Syrian no fly zone called for.

Slime

LE
while listening to the radio today I heard two different items where people had called for Britain to create (or join) a no fly zone over Syria in order to stop Syrian or Russian aggression against the Syrian population.

I have posted this separately to the main Syrian thread as that deals with reality, while a British created no fly zone seems like fantasy.
One radio article mentioned politicians calling for a no fly zone while the other item related to a campaigning group who wanted it on human rights grounds.
If we bear in mind the aircraft and SAMs the Russians have in Syria what do politicians/campaigners think the UK/RAF could field to achieve this?

Maybe we still have some of the Cold War puma/scout/gazelle crews who relied on 'shouting rude words' from the cockpit as their main offensive armament. :)
 

mercurydancer

LE
Book Reviewer
The biggest problem with a no fly zone is that every aircraft gets targetted, especially military ones. Now this will not go well for any country doing the upward shooting. A Russian warplane taken down by a British.... (er what do we have for air defence now? an old Rapier system? ) will be politically unpalatable and it would equally be so if the situation was reversed. You could use any two countries and the resultant political effect would be disastrous. It wont work. Can't work.
 
NLZ require lots of fighters, AWACS, CSAR helicopters (and probably fixed wing aircraft), probably ELINT aircraft etc etc.
 
I'm thinking we (UK) should stay out of it. And, not even choose sides.
Even better, perhaps we could sell either side necessary kit. Or even lend/ lease.

Not being facetious. This is the CA forum. But it worked well for the US during WW2. War, offensive or defensive and deterrence costs a lot of money. Rather than the UK get involved in the Russia vs west willy waving competition. Let's play neutral and use it to our advantage and make some money. They spend, we receive (obviously the above IMHO).
 

Slime

LE
I'm thinking we (UK) should stay out of it. And, not even choose sides.
Even better, perhaps we could sell either side necessary kit. Or even lend/ lease.

Not being facetious. This is the CA forum. But it worked well for the US during WW2. War, offensive or defensive and deterrence costs a lot of money. Rather than the UK get involved in the Russia vs west willy waving competition. Let's play neutral and use it to our advantage and make some money. They spend, we receive (obviously the above IMHO).
We would have to buy the kit first before we could sell or lease it to anyone.
:)
 

Slime

LE
Bugger, the threads been moved.
So much for me pointing out why I didn't add into that in the first place :)
 
I support the idea to have (maybe shortlived) but separate threads on some specific isuues connected to one big theme. It would be great to have a poll (on this thread and similar ones).
I know it is the Sun. But there is no smoke without fire.
Heartbreaking scenes as 10-year-old Aya is left alone after latest devastating airstrike in Syria as BoJo pushes for RAF to enforce no-fly zone
Boris Johnson is privately pushing for Britain and America to enforce no a fly zone over Syria, The Sun can reveal.

The Foreign Secretary wants the RAF to launch the new mission - long called for by campaigners as well as Turkey - to stop the massacre in war-torn cities like Aleppo.

And he has urged PM Theresa May to mount a fresh bid to persuade America to join it after the US presidential elections in November.
But what does it mean from practical point of view? Does mr.Johnson understand that Russia is able to shoot down any RAF aircraft just after it takes off from Cyprus base? The base itself can be destroyed by one strike if Russian base would be hit first.
Outgoing US leader Barack Obama has refused to confront the Syrian tyrant Bashar Assad and his ally Russia, who are pounding the besieged city.

Boris signalled his support for no fly zones during an emergency Commons debate on Syria yesterday.
With the same effect Boris could support impeachment of pres.Putin.
Talk of a no-fly zone distracts from realistic solutions for Aleppo
The proposal put forward in Parliament to shoot down Russian and Syrian aircraft over Eastern Aleppo in a bid to end the bombardment of this part of the city is wholly unrealistic. The West is not going to risk a war against a nuclear power and its Syrian ally in order to help the 250,000 to 275,000 civilians trapped there.
In the course of this year, the Syrian army and Shia paramilitary forces from Iran, Iraq and Lebanon have surrounded East Aleppo
The lesson of all the many sieges taking place in Syria and Iraq over the last year – Daraya in Damascus, al-Waer in Homs, Ramadi and Fallujah in Iraq – is that rebel light infantry stands no chance in the long term against heavy air attack directed from the ground.
The UN estimates that there are 8,000 rebel fighters in Aleppo of which 900 belong to Fatah al-Sham, previously the al-Qaeda affiliate Jabhat al-Nusra.
So there is a solution on the surface - propose Nusra fighters (terrorists) to leave Aleppo and follow general ceasefire agreement with other rebels that would control Eastern Aleppo. First time this idea was sounded by UN envoy Staffan de Mistura and later it was proposed in Russian variant of UNSC resolution. The West didn't propose any counter-arguments against this plan that would exclude the very cause to impose no fly zone over Aleppo as there would be no military flights if the ceasefire would be implemented.
The UN Special Envoy to Syria, Staffan de Mistura, has proposed that there be mass evacuation of fighters and civilians to rebel-held Idlib province.
The Independent presents proposition of Staffan de Mistura this way while it is not correct. He proposed qute different thing at time
Ex-CIA director Petraeus compared Syria to 'Humpty Dumpty' — here's why
On Thursday, the United Nations Special Envoy for Syria Staffan de Mistura offered to go to eastern Aleppo and escort up to 1,000 Islamist fighters out of the city for the sake of a halt to the bombardment by Russian and Syrian forces.
What was proposed by Russia in the UNSC?
War of resolutions: UN Security Council hamstrung by dissent on Syria
Russia's ambassador to the United Nations, Vitaly Churkin, insteadpresented an alternative draft, which proposed that Staffan de Mistura, U.N. special envoy for Syria, hold consultations on the withdrawal of Jabhat al-Nusra (Al-Nusra Front) militants from eastern Aleppo to halt the fighting in the city.

This draft, in turn, was voted down by nine Security Council members, including the UK, U.S. and France. China supported the Russian draft resolution and abstained from voting on the French-drafted one.
 
Last edited:

Slime

LE
I support the idea to have (maybe shortlived) but separate threads on some specific isuues connected to one big theme. It would be great to have a poll (on this thread and similar ones).
I know it is the Sun. But there is no smoke without fire.
Heartbreaking scenes as 10-year-old Aya is left alone after latest devastating airstrike in Syria as BoJo pushes for RAF to enforce no-fly zone

But what does it mean from practical point of view? Does mr.Johnson understand that Russia is able to shoot down any RAF aircraft just after it takes off from Cyprus base? The base itself can be destroyed by one strike if Russian base would be hit first.

With the same effect Boris could support impeachment of pres.Putin.
Talk of a no-fly zone distracts from realistic solutions for Aleppo




So there is a solution on the surface - propose Nusra fighters (terrorists) to leave Aleppo and follow general ceasefire agreement with other rebels that would control Eastern Aleppo. First time this idea was sounded by UN envoy Staffan de Mistura and later it was proposed in Russian variant of UNSC resolution. The West didn't proposed any counter-arguments against this plan that would exclude the very cause to impose no fly zone over Aleppo as there would be no military flights if the ceasefire would be implemented.

The Independent presents proposition of Staffan de Mistura this way while it is not correct. He proposed qute different thing at time
Ex-CIA director Petraeus compared Syria to 'Humpty Dumpty' — here's why

What was proposed by Russia in the UNSC?
War of resolutions: UN Security Council hamstrung by dissent on Syria
I didn't choose for this subject to be moved to the Syria thread. As the no fly zone can't be enforced by the RAF and was simply being asked for by UK politicians and campaign groups it actually has NOTHING to do with the action in Syria and is a reflection on how clueless or naive some politicians are in the U.K.

The other stuff you mention may of course be wildly incorrect. There were offensive flights long before any direct Russian involvement, but of course there are people who think/hope/don't care that if they say the Syrian AF aren't dropping bombs on civilians that the world will just believe them. ;)
 
More disinformation. Russia vetoed the French resolution and put forward its own amendments. These amendments only received four votes (from some of the usual suspects). To pass a resolution needs nine votes and no vetoes. Accordingly no resolution as only four thought the Russian amendments worthwhile whilst Russia needed to use its veto to stop the French resolution.

Some comments from the UN reps:
Russia vetoes U.N. demand for end to bombing of Syria's Aleppo
British U.N. Ambassador Matthew Rycroft told Russian U.N. Ambassador Vitaly Churkin: "Thanks to your actions today, Syrians will continue to lose their lives in Aleppo and beyond to Russian and Syrian bombing. Please stop now."
"Russia has become one of the chief purveyors of terror in Aleppo, using tactics more commonly associated with thugs than governments," U.S. Deputy Ambassador to the United Nations David Pressman told the council.

He said Russia was "intent on allowing the killing to continue and, indeed, participating in carrying it out" and that what was needed from Moscow was "less talk and more action from them to stop the slaughter."
Obviously, a 'no fly zone' would prevent UN aid convoys from being attacked, whoever did it:
Russia says UK allegations of aid convoy attack are 'Russophobic hysteria'
 
I didn't choose for this subject to be moved to the Syria thread. As the no fly zone can't be enforced by the RAF and was simply being asked for by UK politicians and campaign groups it actually has NOTHING to do with the action in Syria and is a reflection on how clueless or naive some politicians are in the U.K.

The other stuff you mention may of course be wildly incorrect. There were offensive flights long before any direct Russian involvement, but of course there are people who think/hope/don't care that if they say the Syrian AF aren't dropping bombs on civilians that the world will just believe them. ;)
Yes, I see. So you tried to demonstrate how British political system works and what British MPs are discussing as super important issue.

It seems to me that I have read about it previously
Traditionally, Lilliputians broke boiled eggs on the larger end; a few generations ago, an Emperor of Lilliput, the Present Emperor's great-grandfather, had decreed that all eggs be broken on the smaller end after his son cut himself breaking the egg on the larger end. The differences between Big-Endians (those who broke their eggs at the larger end) and Little-Endians had given rise to "six rebellions... wherein one Emperor lost his life, and another his crown". The Lilliputian religion says an egg should be broken on the convenient end, which is now interpreted by the Lilliputians as the smaller end. The Big-Endians gained favour in Blefuscu.
 
More disinformation.
What exactly was wrong in my post? What is this 'disinformation' exactly?
Russia vetoed the French resolution...
Because the resolution in that form was intended to defend terrorists from Nusra Front.
...and put forward its own amendments.
Yes, the main one is to organise evaquation of Nusra fighters from Aleppo that would make ceasefire viable.
These amendments only received four votes (from some of the usual suspects).
Alas.
To pass a resolution needs nine votes and no vetoes. Accordingly no resolution as only four thought the Russian amendments worthwhile whilst Russia needed to use its veto to stop the French resolution.
At least Russia explained its position - the resolution in that form would just guard Nusra terrorists. As for the West then there was no any explanation. If you are aware about explanation then show it please.
Some comments from the UN reps:
Russia vetoes U.N. demand for end to bombing of Syria's Aleppo
Obviously, a 'no fly zone' would prevent UN aid convoys from being attacked, whoever did it:
Russia says UK allegations of aid convoy attack are 'Russophobic hysteria'
Yes there were some remarks but there was no any explanation why the West and its puppets didn't vote for amendments proposed by Russia.
Why the West is against a clear plan to remove Nusra terrorists from Aleppo with subsequent ceasefire.
I explain you why. In this case Assad forces would have free hands to hit Nusra and ISIL elsewhere, outside Aleppo.
 
Last edited:
Kgb is declaring all flights can be shot down the moment they take off.

That's another thread about Syria invaded by the paid for propaganda machine, yay.
 

Slime

LE
Yes, I see. So you tried to demonstrate how British political system works and what British MPs are discussing as super important issue.

It seems to me that I have read about it previously
No, you don't see. I was pointing out that some MPs and campaigners are talking rubbish and unaware of the reality of our forces. It's just the same that we hear from some Russian politicians, or politicians from anywhere.
Where do you think I said it was super important?
While we are discussing this, I will point out that you seem to rarely talk facts.
I'll give you an example, you said Russia could shoot down RAF aircraft after they took off from their Cyprus base. To Be accurate you 'could' have said that Russia could fire SAMs at the aircraft', but that is VERY different to could shoot them down. The reasons for the difference are very obvious!

The funny thing (that many stooges miss) is that by simply pointing out the claimed ability of Russian forces to destroy aircraft or sovereign bases makes Russia a laughing stock around the world when they then say they are working 'for good' in Syria and aren't breaking international rules :)
 
What exactly was wrong in my post? What is this 'disinformation' exactly?
Your link makes no mention of only four agreeing to the Russian amendments. Not enough to get a resolution even without vetoes
Because the resolution in that form was intended to defend terrorists from Nusra Front.
The resolution was to stop the indiscriminate bombing of civilians. If you'd kept to the last peace, you'd be jointly targeting the groups on the list with the coalition. Instead you're all out for the capture of Aleppo and can't care less about the collateral damage
Yes, the main one is to organise evaquation of Nusra fighters from Aleppo that would make ceasefire viable.
Would they go? Really? Do you have a source from them that says they would leave?
Wonder why!
At least Russia explained its position - the resolution in that form would just guard Nusra terrorists. As for the West then there was no any explanations. If you are aware about them then show them please.
No it wouldn't, that's a by product. All you're doing is making more extremists
Yes there were some remarks but there was no any explanation why the West and its puppets didn't vote for amendments proposed by Russia.
West and puppets :) You mean like the 100 countries that condemned your annexation of Crimea?
Why the West is against a clear plan to remove Nusra terrorists from Aleppo with subsequent ceasefire.
I explain you why. In this case Assad forces would have free hands to hit Nusra and ISIL elsewhere, outside Aleppo.
So, you believe a ceasefire, like the ones before, that no rebel group trusts because of the allegations of torture etc by the Sy govt will be followed by groups on the list who will just lay down their weapons and walk out of Aleppo and be allowed to carry on their fight elsewhere in Syria? Which planet are you on?

The amendments were probably (I don't know, I wasn't there) dismissed as farcical
 

Slime

LE
1 Regt of Rapier FSC and 2 Regts of HVM, I believe
Think RN rather than army for weapons, but any weapon used by either side would also be a target which is why we can't do this.
While the S400 systems could be targeted just as easily as Akrotiri the fact that the resident stooge has mentioned targeting Akrotiri shows the childish reasoning of one of the sides involved.
 
No, you don't see. I was pointing out that some MPs and campaigners are talking rubbish and unaware of the reality of our forces. It's just the same that we hear from some Russian politicians, or politicians from anywhere.
Where do you think I said it was super important?
Well, by deafult British MPs (and Russian MPs as well) pretend to discuss only super-important issues (even if you don't say about it directly). Btw, politicians in any country have much in common.
Yes, I agree it is a bit odd to discuss 'no fly zones' in Syria being unaware about means at HM forces disposal to enforce it. But for politicians it is not a big problem.
While we are discussing this, I will point out that you seem to rarely talk facts.
OK. Propose facts and I would be able to comment them.
I'll give you an example, you said Russia could shoot down RAF aircraft after they took off from their Cyprus base. To Be accurate you 'could' have said that Russia could fire SAMs at the aircraft', but that is VERY different to could shoot them down. The reasons for the difference are very obvious!
S-400 missile system - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Operational range 400 km (40N6 missile)
With such operational range (in the case of attack of RuAF from RAF) it is possible to locate RAF aircraft just after take off from Cyprus and 40N6 missile is able to down it with high probability.
The funny thing (that many stooges miss) is that by simply pointing out the claimed ability of Russian forces to destroy aircraft or sovereign bases makes Russia a laughing stock around the world when they then say they are working 'for good' in Syria and aren't breaking international rules :)
It is possile to laugh (better together) but existing capabilities of Russian forces should be taken into account anyway.
Russian plan in Syria is quite clear.
No truce, ceasfire or negotiations with ISIL, Nusra and other recognised by the UN terrorist organizations.
Ceasefire between government forces and true rebels (not terrorists)
Political process founded on free and fair elections under international control.
 
The Russian air force don't really give IS or JFaS much of a hard time do they?

It mainly seems to be civilian infrastructure that gets targeted by the Russians and Syrian air forces.
 

Latest Threads

Top