CNN: Reports: ISIS retakes ancient Syrian city of Palmyra
(CNN)ISIS forces have retaken the ancient city of Palmyra in Syria, according to Syrian government media, the ISIS media wing and a human rights monitor.
Syrian news agency SANA reported that over 4,000 militants swarmed the city from "various directions," despite having suffered heavy losses from bombardments by the Syrian air force. The Russian Defense Ministry had earlier reported that its aircraft had also taken part in the air campaign.
The UK-based Syrian Observatory for Human Rights (SOHR) confirmed that Palmyra had fallen to ISIS on Sunday after Syrian armed forces pulled out from the desert city, the organization said.
Read more ....
WNU Editor: This is a serious defeat for the Syrian Army and their allies .... and the size of the Islamic State force that retook Palmyra (about 4,000 soldiers) should give everyone pause. Russia blaming the U.S. for this loss is also not helpful .... Russia blames U.S. after ISIS recaptures Palmyra (The Hill).
More News On The Islamic State Consolidating Control Of The Syrian City Of Palmyra
Islamic State advances around Palmyra as Russian, Syrian jets strike back -- Reuters
Islamic State Retakes Ancient City of Palmyra -- WSJ
Syrian troops pull out as Islamic State militants sweep back into ancient Palmyra -- Washington Post
Islamic State retakes historic city of Palmyra -- The Guardian
Islamic State militants retake ancient city of Palmyra -- FOX News/AP
ISIL 'recaptures' Palmyra from Syrian forces -- Al Jazeera
Syrian government forces routed by ISIL in Palmyra -- USA Today
Palmyra: 'Chemical gas attack' hits IS-held Syrian area -- BBC
'Dozens dead in gas attack' as Isil and Syrian regime battle over Palmyra -- The Telegraph
New ISIS offensive on Palmyra proves terrorists should not be given chance to regroup – Russian MoD -- RT
Russian Defense Ministry: Attack on Palmyra shows terrorists should not be given break -- TASS
ISIS offensive on Palmyra could be orchestrated to give respite to militants in Aleppo – Lavrov -- RT
16 comments:
There are reports that ISIS took T-4 to the west and Russian support there was evacuated.
What do you think Laszlo, do we have a new ball game or was this a spoiler that's going nowhere? I think it's the latter, but as I said before some intel people really dropped the ball on this. I also think a few russian military careers are probably over.
To sum up I don't think it's all a case of they caught em concentrating on Aleppo, but mostly.
T-4 may have only suffered a major "raid". Info is very iffy.
James:
I heard about an attack on T-4 but AFAIK it was not successful, but more attacks are expected. This is not the first time that T4 is in such a situation, however it not fell back then. Now the concentration of IS seems to be real, and SAA defense is questionable, but I still think that SAA/Ru strategist repositioned enough forces to defend the base. The retreat from the city could have served this purpose, but that's just my personal opinion. I rely on the logic that this base have defense because of it's importance, but there are no sources to back this up. The current situation is very foggy, even the state of the frontlines are unknown but it was reported that large areas were captured by IS between T4 and Tadmur. Everything said would be just a guess, it's that difficult. I say T4 will hold, and even if fall it would be a retreat not an actual defeat by battle. By the way this is the thing I like in this war, that SAA could play the "dynamic" game and not just stick in a position until they die, and that's rare in the wars of nowadays. But again I do not see a big value of this area being captured by IS, not even if they capture T4, because the more important is that when and how will SAA make their next move in Idlib now that Aleppo gone.
Laszlo
It will be interesting if this "grand" army of Aleppo will be turned towards Idlib or Raqqa or both. I could see them jump on the M-5 to the west of Aleppo and drive all the way to Hama, cutting the Idlib pocket in two. One thing is for certain, there will be a lot of man power freed up when Aleppo is finally liquidated.
ISIS is a VERY tough enemy. James writes "a few Russian military careers are over." I think not. I think they are under no delusion that this is a very capable enemy and there would be set backs.
With that said, while they aren't going to win, they presented a major challenge to the Russians. Tying up the Americans is one thing. Challenging the Russians is another matter entirely. It would be unwise to pretend American forces are anywhere close to the capabilities of Russian forces.
Are they repositioning to point towards Damascus again?
Anonymous:
Yes, such a move to make a cut in the Aleppo-Hama line is expected, but so far there were no signs of what SAA will do that. I heard rumors that they will reposition on the SW side of Aleppo to advance from there, and this would fit in the already mentioned scenario, however I think their direction will be the sieged village of Kafraya (hope I writing the name right), which is right next (NorthEast) to Idlib. So far the remained rebel forces have only one "capital" left, which is the city of Idlib, but an operation that aimed to capture the city, without spending important, and very limited resources to protect the sides of the advance is unlikely. However I think somewhat the same of an offensive against the SE part of Idlib province, because I see the very tight SAA supply route that connect Aleppo to Hama as a decision to remain small, because this way it's better for the spread of defensive forces , and they could "cover" both IS and rebel frontlines in the area with the same amount of forces (even with a higher chance of being defeated), instead if they would advance deeper into Idlib, such defensive forces should have been repositioned or left where they are now and become useless (albeit temporally), which is a waste in my eyes. Perhaps the time has come, and SAA generals feel rebels weak enough to try this, but we seen IS could still poke the easy frontlines so I would not take a risk.
If I would have to make a decision and I should be bounded to the Northern area of operation, I would either choose between of two thing, depending on the size of the mobilisable rebels forces. If they still have good capabilities, I would set a grinder in North Hama, just to capture (or even just pretend) area up toward the towns of Morek/Latamia, but this would require a lot of repositioning which would not worth the time and resources, and with current issues in Tadmur I expect lack of reserve forces in the area (maybe after T4/Tadmur is safe again). On the other hand, starting from Aleppo, a push toward the sieged town of Kafraya would be my goal, and not on Aleppo-Hama main route, but instead a little bit to the south, starting from Hadir, and advancing toward West. I would mostly likely choose this, and especially the Hadir area, because this is on a lower land ( not much, but other Northern areas in Idlib are "hilly" with 50+m elevation difference and with a more densely urbanised environment, instead of this lower land which is emptier and mostly in agricultural use. But this plan have a very important opening, which is the quick capture of the town of Al Eis, and the hill next to it. This hill has a 100+ meter of elevation difference compared to it's surrounding, and is super important for the secure of the entire lowland/valley, so the rapid capture and hold of this hill is the decider of any advance in there.
But again, it's just talk, and expectation, we not yet seen signs of the next move, but first T4 need to be secured. If things get out of control there, it's could drawback the whole upcoming Northern offensive.
Laslo,
I few thoughts on the subject before I resume being a constructive member of society (at least look that way).
It looks as though SAA and the RuAF have come to a reasonably good state of working together (as shown in Aleppo).
The next phase will entail maneuver and engagement in open country. There is a considerable difference. I am being somewhat plodding and obvious here, but I think it's important. With the fall of Aleppo and the recent US election results, political considerations may outweigh immediate military needs.
All of this brings us to the question of who is ascendant in strategic planning, Syrians or Russians?
Does the SAA feel it can operate out in the open without full RuAF support?
Answers to these questions might give a good clue to future operations.
Conversely any SAA movements in the near future will answer these questions.
As a guess I think the SAA will concentrate on near operations for the moment (sort of along an Damascus Aleppo axis), while rebuilding strength and finishing the ejection of US influence in the area.
James:
Yeah, they get along pretty well, but I have doubts on how much part does SAA take on the Russian airstrikes and in this whole decision making process. From the Russian video that was posted like two days ago, it's seemed that Russian FAC units making the calls, with the help of RU recon forces. I'm sure they share intelligence infos with SAA in full scale, and whenever SAA need an airstrike, and if it's available they will get it, but for me, this part of the warfare looks very much controlled by RU. The same method were implemented not only in Aleppo, but also in North Hama, and with smaller scale in Rif Dimashq, but the offensive against Palmyra last year could also be mentioned for an example of their good coordination. I do not see problem here (or when Tadmur just fell this weekend), because airstrikes were conducted, and in very large numbers, yet it was not able to stop the advancing forces, but at least they were there. On the open terrains (Tadmur, Hama) RU pushing the use of attack helicopters (which I do not really get, in the format they have now), and this is a nice addition to the already existing aerial support.
About strategical planning. I'm sure that when Russia joined to the party, they made it clear that they have the right to rewrite any order that SAA make, and I see no problem with that. However I see it as the higher level we go the more based on RU, and the lower levels are more on SAA, but all together I think they have a very dynamic, and well working system for cooperation (but as always, if we would really want, we could find errors for examples). Russian mil. advisers are all around Syria, and directing SAA forces both in defense and advance, both in low and high levels and both side know they are there for help SAA, and they actually know what they are doing. But to answer your question, I see RUAF will go wherever SAA will go, hand in hand, just like teenage couples on a summer night.
(After posting this comment I - unlike you - will not return to the state of being constructive member of our society, because I work in a multinational corporation that supposed to destroy the world, while supporting the "class warfare" to increase buying power to the bourgeois, on the back of poors. What a world to live in.)
Laszlo,
A brief question (I know you're quite busy destroying the world, it is a rather time consuming task). From what you've seen, in your opinion. Are the Russians still using the old Soviet doctrines, a hybrid, or something completely different in their shepherding of SAA?
James:
I always found the "hybrid" term overhyped, like many other artificially created and useless other terms related to military stuffs. But beside that it's hard to say or talk about this in details and the truth, because I do not have access to most of information, only to those we could grab on the net. But from that I could definitely say it's entirely different than what it was in the 90s, but that's no secret to anyone that the Russian army changed and improved a lot since Putin is on the top. I like the new shape of RU forces, it's an interesting mix of the Soviet traditions and a very modern military thinking, and this thinking is that most of the country, all around the world are lack on. The quality of their troops are there, their equipments were told to be old, and yes those are not new, but are efficient enough and this is more important than being new - insert F35 jokes here - or highly advanced - insert even more F35 jokes here - technology.
Yet, by my view, their biggest disadvantage is the lack of protection of their own soldiers life, and not actually because of their equipments, but the use/orders of those soldiers. Some will die, that's not a question, but by time the population - no matter how much the gov. propaganda will push back, or what kind of law they make to silence the relatives and press - will make their voice heard because of their own sons. Western nations learned how much value does a dead soldier has, and even if today Russia can repress those voices, but by time this will change. And "anti-terrorist" label work for a while, but those who died in Ukraine, and many in Syria, it's still hard to justify those deaths. I do not see some losses on the ground of Syria, drawbacks, or so called defeats of SAA/RU as a huge deal, because territorial losses (and gains) are - in most of the times - do not matter in this war as much as it's commonly seen (I have this fetish to dynamic frontlines, I like my frontlines curvy and sassy). Other than that, I see a somewhat "desperate" use, testing and experiencing of the attack helicopters of nowadays, and I just wondering that have they already come to the understanding that the this development road is a dead end, or they just try to find alternative ways to their use until they develop/switch to the new kind of aerial support methods (and yes, I see the modern heavy attack/fire support helicopters a dead end, and not efficient in almost every case), but I think it's the second option. Just in quick that's all that coming to my mind, maybe I should just spend more time thinking on this, there must have been something else there to note. But I need to return back to work, this destroying stuff, and world.
Laszlo,
A tip on destroying the world. As it is a rather strenuous endeavor get plenty of rest and drink a lot of water.
As far the subject, I too have some thoughts that have been clanking around in my brain for a while. I'll expand later, but for the moment; I think Desert Storm was a real shock and eye opener to the Russian military/political establishment. From that moment I can sort of see Russia copying the US, but seemingly around 10yrs behind. Then that changed around 2003 when the Russians with revamped personnel policies and new gear started evolving their own doctrine, which I believe they are putting through a lot of testing in Syria.
Your view point on helicopters and their proper place in operations was very interesting to me. I tend to agree with you that various militaries (you the Russians and me the US) don't properly integrate them in their overall scheme.
That said, I think the real revolution in war fare which is just below the horizon is not so much AI and digital, but miniaturization, from which the full potential of AI and digitization would flow.
I'll have more of my thoughts on this later (a week or two).
Oh yeah, on world destroying, it's smart to check local ordinances on excessive noise after 10;30 pm. You musn't unduly disturb the neighbors.
Later
JH
James:
I only drink water, clear natural water, nothing else. I learned this lesson from the great Jack D. Ripper, he is the hero of mine.
Yeah, I only could agree with your example of Desert Storm, and how the Russians followed up after that. You said "(you the Russians and me the US)", wow, would this mean I'm "Russian"? I just go confused by this sentence. I barely could say a word or two in Russian.
I also agree about the importance of miniaturization, but I'm more focused on the "viability"/survivability of the equipment, and I see these stuffs operate too close to the fire. I want them to be more distanced, way more distanced while still capable of their role. Russia had some interesting concept of Mi-17 "ATGM-gunships" for support role, and those are very promising. But this development is not really get much attention.
I will waiting for your next comment, until then, take care.
Laszlo,
"(you the Russians and me the US)" I was referring to what you were saying about Russian helo aviation. Wait, wait,............Mr.President, I can walk!
Mandrake is mine.
James:
He says "Mein Führer", but I forgive you to this mistake.
I can see, that tens and hundreds or even thousand of years from now, when historians documenting the past, they found the ruins of the internet, and this blog, and our conversations, and make up a collection of letters/comments we had, and we will be remembered just as we remember now for the letters between Seneca and Lucilius (Epistulae morales ad Lucilium), one of my favorite reading. If you missed that, I only could suggest it to you for reading during this holiday.
Thanks, I get into that kind of stuff. Yeah, I know about the Mein Fuhrer, but this is a Russian's blog and they can get a little touchy about the German thing. If they do dig us up they'll probably say "those old guys were boring"! One last thing I loved that movie and Slim Pickens and this is a true story. When Slim was about 15 years old he snuck off from home and went to a local rodeo where he tried to sign up for bull riding. The promoter said ok, but you need a false name because you're under age. "Considering your chances I name you Slim Pickens"! Till the next time.
Post a Comment