WNU Editor: An analyst for The Financial Times examines the possibility of such a confrontation .... The battle for Raqqa risks pitting the Russians against Americans (William Wallis, Financial Times). What's my take .... I suspect that the U.S. and Russia already have an "arrangement and an understanding" on what to do as they push forward in reclaiming Raqqa. At least I hope they do.
6 comments:
It would definitely seem in the interests of the American side to make sure such an "arrangement" is in place. As for the Russians as the most powerful military force in Syria and per perhaps the world, such an "arrangement" is likely not such a priority nor would it need to be.
By the time Barack Obama came to office the relationship with Russia had already greatly deteriorated. Had I been POTUS these last 7+ years I would pkaced a much higher priority on fixing this particular relationship.
The type of "arrangement" I would have suggested would have been for the Ruusians to command and control the operations with US forces under the command of the Russians. Generally in military operations where different sides have comparable goals and interests the strongest side commands the operations. As the strongest side, I aee no reason why Russia shouldn't command and control the operations. Essentially there seems no reason why this should be any different than other operations of a similar nature.
We need Russian assistance in a number of areas. If we were to work with them in this manner not only would we be more likely to procure their assistabce in these areas but it may also help us to gain the respect and trust of Russia's allies perhaps even, in time, leading to constructive relations with them. Also, misunderstandings that could lead to the type of scenario mentioned in the article become less likely.
It's probably to late for this to happen for this operation and there are a number of trust issues on both sides that would need to be worked through and resolved before this could happen. What does seem clear is the top priority of the next POTUS needs to ve improving relations with Russia.
I have no idea why anyone can call a moderate regional power the worlds greatest military ( nukes do not apply).
Nor how can they intergrate and br under u.s control when nato nations have enough issues intergrating even after decades of joint operations and training.
B.Poster is very very pro-Russian, his bias shows in all his posts. I'd take what he says with a pinch of salt.
As if the Americans are going to operate under Russian command, you must be Russian with high hopes
In that region the Russians are simply too strong to not expect massive casualties. Additionally, we can expect them to call upon the SAA, Iranians, Hizbullah and, possibly, China if things get hot, I'd have zero interest in a deployment to that area as military or under a support contract.
Whether the Russians have (or do not have) "the strongest military in the world, they're strong enough to hurt or maim any opponent. This is reason enough to avoid a fight if at all possible. Cheering on, or playing "push me, shove you" with them is just plain stupid.
fazman,
Nukes as well as cyber warfare capabilities would have to factor in. Very respectfully to leave those out would be an incomplete analysis. Also, messaging meaning the ability to get one's message out using media sources would need to factor in as well. In this area, the Russians are much better than the American side or any of our "allies." I did point out to have the Russians and the Americans operate jointly would be very difficult and not likely at this time. If it could happen, it would seem the Russians should lead the operations. They've demonstrated capabilities in campaigns like that against Georgia that are beyond American capabilities. As such, we could likely learn much from them.
D.Plowman,
Very respectfully I don't think you've read my posts in their entirety. If you had, I do not think you'd conclude I'm pro-Russian. I am pro American and am trying to advocate what I think would be in America's best interests. While we all do bring certain biases, this does not in and of itself make a position incorrect. This is partly why we read what others post here, comment, and read the replies in order to learn.
Unknown,
It's unlikely at this time that Russian and American forces can be expected to operate jointly at this time, as I pointed out elsewhere. I might also add that not only would their be significant operational issues but likely significant cultural issues to work through in addition to the trust issues that I've already mentioned, as both sides likely do have legitimate reasons not to trust each other. The US, however, could take steps in this direction.
RRH,
You are correct to point out here that any misunderstanding here would result in massive casualties to whomever would be confronting the Russians. You also name some of the forces they can all upon to assist them which are likely far superior to anything America can call upon. As such, it seems more in America's best interests to do what it and it's "allies" can to ensure an "arrangement" is in place. Your last sentence is spot on and there is very little that I could add to that.
In this particular case, both sides want to see ISIS defeated. As such, as WNU pointed out hopefully there is an "arrangement" in place. Finally, as I've pointed out here and elsewhere a number of times the only way to "know" the outcome of such a conflict would be to actually have it. As such, I pray we never "know" how this would turn out.
Post a Comment