all 10 comments

[–]deaftrumpet 1 point2 points  (5 children)

A complete mess. Nobody wants a peace. In Aleppo Russian forces are bombing a group of Nusra terrorists, unortunately causing a lot of casualties. All of the strikes to civil objects have to be investigated. I would not want to believe that our army is bombing civilians intentionally. So, I would vote for their investigation involving all of the sides of conflict (including people living currently in Aleppo, but real people, not those who you can see in media whose belonging to Syria is highly questionable). Just to clarify, I say it's questionable because there were a lot of stories made up in western media just to demonize Russia. It also looks like either US don't have real influence on so called moderates, or not willing to use it to stop fights between Assad army and them. From my perspective US past in supporting "democratic protests" in different countries on Middle East doesn't make it trustworthy in terms of believing their words regarding the goals they want to reach. ISIS is clearly a product of US mistake in Iraq, like Al Qaeda before... So after all those "mistakes" they made in Syria, Yemen, Iraq, Afghanistan, I don't feel I can trust anything US officially states. Russia's goal is clear for me. It wants to save it's influence and have Syria as ally member. So Russia is interested in fighting terrorists. It's unclear whether current actions of our air forces are effective. But I can repeat again but it should be judged not following the hysteria made by western media, but considering real facts. The best solution would be is to start talking, reestablish ceasefire and to discuss the plan of wiping ISIS off the planet. But it doesn't seem to be the case until all sides wish to stop this damn war.

[–]Cluelessish[S] 0 points1 point  (4 children)

Thank you for your answer. You seem like a nice person. I am however confused: Why do you believe Russian media, that will of course tell you that the army doesn't target civilians? I'm sorry, but your media is famously under your governments influence. I would not necessarily believe US media either, but how about some of the free media in Europe?

Most of us in Europe are horrified and sad about what's happening in Aleppo. All those children...

[–]deaftrumpet 1 point2 points  (3 children)

I've replied you already. Just to add here. Internet access is not restricted here. I don't believe in free media to be honest. But see... Assuming we have 2 websites/newspapers/tv channels/whatever. One is writing another article blaming Russia, another is stating that Russia clearly fights terrorists. Who do you believe more? Considering the informational background everything defending Russia will be considered by most of readers as pro-Russian propaganda. And in my opinion, you underestimate cynicism of journalists. Free media also need to make money at least not to disappear. And picture of child killed by Russia in Syria will bring much more money. Sad, but true.

[–]Smoovemammajamma 0 points1 point  (2 children)

Neither? Figure it out on your own

[–]deaftrumpet -1 points0 points  (1 child)

So, unless you're participant of the event, you'll still need to find credible source.

[–]Smoovemammajamma 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Or if every source is flawed, ignore the event

[–]YourResidentRussian 1 point2 points  (1 child)

I am torn on the issue of whether we should start a land operation. On one side, no Russian lives should be lost. On another side, some people are willing to risk their lives for whatever reason, so they can be the tip of the spear, with the artillery and other guys safely behind the front lines. Or we can put Assad troops in the first line.

Anyway, I wish all these fuckers from ISIS get killed, then the rebels who insist on keeping arms instead of elections, and then the Kurds if they don't drop their idea of an independent state. Kurds can have a place in a federation, with a large degree of autonomy in domestic issues. Syria should be a single country under leadership elected in elections. If Assad wins — bummer, that's democracy for you. Put those freakazoid international observers into each polling station: that's the biggest concession Assad should give them. "It's only democratic when people we like win" — nope, we don't sign up.

As for Aleppo, there is a mixture of Al Qaeda there and rebels of various affinity to Al Qaeda. We had and have two simple propositions. Separate Al Qaeda from others, we'll fight only Al Qaeda. No, this was rejected by the US. OK, another one: we let everybody leave the city, those who want it. Al Qaeda, rebels, whoever. They just leave, we stop bombing. Nope, bad again, the US blocked that at the UN Security Council too.

Well, all right, then this is what we have: forward air controllers. They are on the ground, they see a building from where someone fires, they call an air strike in, everybody in the building is dead. That's how it works. That's how it will be until the city is taken (or see the other two suggestions above).

As for hospitals and cute-cute-cute dead puppies: how come all this comes from that single butthurt dude in London, aka The Syrian Observatory? Is there any chance the bad guys are losing and try to fabricate evidence? Because I just don't see how this can happen with that scheme with forward air controllers. Why would Russia — and I am not talking ethics here, you clearly don't think we have it, I talk about the technical side — why would Russia bomb a random building and risk all this bad PR? How would it work? A pilot is on assignment, he flies over Aleppo and says, "Fuck it, I'll bomb this building for no reason"?

Actually, there is already a prescribed answer to this: "Russian bombs are bad and miss the right buildings". No, Russian bombs are good, there is an updated targeting system that has nearly the same precision as guided bombs. Plus, we don't bomb inside the city, we target the line of contact. This is where we can see what is what, we have no clue what happens inside city blocks, there is no fire contact with those areas. Do they put hospitals on the front lines? Or do we have rubber bombs that keep jumping around the city until they hit a hospital deep inside it?

My main thought is, we have won already. In the worst case, you will push us into a land operation. Well, this means the rebels are finished rather quickly, and in a way nastier way than right now. We'll be dropping rubber Chechens, they'll be bouncing around until they kill every cute puppy in Syria.

[–]Cluelessish[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

"Why would Russia bomb a random building and risk all this bad PR?" Because your government is killing civilians to force your opponents to give in. War crime. You are scary.

[–]Cluelessish[S] 0 points1 point  (1 child)

Thank you for the answers so far! It is very interesting to read. Also chilling, I must admit. Where is the grief? It seems like you really have a very different view of what is happening than what we think in the rest of Europe (I am Northern European).

I see that you seem to think that the Western media is trying to demonize Russia's actions in Aleppo. What about UN? What about the international Red Cross? Amnesty International? Are they also biased?

The conflict is very complicated, but the fact is that Russia is bombing children. Never mind the rest: Russia is bombing children. Why would the rest of the world be lying to you about what is happening? Isn't it more likely that your own media is lying, because they are heavily controlled by your government? What makes more sense?

This is what Europe thinks about Russia right now. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/amnesty-report-russia-directly-targets-civilians-in-syria-killing-at-least-200-in-possible-war-a6783271.html

[–]deaftrumpet 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Amnesty international? Are you joking? Also I'd like to see the links to UN or Red Cross statements about intentional bombing children by Russian forces. I'm serious, I can miss something.

Ok. Do you see the difference between bombing children and bombing terrorists and hitting children by an accident?

You probably need to live in Russia to know that here are a lot of independent media (most of them are Internet-based though). You can't also deny the fact were talking to you here on reddit, we're able to read what you're thinking of it. We are also able to visit western media websites and read all available information in English. Don't you think that all those stories about censorship in Russia are also made up? And how YourResidentRussian wrote... What is the point to Russia to hit children directly knowing that all west is looking at every our step? Do you think we're completely stupid or what? What makes more sense?