Zero Hedge: Caught On Tape: Russia Unleashes Massive Bombing Raid On Militant Convoy
There’s been some debate over the last two months about whether the concerted effort on Moscow’s part to release hundreds upon hundreds of MoD clips depicting airstrikes in Syria on the way to embarrassing Washington paints an accurate picture of what’s really going on.
That is, if one simply compares the Russian footage to what we know or have seen with regard to America’s 15-month air campaign against Islamic State, it would be easy to conclude that the US simply hasn’t been trying very hard - or at least not compared to The Kremlin.
WNU Editor: Zero Hedge is right. After 15 months of U.S. air strikes militant video coverage has been limited and/or spotty at best. But since the start of the Russian campaign .... militant video coverage during the attacks (and after the attacks) have exploded exponentially. I can only assume that the reason for this difference in coverage is that Russia's campaign is having an impact, and there are those on the ground who want to document it. On a side note .... the use of a drone to show the aftermath of an air strike was a surprise to me .... it can be seen at the 5:28 mark in the above video.
6 comments:
I think the reason for such big differences between documenting the Russian and US led airstrikes is not lie on the efficienty of their air campaing, but more likely on the nature of their enemies and what their targets are.
The US led air campaing only targeting IS forces (except some very rare events when they attacked other groups to eliminate high priority targets, for example Khorasan), and IS has critical views on their media coverage. There are no "inside IS" videos which previously was not approved by their organisation, everything they publish is well edited and censored. They doing this to form their own look to the public, showing only the good parts of their fights. They using their videos to promote themself, hide the bad stuffs, and make them look as they are professional, and also to hide their fighting mechanics, methods and tactics.
To be honest, there are videos, made by IS, by their fighters on the ground, which show US led airplanes having taking and giving fire, and bombarding. There are some videos which show the destuction made by the airstrikes, and how the US led forces targeting civilian installations, infrastructure and so they hurting the Sunni/Muslim population. And with mentioning this, we arrive another critical point of the coaltional strategy, which is they have a high priority of targeting non-conbat elements (infrastructure, bridges, building related to IS organisations or trainings, powerstations and so on). Thats add up to a pretty good bunch of reasons why we do not see a big media coverage of US led airstrikes.
While on the other side, there are the Russian airstrikes (SAF airstrikes could also be included) whos targeting almost only moderated rebels (just because they calling everyone in Syria as ISIS, it's do not make them all being them). Rebels are not organised, and they uploading everything they capture on video, no matter the quality, or what is on it, they just proud to get it recorded, but I have my doubts on how many people would join to them after seeing their convoy beind destoryed, but thats not my bussiness. Compared to US airstrikes, Russia's targets are closer to the frontlines, and targeting infrastructure is less important (however there was a big change in November, when the Russian airstrikes started to focus on deeper areas and rebel infrasructure).
All in all, I think the two air campaing are differet, but their media coverage is not based on their efficienty, but more likely on other factors.
Not quite the Highway of Death and the dialog sucks. One thumb down.
Any translation?? I only heard Allahu akbar 100x.
"While on the other side, there are the Russian airstrikes (SAF airstrikes could also be included) whos targeting almost only moderated rebels (just because they calling everyone in Syria as ISIS,"
Russia from the beginning, has not bothered to "parse" the jihadi's into so called "moderates" and so called "not moderates",
In fact, Russia has pointedly, "made fun" of the CDO's obsession with so called "moderates", here are some of the so called "moderates",
http://turcopolier.typepad.com/sic_semper_tyrannis/2015/12/syrian-rebels-political-demands.html#comments
http://angryarab.blogspot.ca/2015/12/before-liz-sly-rushes-to-assure-you.html?m=1
Russia's role in Syria is to preserve the Syrian State and the secular formation of the State.
The US's role in Syria, has been and still is to destroy Syria as a nation state, while "degrading" ISIS just enough so that the "other" terrorists like Al Quida can take over.
Anonymous
no problem this is what they are saying:
If you don't go with the U.S. government narrative you are racist homophobic islamophobic
The US has led a phony war against ISIS, which is after all supported by the US-Saudi-Turkey coalition, in order to inject a Sunni corridor across the Middle East breaking up the Iran-Iraq-Syria-Hezbollah axis that the US mistakenly created with its Operation Iraqi Freedom, including the purple fingers that gave Iraq to Iran (thank you, uncle sam).
Russia called them on it, so now the US is trying to save some face without losing its strategy. Russia will see that it does lose.
Post a Comment