18-Dec-16 World View -- Syria and Russia see 'the light at the end of the tunnel' after Aleppo victory

[John]

18-Dec-16 World View -- Syria and Russia see 'the light at the end of the tunnel' after Aleppo victory

Syria's civil war shows similarities to America's Vietnam war


** 18-Dec-16 World View -- Syria and Russia see 'the light at the end of the tunnel' after Aleppo victory
** http://www.generationaldynamics.com/pg/ ... tm#e161218



Contents:
Syria's Bashar al-Assad calls Aleppo's 'liberation' a historic event
Syria and Russia suffer a big military setback in Palmyra
Syria's civil war shows similarities to America's Vietnam war


Keys:
Generational Dynamics, Syria, Bashar al-Assad, Aleppo, Palmyra,
Russia, Vladimir Putin, Alexander Khrolenko, Igor Konashenkov,
Islamic State / of Iraq and Syria/Sham/the Levant, IS, ISIS, ISIL, Daesh,
Vietnam, Gen. Henri Navarre, Ho Chi Minh, Dien Bien Phu, Tet Offensive,
Hama, Idlib, Raqqa

[josa0512]

Dr. Xenakis,

You wrote "ISIS entered the big Russian-Syrian T-4 air base outside the town, carrying off substantial quantities of Russian armaments including assault rifles, ground-to-ground missiles, anti-tank missiles, and anti-air rockets."

I'm curious, what is your source for this information?

Based on what I've read, ISIS captured the armaments and weapons when they captured Palmyra and the surrounding area. Immediately after recapturing Palmyra, ISIS laid siege to the Tiyas (T-4) air base and were able to damage 3-4 aircraft with mortar and rocket fire, but I haven't seen any credible sources that report that ISIS actually breached the defenses of the Tiyas air base. The only sources that I can find claiming that ISIS captured the T-4 air base is bellingcat.com and syria.liveuamap.com but those sources are wrong and that information is false. It is true that ISIS attacked the T-4 air base but their attack was repulsed and the SAA still controls the T-4 air base. I just wanted your Generational Dynamics weblog to be as accurate as possible.

If ISIS did succeed in capturing the T-4 airbase (which is the largest air base in Syria), this would indeed be a major military development in the Syrian Civil War but this has not happened yet. Bashar al-Assad still controls the T-4 air base and always has, unfortunately. During the Syrian Civil War, neither the rebels or ISIS have ever managed to capture the T-4 air base. ISIS previously captured the Taqba air base, which is near the Tiyas T-4 air base.

[josa0512]

Dr. Xenakis,

I think I just found your source for the information you posted in your weblog about ISIS capturing the T-4 air base.
Your information must have come from Debka:
http://www.debka.com/article/25830/ISIS ... 4-air-base
This information has not been corroborated by any other credible news sources. To the contrary, I have seen many online postings refuting this information and claiming that the ISIS attack on the T-4 air base was repulsed and that ISIS did not enter the base.

If ISIS did truly capture the T-4 air base, the story would be reported and covered by every news agency and organization in the Middle East, as well as the major British newspapers. This would be a huge event of major military significance.

[Guest]

One thing I'm curious about is Donald Trump. Do you think he will cave into the Russians on everything? The way the MSM talks, Donald Trump is some kind of Manchurian Candidate. I believe Donald Trump is a Patriot. I don't think he would give in to any country, and I don't think that he is a afraid of anyone. If Trump does cooperate with Putin, it will be because he sincerely believes he is doing what is in the best interest of America. I don't like Russians at all, but I do wonder what will happen with America's foreign policy. I worry he will abandon our European allies.

Sixteen years of horrendous administration is hard to recover from. Trump has his work cut out for him.

[John]

> Dr. Xenakis, You wrote "ISIS entered the big Russian-Syrian T-4
> air base outside the town, carrying off substantial quantities of
> Russian armaments including assault rifles, ground-to-ground
> missiles, anti-tank missiles, and anti-air rockets."

> I'm curious, what is your source for this information?

> Based on what I've read, ISIS captured the armaments and weapons
> when they captured Palmyra and the surrounding area. Immediately
> after recapturing Palmyra, ISIS laid siege to the Tiyas (T-4) air
> base and were able to damage 3-4 aircraft with mortar and rocket
> fire, but I haven't seen any credible sources that report that
> ISIS actually breached the defenses of the Tiyas air base. The
> only sources that I can find claiming that ISIS captured the T-4
> air base is bellingcat.com and syria.liveuamap.com but those
> sources are wrong and that information is false. It is true that
> ISIS attacked the T-4 air base but their attack was repulsed and
> the SAA still controls the T-4 air base. I just wanted your
> Generational Dynamics weblog to be as accurate as possible.

> If ISIS did succeed in capturing the T-4 airbase (which is the
> largest air base in Syria), this would indeed be a major military
> development in the Syrian Civil War but this has not happened yet.
> Bashar al-Assad still controls the T-4 air base and always has,
> unfortunately. During the Syrian Civil War, neither the rebels or
> ISIS have ever managed to capture the T-4 air base. ISIS
> previously captured the Taqba air base, which is near the Tiyas
> T-4 air base.

As indicated by the quoted sentence that you extracted from
my article, I didn't say that ISIS "captured" the T-4 base.
I said that ISIS "entered" the T-4 base. That's completely
consistent with what you're saying, that the attack was
repulsed.

However, the main point to be made was that ISIS captured a
collection of weapons. That's supported not only by the Debka
article, but also by the Guardian article that my article
links to.

I guess that there's a semantic issue as to whether the warehouse
from which the weapons were stolen was or was not officially
part of the T-4 base, but that question probably isn't as important
as the fact that tht weapons were stolen.

[John]

> One thing I'm curious about is Donald Trump. Do you think he will
> cave into the Russians on everything? The way the MSM talks,
> Donald Trump is some kind of Manchurian Candidate. I believe
> Donald Trump is a Patriot. I don't think he would give in to any
> country, and I don't think that he is a afraid of anyone. If Trump
> does cooperate with Putin, it will be because he sincerely
> believes he is doing what is in the best interest of America. I
> don't like Russians at all, but I do wonder what will happen with
> America's foreign policy. I worry he will abandon our European
> allies.

> Sixteen years of horrendous administration is hard to recover
> from. Trump has his work cut out for him.

I doubt that even Donald Trump knows what he's going to do.

[Thucydides]

It seams to me that the situation in Syria is opposite that of the Vietnam War. In Vietnam, the foreign actors (US, USSR) were in awakening eras, but the locals were in a crisis era. Contrast this to Syria that is supposed to be in an awakening era, but some of the foreign actors (US, Russia) are in crisis eras.

It is also interesting to me that many of the hand-on atrocities are being carried out by locals or by militias from other awakening era countries (Lebanon, Iran), whereas the countries that should be in crisis eras are mostly using advanced technology and heavy weapons from a distance with minimal risk to their own combatants.

So my question is: How is this consistent with the generational timeline?

[John]

> It seams to me that the situation in Syria is opposite that of the
> Vietnam War. In Vietnam, the foreign actors (US, USSR) were in
> awakening eras, but the locals were in a crisis era. Contrast this
> to Syria that is supposed to be in an awakening era, but some of
> the foreign actors (US, Russia) are in crisis eras.

> It is also interesting to me that many of the hand-on atrocities
> are being carried out by locals or by militias from other
> awakening era countries (Lebanon, Iran), whereas the countries
> that should be in crisis eras are mostly using advanced technology
> and heavy weapons from a distance with minimal risk to their own
> combatants.

> So my question is: How is this consistent with the generational
> timeline?

A society's generational era determines the behavior that society. It
has no effect on the behavior of the society's enemies.

In this case, I was comparing the behavior of Syria's society today to
American society in the 1960s. In both cases, they were in
generational Awakening eras, and I was pointing out similarities in
behavior.

[Guest]

America waged war in Southeast Asia during a Generational Awaking; why can't the Syrians wage war?

[a_k]

It seams to me that the situation in Syria is opposite that of the Vietnam War. In Vietnam, the foreign actors (US, USSR) were in awakening eras, but the locals were in a crisis era. Contrast this to Syria that is supposed to be in an awakening era, but some of the foreign actors (US, Russia) are in crisis eras.

I agree with that. I think that visions of the light at the end of the tunnel is a necessity to justify being involved in a stalemate situation, that's probably the actual parallel that's common.

It is also interesting to me that many of the hand-on atrocities are being carried out by locals or by militias from other awakening era countries (Lebanon, Iran), whereas the countries that should be in crisis eras are mostly using advanced technology and heavy weapons from a distance with minimal risk to their own combatants.

the notion of "atrocity" is very dependent on local culture and customs. I suppose that many normal things for the middle east like public beheadings or stoning would be too much to stomach for NYC dwellers.

In addition, putting their combatants at risk for Russia is a tough sell domestically. They have to maintain very small footprint due to funds shortage and large ground involvement may not fly well at home. There were several stories of Russians potentially KIAs who suicided themselves in Syria for seemingly no good reason, in any case, official tally of losses is pretty minimal. The few casualties that were publicly exposed by opponents were raised as most glorious and heroic deaths, it makes living jelous not to be in their place.

Oh, and of course thanks to Putin's decree to classify "war-time" casualty list, there is no way to officially confirm or deny any losses from Russian troops anywhere anymore.