Wednesday, December 2, 2015

Russian Military Accuses The U.S. Of Not Striking ISIS Oil Facilities



RT: US-led coalition not striking ISIS oil trucks despite evidence - Russia’s General Staff

Despite mounting evidence of ISIS oil smuggling, the US-led coalition in Syria and Iraq is not striking convoys of oil trucks heading to Turkey, Russia’s General Staff has said.

“It’s hard not to notice” the thousands of trucks used by terrorists for oil smuggling, Lieutenant General Sergey Rudskoy, deputy commander of the General Staff, said at a briefing in Moscow on Wednesday.

“However, we see no strikes on those convoys by the coalition - only a tripling in the number of strategic UAVs has been observed,” he said.

With the US and its allies unwilling to act, the Russian Defense Ministry has reported the locations where Islamic State (IS, formerly ISIS/ISIL) oil tankers are concentrated, Rudskoy said.

WNU editor: The Pentagon disagrees .... Top US general: We’ve disrupted 40% of ISIS’ oil revenue just over the past month (Reuters). What's my take .... the U.S. is only boasting now that they are destroying these oil facilities .... but where have they been for the past year? Why now?

More News On Russia Targeting The Islamic State's Oil Faciltiies

Russia'a airstrikes cause twofold decline in IS oil production in Syria — general -- TASS
Video: Combat cam - Russian warplanes target ISIS oil facilities in Syria -- Belfast Telegraph
Russia Conducts 32 Airstrikes on Daesh Oil Refineries in Syria in 2 Months -- Sputnik
Russia wants to stop ISIS’ illegal oil trade – Churkin -- RT

7 comments:

B.Poster said...

"Where have they been for the past year?" "Why now?" Had US or "allied" forces struck these convoys in the past as now "collateral damage" would have and still would be/is massive. The US faces intense and often hostile news media coverage that other countries don't face. Had those convoys been struck in the past year the people carrying out the strike as well as those giving the orders would have faced war crimes tribunals where a guilty verdict against them had already been determined. In any event, at the least, much demonization against them in the media which would only further serve to strengthen the enemy. I think this answers the questions as to where they have been for the past year and the question that seems to be implied as to why strike now.

As to "why now?" With the attacks on Paris this changes the dynamic somewhat meaning the US forces carrying out the strikes and those ordering the strikes are less likely to face war crimes tribunals or demonization in the media for the resulting collateral damage. Also, there is the logistical difficulty of getting air assets and other military assets into position to carry out the strikes as they are having to pass over and through what is in many cases enemy territory. This further explains why less was done than should have been.

Bob Huntley said...

"faced war crimes tribunals" not likely. A simpler explanation may be the love of oil to Americans is so strong that they just can't bring themselves to destroying such a valuable commodity. Or maybe someone they care more about is benefiting from that oil. All this time and no videos of US attacking oil shipments. That alone should be a war crime.

'pass over enemy territory' Which enemy in that area has the ability to shoot down a US jet? The US is working to its own agenda and what that is nobody knows but for sure it isn't about destroying ISIS.

B.Poster said...

Bob,

Actually war crimes tribunals for American officials up to and including POTUS and his closest advisors would be more likely than not in a case of significant collateral damage. American military leaders, American military personnel, as well as others involved in military planning or execution constantly have to wary of this. This is obviously going to affect planning, execution, and likely explains why the targeting has not been what we or others would like. any nation "allied" with America will face this kind of hostile scrutiny to a certain extent. Those nations either not allied with America or hostile to it do not face this kind of scrutiny.

As for the love of oil, very respectfully being from Canada you may not understand Americans very well. Americans are taught by their media and education system to despise "big oil." In fact, it's long been a "pipe dream" of many within important positions within the government to destroy big oil. Oil is best understood as a valuable commodity that is necessary for the functioning even a semi modern economy much less a modern one. I wish we really did love oil. Perhaps if we did we could do things like develop more of our own oil reserves and do things like build the Keystone XL Pipeline. Do these things and we could have some leverage when dealing with foreign suppliers. Right now we have little to none.

As for the releasing of video, this is probably not going to be a good idea for at least two good reasons. 1.) To do so risks revealing tactics to a very dangerous enemy that they can study. While they probably have their own videos of this, to release ours for the media to pick over risks giving them additional perspectives to study. 2.) Assuming the strikes took place the collateral damage had to have been massive. To release video may serve as a recruiting tool for the enemy and may serve as evidence in a war crimes tribunal should someone wish to bring charges some day. As such, I can understand the reasoning behind not wanting to release these videos.

Far from being a "war crime," if releasing the videos were to lead to war crimes tribunals against American officials or a recruitment tool for America's enemies, now this would be a war crime or at the very least a national security crime!! With that said, if it were my call to make, I would probably release the videos to try and put fear into the enemy and perhaps even the anti-American news media. Again, I can understand the position not to release them.

I'm inclined to believe the strikes took place because to fabricate something of this magnitude has no upside and huge downside. As such, it would seem to make no sense.

I would assume the enemy possess some type of anti-aircraft capabilities that pose some degree of to formidable challenges for US pilots and military planners. Very respectfully you underestimate the enemy. Additionally Al Qaeda and other Islamic terrorist organizations and the nations who support them have been known to use human shields. I think it highly likely that ISIS does so as well which further complicates military operations for reasons already mentioned.

The US is committed to destroying ISIS. This is a VERY formidable enemy. ISIS has managed to capture and hold territory faster and more efficiently than the US military ever could have even before it was worn down from continuing operations in the GWOT over the last 14+ years. With that said I'm not sure the US commitment is what it should be. I don't always sense that US leadership has the "fire in the belly" to confront this that they have to do things such as 1.) carve a state of "Palestine" out of Israel, 2.) fight "climate change", 3.) promote gay, lesbian, and transgender rights, and I could go on.

B.Poster said...

I may misread the intentions of US leaders regarding ISIS. This is a VERY dangerous enemy. It poses a far greater threat to America than the WWII enemies of Nazi Germany or Imperial Japan ever did or ever could have. America and its "allies" are not the same countries as they were during the early to mid 1940s nor is the enemy the same as the WWII enemies. As such, strategies for defeating it will likely be much different than those used to win WWII.

As for an approach that might give us greater utility and it were my call to make, I would explore possibilities of working closer with the Russians on this. This would probably mean placing American military assets under the command and control of the Russians.

As Russia has the most powerful military on earth, it would make sense for them to lead. Furthermore this would help mitigate the hostile media coverage often directed against America and American officials would be at less risk of war crimes tribunals meaning they can better focus on the task at hand. Also, as the most powerful military force on earth, the Russians likely have capabilities to get past enemy air defenses that we likely do not have. I think taking this approach would afford us an opportunity to be more effective. I'd also jettison the Western European nations as allies. They have negative utility to us.

SwampNigger said...

Give me a break about the US imperialists being worried about facing war crimes tribunals.

It's as though you people don't read history.

The US is helping funnel tens of thousands of mercenary terrorists into Syria.

This is illegal, immoral, and has fueled the refugee crisis.

I am backing Syria and Russia on this one.

If there was any international law that can be enforced--your leadership would be facing trial in a world court.

Stop being so sickly and insipidity credulous.

It's time to stop your murderous agression--and there are forces aligning that are going to do just that.

fazman said...

Exactly bob they would have looked comoetant and garnered much needed political support and hit them where it hurt.
Why now Putin has shiwn them up pure and simple

B.Poster said...

SN,

As for US imperialists, the US is not trying to rule anyone. Furthermore there's at least a few countries in the world who have more influence than the US does who are currently much more aggressive about pursuing their interests than the US is. Furthermore US officials being hit with war crimes tribunals is a very real possibility and American constantly have to weigh this in all of their actions. Other nations simply don't face this kind of scrutiny. Flippantly dismissing this very real concern that cannot be ignored does not make it go away nor make it non existent.

As for the remark about "history", it is important to recognize patterns in history even though it does not repeat itself exactly. A good analysis to today might be the Jews. America and its people are being demonized today in a similar manner to how the Jews were in the run up to the holocaust.

As for the other aspects you mention, the US is in a fight for its survival against very powerful forces. US actions need to be understood within this context. I believe I did suggest that a place to start would be to place US forces under the command and control of the Russians. We might get better results that way. I do hope the Russian response to such overtures would be much more positive than the hate filled language I'm seeing here. As for murderous aggression, the US is in a fight for its survival against very powerful enemies who pose a far greater threat to it than anything Russia or most countries have ever had to face at any time in their history. US military actions need to be understood in this context.

Additional problems with hitting the convoys are 1.) they need to be positively identified as enemy targets and not something else, 2.)the enemy likely camflouges them to make them hard to identify, 3.)they are likely transported in such a way that an attack on them will result in massive collateral damage, and 4.) countermeasures for enemy defenses need to be devised. There likely are more factors involved but these make it formidable challenge to say the least. As for points 1 and 3 failure to get this right will likely result in UN war tribunals against US officials.

WNU had asked where they had been for the past year and why now. After the attacks on Pairs the risk associated with war crimes tribunals diminished somewhat at least temporarily and more support could be found among allies both directly and indirectly in knowing they might possibly have our backs in a firefight and should something go wrong.

Finally, in order to work more closely with Russia I would want them to get their ally Iran to abandon its goal of "death to America." Perhaps there are some small areas we can move toward to establish some level of trust and build a constructive relationship with Iran over time. I'd like to move toward some type of UN tribunal to resolve all differences between us and them, however, I see at least two basic problems. 1.) At this time, I don't envision a way for America or its officials to get a fair trial. 2.)Should the tribunal find in balance in America's favor and that Iran owes reparations to America, how can America collect? In other words, there is currently no real mechanism in place to ensure Iran complies with any obligations or agreements made with America right now. Steps will need to be taken to ensure a fair trial and to ensure a mechanism is in place to ensure Iranian compliance with the findings of the court.

Add