[pikachu]

http://eng.mil.ru/en/news_page/country/more.htm?id=12107227
Note that this time the Russian FM published a rather short list of armed groups that are party to the new ceasefire. Presumably, the reason why the list is so short is because it doesn't include the factions which have actually more or less abided by the previous ceasefire arranged between US and Russia? Though that couldn't explain all of it, because most of the factions which participated in the Aleppo battle seem to be missing, for example.

Either way, according to the list, Jaish al-Islam and Ahrar al-Sham have become members of the "moderate opposition", though previously Russia tried to exclude them. Of course, this no doubt has a lot to do with the change of stance of these factions' international benefactors. If Turkey is no longer a "backstabbing ISIS-supporting warmongering extremist", as Russia would have had it just 6 months ago, then neither is Ahrar al-Sham, for example. However, operations in East Ghouta appear to be continuing despite the fact that Jaish al Islam is on the list, so I'm not sure how that's supposed to work.

[roxunreal]

Could be an attempt to further divide the opposition and try to sneak in reasons for further infighting?

Rahman Corps isn't on the list, was in included in the previous list?

[Typhoon]

It remains to be seen how well Turkey manages to control the disparate groups in Syria, with the SAA still targetting areas around Damascus, influence of actors like Qatar and Saudi Arabia, response of the opposition as the SAA makes headway into areas controlled by Nusra and IS etc. The situation reminds me of the last major ceasefire, again the focus can swing back to groups like IS for a period.

[pikachu]

While recalling the recent massive rebel evacuation from Aleppo, I suddenly remembered reading about the following exchange:

Alp Arslan: "What would you do if I was brought before you as a prisoner?"
Romanos: "Perhaps I'd kill you, or exhibit you in the streets of Constantinople."
Alp Arslan: "My punishment is far heavier. I forgive you, and set you free."


Romanos was thus set free by the Sultan. However, he died in great pain from infection almost exactly a year later, having been overthrown, humiliated, imprisoned, tortured, and cruelly blinded (hence the infection) by his own kin. Arslan was not kidding about the punishment being heavier than death. It was also the beginning of the end of the Byzantine Empire. For the next 10 years the Byzantine Empire descended into a nearly constant civil war, consisting of multiple independent uprisings, successful coups, unsuccessful coups, secession of provinces, and steady territorial gains by the Turks. It was not until the ascension of the Komnenos dynasty to the throne in 1081 that some semblance of stability was finally restored to the Empire. However, by this point, entire Anatolia was already lost to the Turks - not just politically, but even demographically, it was no longer Greek, but Turkish. It took international intervention in the form of the First Crusade to push the Turks back a little, though even that ultimately proved to be no more than a temporary respite.

What can we learn from this? It is probable that the Sultan made a wise choice. Had he killed the Emperor and demanded harsh peace terms from the Romans, he may have overreached himself and provoked a serious push-back. After all, defeated or not, the Byzantines were still a capable enemy and could quickly rebuild, provided that they were united and especially if they had foreign support. The Turks, on the other hand, had a massive empire and were already getting stretched pretty thin. But the Sultan knew his limits and he decided to settle on moderate conquests and let the Emperor go home. And one thing that is definitely a common thread throughout history is that history is not kind to leaders (and their supporting clans) who suffer humiliating defeats, even if the terms of peace are not especially cruel. If they have no choice but to admit defeat and to fulfill the terms of peace, their continued reign becomes increasingly difficult and chaotic. And no matter whether they end up being overthrown or remain in power, instability remains a problem for quite some time. Such was the case with Romanos - after suffering a decisive defeat and humiliation, his return home triggered a civil war that went on and off for the next 10 years, while the Turks gradually took over and colonized Anatolia bit by bit without running into any serious resistance.

The parallels between the Battle of Manzikert and the Battle of Aleppo thus become pretty apparent, and the whole green bus phenomenon suddenly starts to make a lot more sense if viewed in this way. Presumably, Damascus and allies realize that right now they are not really in position to militarily regain all of Syria. Should they keep pushing for it, not only will they overextend themselves and suffer terrible defeats as a consequence, they actually run the risk of pissing everyone off and triggering some form of international crusade as well (this one being the attempted repetition of People's Crusade of 1096, presumably). What they want, rather, is to score a decisive victory that would secure their most immediate objectives and then make peace, at least temporary, that would allow them to properly reinforce and solidify their current areas of control, and wait until the situation improves sufficiently to allow for either further expansion or reconciliation. In the meantime, they would like to saw maximum possible chaos in the ranks of the opposition in order to prevent them from properly recovering, and it just happens that letting them go when you have them by the balls may actually be the most reliable and historically-tested way of achieving just that. With the help of Turkey, they are hoping to achieve a civil war in rebel ranks which, if it happens, will inevitably leave the rebellion severely weakened and prime for both more gradual territorial losses as well as even more humiliating peace agreements.

[political]

Assad hints on stepping down.

Syrian President Bashar al-Assad has said he is prepared to negotiate on "everything" in proposed peace talks with rebels later this month, despite the shakiness of the current ceasefire.

Talks brokered by Syrian ally Russia and rebel supporting Turkey are supposed to take place in Kazakhstan before the end of January, but last week opposition groups said they had frozen the process in light of continued government strikes across the country.

In comments made to French media published on Monday, Mr Assad said that the nationwide truce had been violated by rebels several times. He also defended the army's push to recapture Wadi Barada, a rebel-held valley near Damascus where the main water supply to the capital has been turned off.

There has been disagreement between the government and the rebels of the umbrella group known as the Free Syrian Army over whether certain factions in Wadi Barada - some with al-Qaeda or other extremist links - are part of the truce.

Asked if he would be willing to step down as president - a demand the rebels have insisted on throughout the conflict - Mr Assad said "yes, but my position is linked to the constitution."

"If [the opposition] want to discuss this point they must discuss the constitution," he said. Any constitutional matters must be put to a referendum and the people would elect any president, he added.

Mr Assad's position in the war has been significantly bolstered following the recapture of the northern city of Aleppo last month, which was the last rebel urban stronghold in the country.

Shocking images show Aleppo before and after the conflict
The UN said the relentless Russian-backed bombardment of besieged rebel controlled neighbourhoods, which appeared to target civilian infrastructure such as hospitals and bakeries, could amount to war crimes.

If talks go ahead, it is not yet clear who will represent Syria's opposition groups. No hard date has been set for the negotiations, which are supposed to take place in Astana.​

Several rounds of talks brokered by the UN have so far failed to bring peace to the almost six-year-long conflict.

The complex civil war has left more than 400,000 people dead and displaced half the Syrian population from their homes.

[Igor Antunov]

Actual story: Assad offers terms of surrender to Rebels, take it or leave it. Now that he's in a position of strength, he can prod for a rebel surrender. At the very least it might weaken the resolve of some rebel factions in the South before the inevitable Idlib offensive.

[roxunreal]

Actually recent behavior by the government and Russia only comes off as them actually being much weaker than it would look in the aftermath of Aleppo, and Palmyra was probably a rough wake-up call for them. If they were in a position of strength they'd be getting rid of Wadi Barada pocket and other pockets around Damascus, or pushing further into Idlib, not suddenly negotiating ceasefires everywhere or pulling Kuznetsov out of Syrian vicinity. Aleppo was a sick appendix of rebel territory that was costly to maintain. Pushing the rebels to negotiations while continuing to apply pressure on the main body of rebel territory and to advance in a way that would threaten to cut the pocket's main supply lines or threaten its logistics centers (basically pushing to take or isolate Idlib city, Saraqib, Maarat al-Numan or Turkish border areas) would be an actual indication of strength. Currently the only thing the government appears to be doing is holding its ground, with limited probing around Tiyas airbase, which has been met with heavy ISIL resistance.

I think Russia actually wants out very much at this point, and capturing Aleppo enables it to scale down direct involvement while saving face because "them .ain objective is completed" and they have a victory to show. Palmyra kinda ruined this, but its fall was still overshadowed by the victory in Aleppo. After Palmyra they've noticed that tit-for-tat territorial changes as a result of the government pulling men from certain fronts to gain strength in other fronts may make this war drag on for longer than 2017. I think they're either pushing the government into a ceasefire again in order to concentrate on a single front with having some kind of assurance that they won't get attacked on other fronts (this partially failed last spring, they captured Palmyra but lost important gains in south Aleppo) or to turn this into a short-term frozen conflict which would give the government and Russia time to turn the SAA into something resembling a self-sufficient force that can hold all of their shit while also making gains, thus also enabling Russia to scale down its presence.

[pikachu]

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2017/01/06/john_kerry_proud_of_all_the_efforts_we_made_in_syria.html

More schizophrenic rhetoric from the outgoing US administration. The only reason it looks so schizophrenic is because there is a constant apparent dissonance between the accusations that "Russia is basically the source of all problems in Syria", and the direct opposite - "actually we basically agree with what Russia is doing. We share the same concerns and we would have done the same." Ooooookay. It certainly reminds me of that infomercial trying to convey the inner dialogue of a person with paranoid schizophrenia. "Don't eat it, it's poison! Eat it! Eat the poison! Don't eat the poison! There is no poison! Don't eat it, there is poison!" etc. That's exactly what Kerry and company sound like to me.

I mean, it was just a couple of days ago that the Secretary of Defense claimed that Russia had done absolutely nothing to contribute to the fight against ISIL. Whether his statement is truthful or not, just a few days later you have the Secretary of State coming out and claiming the direct opposite - that Russia actually saved Syria from potential ISIL takeover. Great! It's almost unbelievable how contradictory their statements are to one another. Do these guys ever sit around the same table and discuss foreign policy with each other or what?

But of course, the actual behavior of the US government resonates with only one of those opinions, and we know which one that is. This is one thing that I agree with many Syrian rebels on is that all things considered, the US almost certainly did more overall to undermine the opposition in Syria than to help it.

[Rich]

Actually recent behavior by the government and Russia only comes off as them actually being much weaker than it would look in the aftermath of Aleppo, and Palmyra was probably a rough wake-up call for them. If they were in a position of strength they'd be getting rid of Wadi Barada pocket and other pockets around Damascus, or pushing further into Idlib, not suddenly negotiating ceasefires everywhere or pulling Kuznetsov out of Syrian vicinity.

You're bang on when it comes to the weakness of the Syrian military. However Assad's strategic position has improved immeasurably. Aleppo had to be cleared else Turkey's Azaz intervention could have been dangerous. Now its great. Turkey's set up for permanent conflict with both ISIS and the Kurds. The will allow Assad to slowly clear the rebel areas around Damascus and Hama and then turn their attention to Idlib. The loss of Palmyra is OK. ISIS were becoming worryingly reduced. Assad needs ISIS to survive, especially now ISIS are in conflict with Turkey.

If Turkey is seen to sacrifice Idlib as they've been to seen to do with Aleppo and the areas around Damascus, even better. This will magnify dissension and conflict amongst the Sunnis even more.

[Bosnjak]

the good one loses the FSA-Rebels... but when the war does not stop within 1 year it will never end like afghanistan or South-Sudan or Somalia

[Bosnjak]

@Typhoon Turkey offered first a deal for hole syria including these groups they rejected it.

IS answered with Terror the turkish iniciative.

[roxunreal]

Deir ez-Zor is in a pickle, the most serious one ever it would seem.

IS map


Some other map


It's kind of like Palmyra, fog of war with government supporters denying any real danger up to today, now it seems that the airport has indeed been cut off from the city, and newest reports also mention IS advances within the city. Unless the government does something to push ISIL back, this could seal the city's fate.

I have no idea if the government can do anything apart from (Russia) bombing ISIL areas around town like it bombed the artillery school in Aleppo, or the SAA literally dropping a few hundred troops into the pocket with helicopters during the night or something, which I'm unsure if they can do safely (nor it it would eventually seal the fate of even more soldiers).

Perhaps IS is rushing to make DeZ their new capital in the face of SDF advances on Raqqa and their losses in Mosul.

[pikachu]

fog of war with government supporters denying any real danger up to today

That seems to be just how most rebel and IS offensives go. They all take up to 3 or 4 days most and they send human waves one after another that either fail to achieve anything or they overrun enemy defenses and suddenly make deep advances. So one day it seems like everything is just fine, the next you are on the verge of total defeat. The only way to predict danger accurately is to have an accurate picture of enemy's relative capabilities in the vicinity, which is beyond the capability of any government supporter or opponent.

which I'm unsure if they can do safely

At least in the north side of the pocket that should be fine, I don't really see a problem with that. So they can reinforce it. And it is not my impression that the loyalist alliance is prepared to sacrifice Deir Ez Zor, so it seems likely that they will drop more reinforcements there.

[One Degree]

Actually recent behavior by the government and Russia only comes off as them actually being much weaker than it would look in the aftermath of Aleppo,

Do you think it might be they want to get a peace settlement from a position of strength before Trump takes office? He is an unknown and therefore a quick peace would be a safe position.

[Zionist Nationalist]

Good news I hope DEZ will fall soon

[roxunreal]

At least in the north side of the pocket that should be fine, I don't really see a problem with that. So they can reinforce it. And it is not my impression that the loyalist alliance is prepared to sacrifice Deir Ez Zor, so it seems likely that they will drop more reinforcements there.

The 137 Brigade base/surroundings should be safe-ish to land a chopper, the pocket is 8-10km wide if we go by the maps posted online, which is near the edge of Kornet range and at the very end or beyond the range of most other ATGMs in the war. Also, having the range doesn't mean you can hit anything that appears just like that. They'd probably have to have a dozen ATGMs manned and scanning for targets all around the pocket, not to mention that at 5km it's hard to even see and hear a helicopter, and that the Kornet is the premium ATGM they might have, so most others are probably the lesser models with shorter range. Of course for any real reinforcements they'd need dozens of helicopter landings so the risk would later increase. However, most of the above is a moot point as the helicopters could land by night if the SAA illuminated the landing zone recognizably.

It would be really cool if they made an epic reinforcement drop during the night and landed several hundred more troops. Mi-8's can carry only 25 passengers sadly, so it would have to be a big, coordinated effort, likely lasting a few nights, to insert a lot of soldiers into the pocket. I do believe that the SAA could pluck 200-500 soldiers from elsewhere in Syria for DeZ at this point. However due to their track record, it would probably end up like Operation Eagle Claw

On the bright side, IS hasn't made any major advances today it would seem, perhaps in a few days when Damascus and Russia wake up and tries to offer at least some proper air support, they'll be able to reconnect the pockets. The little strip of land through which ISIL split the pocket isn't desert , but a vast cemetery, yet it's still plenty of open ground.

Do you think it might be they want to get a peace settlement from a position of strength before Trump takes office? He is an unknown and therefore a quick peace would be a safe position.

Even as an unknown, it's fairly safe that Trump will be way more cool with Assad/Russia in Syria than Obama or Clinton. I just think that Russia really wants the government to be able to stand on its own two legs without shooting itself in one as soon as Russia turns its back. Russia is pushing for truces because it doesn't want to fight Assad's battles for years and it has a major victory to show (Aleppo), thus it could scale down considerably with some kind of dignity. They'll never let the government fall, but they're not too crazy about carrying it on their back to total victory either.

[pikachu]

It occurred to me that if the SAA is going to eventually try to establish a land link to Deir Ez Zor, it is more likely to do so from Ithriya rather than from T4 (through Tadmur).

First of all, the distance is shorter, though not by much. If we just take the distance from DEZ to the closest SAA position, that would be the position near Ithriya. It's about 195km vs 220km difference. But that's not the main reason.

Second of all, it seems apparent that the SAA intends to clear Eastern Aleppo province from ISIS presence in the near future anyway, and from there march into Raqqa. Provided that it is able to do that, the road from Ithriya to DEZ would be partially secure on the northern side, and would only have the southern direction to worry about for much of the route. That is unlike any road from T4 to DEZ, which is vulnerable from the desert on both sides for the entire route.

Third, and the main reason, is that by going this route, the SAA would be achieving two objectives at once - not only would it be getting closer to DEZ, but also to Raqqa city, which is coming close to being taken by SDF in the near future. While it is unlikely that the SAA would be able to compete with SDF for Raqqa city itself, it would still at least like to secure the southern part of the province, including Tabqa city, the airbase (which would be pretty symbolic too), the oil fields, etc. The problem is that Tadmur and Eastern Homs in general is not really contested. Other than SAA, nobody is really in position to take it from ISIS any time soon. Therefore, it can wait. Let it be the last city taken from ISIS in Syria. East Aleppo, Raqqa, and DEZ can't wait though those battlefields are first come first serve, so the sooner SAA can anchor themselves in those provinces, the better, from their point of view.

So yeah, the northern route seems to have some decent advantages.

[roxunreal]

The Euphrates valley is also populated so they'd have local NDF guarding the road to DeZ, but they would have to clear the mountains to the south first.
It wouldn't surprise me that if they indeed reach Tabqa before SDF crosses over, they could agree to a joint administration of the dam itself as it's a top tier strategic resource.

Rumor has it that 200 reinforcements arrived to DeZ during the night via helicopter. If they really did it, perhaps they can and will bring in even more.

[pikachu]

The Idlib civil war is heating up as foretold in the prophecy, however the odds right now are not looking very favorable to JFS.


To be honest I almost feel sorry for them. The ISIS guys - they had it coming, they acted aggressively and unapologetically, there was no compromise with them that could last. But JFS tried very hard to fit in and blend in with the Sunni "mainstream" in Syria. They've gone to great length to compromise, or at least they seem to have, and in the end they are finding themselves basically in the same boat as ISIS anyway. To think only, had JFS and ISIS actually teamed up from the start rather than fighting each other for every inch of the ground, they would have been unstoppable together. They would have most certainly overwhelmed all other parts of the opposition and become the undisputed leaders of the Sunni rebellion in both Iraq and Syria. But the fact that they were at each others throats throughout this entire conflict has got to be one of the biggest moronic decisions that they could have made. Their utter inability to compromise with each other or submit to each others authority is the most mindblowingly characteristic of this jihad, and not just in Syria but in other places as well. Al Qaeda and ISIS have reportedly fought each other in Afghanistan, in Yemen, in Libya, and god knows where else. Even when we look at Communist rebellions during the latter part of the Cold War, which were frequently divided between Maoists and Soviet Marxists - even that analogy doesn't work because while they were at odds, they never seriously fought each other as far as I know.

Anyway... There might be another ceasefire in Idlib before full blown war. I imagine JFS isn't too eager to fight in this configuration, they will make another try to reconfigure the alliances first. Turkey, likewise, would probably like to finish Al Bab first before Idlib blows up. So we may see another ceasefire soon. Or maybe not.

[Igor Antunov]

ISIS drone strike footage:

They're dropping 40mm munitions with 3d printed fins. Very accurate given the limited means. Anybody within 30m can be seriously wounded or killed from shrapnel.