria, that not only leaves most of Deir Ez Zor province with SAA, it even leaves the oil fields of Deir Ez Zor (said to be the largest in Syria) with SAA as well. Not a bad deal for SAA overall, that protection treaty with SDF must be paying dividends. Given the rate of recent SDF advances and how far the SAA is still from Deir Ez Zor, that's practically the best line they could hope for in these circumstances.

Of course, this assumes that the line runs straight to the Eastern edge of Syria and doesn't take sudden twists or turns along the way.



I never really understood though why the IS seems to have prioritized the defense of Deir Ez Zor province over Raqqa, the latter being the capital after all, but we have what we have.

[Igor Antunov]

Russia has cut all communication with the US in Syria and is now claiming there was no deconfliction line, warning or reason behind the US attack on the Syrian jet which was not bombing SDF.

I never really understood though why the IS seems to have prioritized the defense of Deir Ez Zor province over Raqqa, the latter being the capital after all, but we have what we have.

The river. There are settlements and fertile lands all along it. It is the only thing of worth ISIS have left.

[pikachu]

is now claiming there was no deconfliction line,

quote please.

On why Deir Ez Zor province is more important than Raqqa province:

The river. There are settlements and fertile lands all along it.

You've just shortened my lifespan by at least a few months. This place should be classified as a health hazard, I really should not be coming here once in a while, but for some reaon every now and then i forget how dangerous it is.

[roxunreal]

South bank of the Euphrates is SDF reserved for the simple fact that its raised plateau offers high ground and fire control over Raqqa that the SDF would never want the SAA to have.

As for the plane shoot down, I feel this is all part of Trump's posturing and probing of Russian tolerance. Now Russia made a pissed statement but it remains to be seen if anything will come of it. The US is desperately looking to escalate with Damascus, probably in order to justify a continued military presence or further buildup on the Iraqi border and in SDF areas. The Tomahawks, Tanf-area bombings and now this are all part of that game. Orders probably came not to hesitate to shoot down any SyAAF plane that comes within a certain distance of the SDF, the US command knowing it'll happen sooner or later. Something like this will probably happen again in a few weeks.

Also lol at Kremlin PR Igor's notion that Putin is the only, or even the most important thing keeping Turkey from invading the SDF

[pikachu]

At least as far as Efrin canton is concerned, that seems about accurate - it's hard to see what reason Edrogan would have to hold back if Putin gave him a green light on it. The rest of SDF territory is trickier, but even then, if the push came to shove, it's hard to imagine the US choosing to side with a terrorist group over a major NATO ally. The US would be unhappy, for sure, but will it directly resupply YPG, fund domestic insurgency in Turkey, and do whatever else it takes to halt the turkish attack? I dont see it, it's just not in America's national interest to protect SDF to that degree. Maybe Trump would draw some red lines which would promptly be crossed and result in a symbolic airstrike that changes absolutely nothing on the ground, that's possible i guess.


What else is there to give Erdogan seoond thoughts? The might of the SDF? Yeah it looks mighty when it has American air support on its side, not so much wihhout it - before the US became involved, YPG was retreating.

Bottom line is that if Russia, Turkey, and Iran all agree to crush SDF, it will be crushed. By crushed of course I don't mean completely eliminated, but heavily downsized for sure. So the Kurds need at least one of those three to be on their side at any given time, in my opinion.

[JohnRawls]

At least as far as Efrin canton is concerned, that seems about accurate - it's hard to see what reason Edrogan would have to hold back if Putin gave him a green light on it. The rest of SDF territory is trickier, but even then, if the push came to shove, it's hard to imagine the US choosing to side with a terrorist group over a major NATO ally. The US would be unhappy, for sure, but will it directly resupply YPG, fund domestic insurgency in Turkey, and do whatever else it takes to halt the turkish attack? I dont see it, it's just not in America's national interest to protect SDF to that degree. Maybe Trump would draw some red lines which would promptly be crossed and result in a symbolic airstrike that changes absolutely nothing on the ground, that's possible i guess.


What else is there to give Erdogan seoond thoughts? The might of the SDF? Yeah it looks mighty when it has American air support on its side, not so much wihhout it - before the US became involved, YPG was retreating.

Bottom line is that if Russia, Turkey, and Iran all agree to crush SDF, it will be crushed. By crushed of course I don't mean completely eliminated, but heavily downsized for sure. So the Kurds need at least one of those three to be on their side at any given time, in my opinion.

ISIS defends large portion of Deir Ez Zor province because it is technically a supply line. Their territories have always been loosely linked and even with army elements being between Raqqa and Mosul, there are still supplies going here and there through smuggling. This is technically the same reason why some of the enclaves in the south of Syria do not give up although it is hopeless. Also it decreases pressure on Raqqa to a degree through not focusing all of the forces on 1 place.

As for SDF, you are correct. Without any outside backing it will get destroyed in Syria at least. Well downsized to a more manageable size. I would say that Russian or Iranian support are the most trustworthy in the long run after ISIS is defeated. US will sell them out to Turkey and they technically know, just the offer is too good for now.

[Igor Antunov]

quote please.

On why Deir Ez Zor province is more important than Raqqa province:
You've just shortened my lifespan by at least a few months. This place should be classified as a health hazard, I really should not be coming here once in a while, but for some reaon every now and then i forget how dangerous it is.

Watchu talkn bout? Infrastructure, people, towns, all along the Euphrates. It's also a natural defensive line for what meager territory IS still hold in Iraq.

[skinster]

[Zionist Nationalist]

US need to do something about this

need some false flag attack to stop Assad and Iran from achieving victory

[mikema63]

There's no path to victory short of full scale invasion and that risks full war with Russia.

It's over, there's nothing to be gained here.

[skinster]

The two false-flag attacks failed in Syria already.

[roxunreal]

SDF encirclement of Raqqa will be complete very soon unless they decide to cauldron it, even though it seems ISIL isn't keen on retreating (which they'd have to do with boats/barges anyway since the bridges are blown), which may be what prompted encirclement in the first place, along with denying the SAA the high ground overlooking Raqqa from the south.



I'd guesstimate Raqqa will take about the same time as Manbij to fully liberate. Hopefully the SDF can simultaneously push south in DeZ province as well.

At least as far as Efrin canton is concerned, that seems about accurate - it's hard to see what reason Edrogan would have to hold back if Putin gave him a green light on it. The rest of SDF territory is trickier, but even then, if the push came to shove, it's hard to imagine the US choosing to side with a terrorist group over a major NATO ally.

I think you've got it backwards: as long as there is no YPG push against Turkey in Turkey or ES areas in Syria, Turkey will not risk pissing off the US by rolling into Rojava. The US-Turkey relationship is one of mutual need for each other. The US needs Turkey because of its formidable military and being a NATO fortress on the edge of the Middle East, but Turkey needs the US even more simply because of the fact that if you piss off the US too much, it's easy to become a pariah state with a crippled economy, especially if you also have an autocratic loon in power, which has been Turkey's condition for a good while now. Turkey is treading a fine line now, with the occasional artillery trolololo, but it's doubtful that Russia o Iran have anything to offer to Turkey that can exceed the benefits of being on the US and NATO's good side. Erdogan is fully aware of this as it has likely been made very clear to him behind the scenes by the US administration.

Watchu talkn bout? Infrastructure, people, towns, all along the Euphrates. It's also a natural defensive line for what meager territory IS still hold in Iraq.

We'll all probably get cancer if you keep this up.
Infrastructure that the SDF already holds (dams).
Natural defensive line with advancing enemy forces from both sides.
Natural defensive line that has been crossed by the SDF with barges and helicopters with impunity several times.
Natural defensive line that the SAA will probably reach in a few months at most, with all the biggest cities and towns where IS has a presence (DeZ, Mayadin, Al-Bukamal and Al-Qaim in Iraq) being on the SAA's side of the river.

[Igor Antunov]

90% of remaining IS held population is along that river. You should get that cancer looked at.

[pikachu]

The US-Turkey relationship is one of mutual need for each other. The US needs Turkey because of its formidable military and being a NATO fortress on the edge of the Middle East, but Turkey needs the US even more simply because of the fact that if you piss off the US too much

But I don't think that the US needs Turkey more than Turkey needs the US, no. Rather, I think that the US needs Turkey more than it needs SDF, which is a completely different equation.

SDF is simply not important or valuable enough for the US to completely sacrifice its relationship with Turkey and engage in some kind of cold war with it over the issue - the SDF doesn't have enough to offer the Americans that could replace the value of Turkey. Thus, the US would obviously prefer if it had both Turkey and SDF to play off against each other, but if it had to chose between SDF and Turkey, it would most likely chose Turkey, even if the Turkish behavior was not all to America's liking. Of course, the same could be said about Russia as well to an extent, however Russia has less to lose if it pisses off Turkey, because the Russian-Turkish overall relationship is not as good and never has been, and their interests are still somewhat conflicting in many areas of the world, while Russia's relationship with the Kurds and specifically PKK is historically a lot stronger.

Less importantly but still worth mentioning is that it would not be entirely easy for the US to even come up with a reason to generate enough hatred for Turkey on such short notice if Turkey invaded the SDF territory with the permission from Damascus government. There's nothing at all illegal about that move, and it is only questionable at all in so far as it disrupts the fight against ISIS (what about after ISIS is defeated though, what then?), so how can you even justify any kind of meaningful response to it? Over time some excuses can be made to slap Turkey with sanctions if that is really the desired course of action, but by that point it might be too little and too late - the SDF would have already been dealt with blows from which they can never recover. The Russian/Iranian response can be much swifter, and due to the support of official Damascus, they can stand on much firmer ground.

ISIS defends large portion of Deir Ez Zor province because it is technically a supply line.

If they centered their defense around Raqqa, then my assumption would be that they would retreat from Iraq much sooner to bolster their defense in Raqqa, therefore negating the value that Deir Ez Zor has as a supply route to Iraq. Basically I was expecting ISIS downfall to look more like Nazi Germany's, which centered its defense around Berlin and concentrated forces in such a way as to make sure that its opponents do not get to Berlin unless the rest of the country would have already fallen, it was clear that the Germans did not plan to continue the war if Berlin fell. So indeed after Berlin fell, there was not much left of Nazi Germany - there were only small pockets in Czechia, Denmark, Norway, and the mountains of Austria. With ISIS we are seeing something different. They seem to be planning to continue the war after the loss of Raqqa, and they are centering their defense elsewhere. I guess all that oil in Deir Ez Zor must be making them mad profits or something, so they find it preferable to make Deir Ez Zor into their last stand instead.

We'll all probably get cancer if you keep this up.

Igor is a gift that keeps on giving. And of course, no source for his other claim either.

[JohnRawls]

If they centered their defense around Raqqa, then my assumption would be that they would retreat from Iraq much sooner to bolster their defense in Raqqa, therefore negating the value that Deir Ez Zor has as a supply route to Iraq. Basically I was expecting ISIS downfall to look more like Nazi Germany's, which centered its defense around Berlin and concentrated forces in such a way as to make sure that its opponents do not get to Berlin unless the rest of the country would have already fallen, it was clear that the Germans did not plan to continue the war if Berlin fell. So indeed after Berlin fell, there was not much left of Nazi Germany - there were only small pockets in Czechia, Denmark, Norway, and the mountains of Austria. With ISIS we are seeing something different. They seem to be planning to continue the war after the loss of Raqqa, and they are centering their defense elsewhere. I guess all that oil in Deir Ez Zor must be making them mad profits or something, so they find it preferable to make Deir Ez Zor into their last stand instead.

@pikachu

I do not believe that ISIS can be understood fully by classical European state knowledge and definition. They are an insurgency in heart and not really a state. They will definitely keep fighting after Raqqa falls. They are already used to loosing territory and getting it back.

On the other hand, you don't really defend towns and territories without any strategic, military etc meaning to it. As much as i see it, fall of Raqqa is not a catastrophe for them. Even if it falls, they will still continue fighting in Der and Iraq but if they retreat from Der and Iraq, then they will really have only Raqqa which will speed up their decline greatly. I do also believe that abandoning Der will also require abandoning Iraq which is perhaps one of the main reason they don't want to do it or can't do it. I doubt OIL revenue has everything to do with their decision to defend Der.

[pikachu]

Although the US has claimed that the strikes were necessary responses to troops or military equipment entering an agreed-upon deconfliction zone, Moscow has rejected the justification for launching attacks on areas the Americans have unilaterally declared as safe zones.

“I’m not aware of the deconfliction zones the Pentagon is referring to,” Russian Foreign Although the US has claimed that the strikes were necessary responses to troops or military equipment entering an agreed-upon deconfliction zone, Moscow has rejected the justification for launching attacks on areas the Americans have unilaterally declared as safe zones.

“I’m not aware of the deconfliction zones the Pentagon is referring to,” Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov said. “Maybe there are zones that have been established unilaterally where the [US-led] coalition thinks it can do whatever it wants. We don’t recognize such zones.” Sergey Lavrov said. “Maybe there are zones that have been established unilaterally where the [US-led] coalition thinks it can do whatever it wants. We don’t recognize such zones.”

https://www.rt.com/usa/391479-us-outside-law-syria-ron-paul/

Well, at least now there's an official denial. Not sure whom to beleive here, the idea that SDF and SAA are advancing on ISIS without ANY mutually agreed upon lines of demarcation strikes me as highly unrealistic in terms of military practice. Also if the unilateral line that the US is trying to enforce is really at about 35°40'00"N, that seems like a line that is really favirable to SAA overall, so I don't know why the SAA would even try to contest it. As usual, it seems like nobody without the intimate insider knowledge of the situation could possibly figure out the truth of the matter in situations like these.

Edit: Actually, just realized that this was the response to the stikes near al tanf, not the most recent air to air strike near thawrah, so i guess we are still waiting for an official denial for this one. Still, what applies to al tanf, should apply to thawrah in theory. Either the US is really imposing demarcation lines unilaterally and lying about there being an agreement, or there is actually an agreement of some kind, even if imperfect, that covers both areas.

[roxunreal]

Yeah the US definitely won't choose the SDF over Turkey, but it's not an all-or-nothing choice, as we can plainly see. The US chooses both, because it can have both - a NATO fortress in the Middle East and a foothold in Syria/thorn in Iran's regional domination that is much more legitimate in the eyes of the world than the backwards infighting gangsters that Turkey is enabling in north Syria. Turkey won't upset that balance too critically because it knows the value of its relationship with the US and Europe, hence why they won't even revoke access to Incirlik, but are just dancing around in circles with threats and bitching for a good two years now.

As for ISIL not pouring everything into Raqqa as opposed to DeZ and east Euphrates valley, a lot of it has to do with the very decentralized nature of ISIL's administration and military. ISIL is more like the NDF than a single-minded military force. Sure they probably have troops that they move around, but the bulk of their forces are based on the locality of the fighters. Deir ez-Zor and the valley around it just happens to be the deepest part of their territory, far away from the front lines, hence why it's surviving the longest.

[pikachu]

I've thought about that as well, but that would not explain the continued stubborn ISIS presense in the far away desert plains and mountains of central Syria. Are those "local fighters" as well? Desert children, born and raised? Seems obvious to me that if the defense of Raqqa was the priority, those local desert men would have been pulled out long ago. And it's more than just Raqqa city too, they are losing a fair chunk of the fertile Euphrates river valley with it.

Ha, who am I kidding, there is no river in Raqqa, we all know that.

Turkey won't upset that balance too critically because it knows the value of its relationship with the US and Europe,

I don't really see how that follows. If I am responsible for Turkish policy and I know for sure that the US would not chose SDF over Turkey, then my hand is free to attack SDF should I desire to do so.