Russia pull out from Syria

Russia leaving Syria after 5 months of air raids and special operations. Reason is Syrian peace talks in motion.

For comparison: USSR left Afghanistan after 10 years, USA left Iraq after 11 years. Russia leaving Syria after 0.5 years.

Its like USSR/USA like to play casual games, while Russia likes fast-paced.

Well done for Russia

IMO a country's military shouldn't stay a long time on another country.

If you keep tons of your soldiers in a foreign country for a decade, then you are doing something wrong

Russians just proving they got a strong pull out technique.

Napisano od Skanderbeg, 15.03.2016 at 15:30

Russia likes fast-paced.

Russia dont have money to play

Napisano od Goblin, 15.03.2016 at 17:17

Russia dont have money to play

Russia is the only european country atm who can fight a long war, the rest would burn out quick for many reasons.

Was so easy, Ru got bored.

Napisano od clovis1122, 15.03.2016 at 15:50

Well done for Russia

IMO a country's military shouldn't stay a long time on another country.

What if the country A and country B are good friends so country B keeps troops in country A like in say Korea?

Napisano od clovis1122, 15.03.2016 at 15:50

Well done for Russia

IMO a country's military shouldn't stay a long time on another country.

IMO military shouldn't stay long anywhere, except the history books.

Napisano od Goblin, 15.03.2016 at 17:46

Oh no... not another Putin fan girl

Not really, just being realistic.

Napisano od Evic, 15.03.2016 at 18:01

Not really, just being realistic.

So why didnt they play real war... instead of playing backup vocals for Asad. I thought ISIS days were numbered once great Putn comes riding a bear... according to fan boys.

Napisano od Goblin, 15.03.2016 at 18:10

So why didnt they play real war... instead of playing backup vocals for Asad. I thought ISIS days were numbered once great Putn comes riding a bear... according to fan boys.

Only a retarded country would overfund on a small proxy war, it was a show of strenght and determination from the russian side, nothing else.

And from what i can see ISIS is on its last leg now, pretty much kaput in syria so russian strikes did the job.

Croatia vs Croatia

Hahahaha strenght and determination... does two words are so much repeated in news stories that is so funny you repeat them like a parrot

@tito for fuck sake... someone find a fresher gif then the one with MJ ...jesus

Napisano od clovis1122, 15.03.2016 at 15:50

Well done for Russia

IMO a country's military shouldn't stay a long time on another country.

Russian people didn't made decision to send troops to Syria, although it was people who voted United Russia(party) and Vladimir Putin who make decisions for people. But according to public polls, majority of Russians supported RAF in Syria.

I'm more for direct democracy = referendums (basics of democracy or communism). Russian people vote yes or no to send RAF, then government enforce the result of the referendum. But then of course it wouldn't be a secret and element of surprise will be lost. Russian airfield and base would not be constructed and planes moves in secrecy.

I would vote 'no' by the way, because Russia been in so many wars in the last 1000 years, it's tiring. Let others fight, war is bad anyway. Violence solve nothing and war breeds more war as wise Khan once said.

I'm proponent of philosophy that by supporting some side indirectly with non-violent means will result in ultimate victory. I believe USA is example, they didn't confront the Soviets directly in combat (hence Cold War), while master race Nazis directly invaded USSR and lost after only 4 years of combat.

If i was Putin i would send humanitarian aid, medication, food, fresh water, heaters, tents, bunks and doctors in the worth of dollars spent in this RAF engagement.

Napisano od Goblin, 15.03.2016 at 18:20

Hahahaha strenght and determination... does two words are so much repeated in news stories that is so funny you repeat them like a parrot

@tito for fuck sake... someone find a fresher gif then the one with MJ ...jesus

Napisano od Goblin, 15.03.2016 at 18:20

Hahahaha strenght and determination... does two words are so much repeated in news stories that is so funny you repeat them like a parrot

are they untrue? in a situation where russia is heavily sanctioned and their economy going down this is a show of strenght, is it not?

And by not folding under pressure of the sanctions they show their determination, its simple as that.

I heard in news russia was bombing civils too .

also in news i heard this american say that russians already got alot of losses in their side aswell.

oh and pls ffs dont quote me back with "no thats lie bla bla bla", i didnt say that, others did

as for civils its 100% true, russia killed civils including kids i saw videos myself

Napisano od AlBoZzZ, 15.03.2016 at 18:56

I heard in news russia was bombing civils too .

also in news i heard this american say that russians already got alot of losses in their side aswell.

oh and pls ffs dont quote me back with "no thats lie bla bla bla", i didnt say that, others did

as for civils its 100% true, russia killed civils including kids i saw videos myself

>i saw videos...............best proof ever

reminds me of jewish pictures from concentration camps, pure BS.

Napisano od Columna Durruti, 15.03.2016 at 18:01

Napisano od clovis1122, 15.03.2016 at 15:50

Well done for Russia

IMO a country's military shouldn't stay a long time on another country.

IMO military shouldn't stay long anywhere, except the history books.

Way too idealist though...

Napisano od clovis1122, 15.03.2016 at 19:50

Napisano od Columna Durruti, 15.03.2016 at 18:01

Napisano od clovis1122, 15.03.2016 at 15:50

Well done for Russia

IMO a country's military shouldn't stay a long time on another country.

IMO military shouldn't stay long anywhere, except the history books.

Way too idealist though...

Costa Rica (since 1949) and Panamá. No valid REALITY?

Napisano od Columna Durruti, 15.03.2016 at 23:28

Costa Rica (since 1949) and Panamá. No valid REALITY?

Sure you can have a couple of countries without military. But can you imagine if tomorrow all the world nation suddenly decides to remove military?

Who would fight ISIS? Other terrorist organizations?
Who would defend the motherland when being invaded?

Anyway the concept just seems way too idealist for me. Even if what we know as "military" is removed, the nations would just use their polices or any other group of armed people as to serve the purpose of the "military".

Napisano od clovis1122, 15.03.2016 at 23:42

Napisano od Columna Durruti, 15.03.2016 at 23:28

Costa Rica (since 1949) and Panamá. No valid REALITY?

Sure you can have a couple of countries without military. But can you imagine if tomorrow all the world nation suddenly decides to remove military?

Who would fight ISIS? Other terrorist organizations?
Who would defend the motherland when being invaded?

Anyway the concept just seems way too idealist for me. Even if what we know as "military" is removed, the nations would just use their polices or any other group of armed people as to serve the purpose of the "military".

Not talking about dramatic changes. At least some signs that things are moving into de right direction.
Like for instance, to imagine a world without armies in any future generation. Not mine, definetly! Also not yours, for sure.
Just saying:

Napisano od Columna Durruti, 15.03.2016 at 18:01

Military shouldn't stay long anywhere, except the history books.

Don't try measuring it against current historical conjuncture. You would have asured victory.
Not intended to be a discussion. At least not here.

Napisano od AlBoZzZ, 15.03.2016 at 18:56

I heard in news russia was bombing civils too .

also in news i heard this american say that russians already got alot of losses in their side aswell.

oh and pls ffs dont quote me back with "no thats lie bla bla bla", i didnt say that, others did

as for civils its 100% true, russia killed civils including kids i saw videos myself

As if USA has NEVER bombed ANY civilians... Close to a million muslims would disagree fully.

Napisano od 5th SS Wiking, 16.03.2016 at 09:44

Napisano od AlBoZzZ, 15.03.2016 at 18:56

I heard in news russia was bombing civils too .

also in news i heard this american say that russians already got alot of losses in their side aswell.

oh and pls ffs dont quote me back with "no thats lie bla bla bla", i didnt say that, others did

as for civils its 100% true, russia killed civils including kids i saw videos myself

As if USA has NEVER bombed ANY civilians... Close to a million muslims would disagree fully.

Usa did too but in this case we aint talking about usa

Napisano od Columna Durruti, 15.03.2016 at 23:54

Don't try measuring it against current historical conjuncture. You would have asured victory.
Not intended to be a discussion. At least not here.

Fair enough.

Napisano od Skanderbeg, 15.03.2016 at 18:26

I'm more for direct democracy = referendums (basics of democracy or communism). Russian people vote yes or no to send RAF, then government enforce the result of the referendum. But then of course it wouldn't be a secret and element of surprise will be lost. Russian airfield and base would not be constructed and planes moves in secrecy.

At the start I though that no country should mess up with other country. But cases such as in Syria-Irak, Somalia, Yemen, even Afghanistan, made me change my mind.

I though whenever a country entered on another it could just cause more troubles [like the invasion of Irak] native hate and a general mess and accusation of interest. And most of the times indeed, countries intercedes in other's wars/problems/life to push their interests.

But once you read what's going on in Somalia you'll realize that... It is just not right. Every side is pushing toward their interest, sacrificing the native's lives... Then it is no longer a matter of invasion, intervention.... it becomes a matter on how much humans life will be lost if you don't stop them now.

That's why I support intervention in countries like Somalia. I also support intervention in Syria or Irak if it is to fight ISIS. For me it's not a matter of violating a country's territory. Its a matter of saving lives.

Napisano od Skanderbeg, 15.03.2016 at 18:26

If i was Putin i would send humanitarian aid, medication, food, fresh water, heaters, tents, bunks and doctors in the worth of dollars spent in this RAF engagement.

I would invade Syria and impose demilitarization for both the government and the terrorist group. Confiscate all weapons that could'be used to war, maybe leaving some few available for the use of the police to impose order. After that I'd send humanitarian aid and use the territory to fight the other terrorists groups. When everything is over, I'd retire from it.

One does not simply just heal a dog and a cat so they can keep fighting each others.

Napisano od clovis1122, 16.03.2016 at 12:31

Napisano od Skanderbeg, 15.03.2016 at 18:26

I'm more for direct democracy = referendums (basics of democracy or communism). Russian people vote yes or no to send RAF, then government enforce the result of the referendum. But then of course it wouldn't be a secret and element of surprise will be lost. Russian airfield and base would not be constructed and planes moves in secrecy.

At the start I though that no country should mess up with other country. But cases such as in Syria-Irak, Somalia, Yemen, even Afghanistan, made me change my mind.

I though whenever a country entered on another it could just cause more troubles [like the invasion of Irak] native hate and a general mess and accusation of interest. And most of the times indeed, countries intercedes in other's wars/problems/life to push their interests.

But once you read what's going on in Somalia you'll realize that... It is just not right. Every side is pushing toward their interest, sacrificing the native's lives... Then it is no longer a matter of invasion, intervention.... it becomes a matter on how much humans life will be lost if you don't stop them now.

That's why I support intervention in countries like Somalia. I also support intervention in Syria or Irak if it is to fight ISIS. For me it's not a matter of violating a country's territory. Its a matter of saving lives.

Napisano od Skanderbeg, 15.03.2016 at 18:26

If i was Putin i would send humanitarian aid, medication, food, fresh water, heaters, tents, bunks and doctors in the worth of dollars spent in this RAF engagement.

I would invade Syria and impose demilitarization for both the government and the terrorist group. Confiscate all weapons that could'be used to war, maybe leaving some few available for the use of the police to impose order. After that I'd send humanitarian aid and use the territory to fight the other terrorists groups. When everything is over, I'd retire from it.

One does not simply just heal a dog and a cat so they can keep fighting each others.

If you would've given this speech at miss universe 2016 , steve harvey would have gave you the #1 prize lol

Napisano od clovis1122, 16.03.2016 at 12:31

What about sending army or volunteers from the armies in to help country under invasion?

For example, when Iraq invaded Iran, USA, China, USSR and others send troops to Iran to help Iranian Army and fight Iraqis. NOT retaliate to Iraq, no air raids on Iraq, no entering Iraq, just fighting Iraqi soldiers in Iran.

Would that send a clear message to every invader that if they decide to attack someone - they will have to deal with atleast 20 more armies in the defending nation?

Napisano od Skanderbeg, 15.03.2016 at 18:26

If i was Putin i would send humanitarian aid, medication, food, fresh water, heaters, tents, bunks and doctors in the worth of dollars spent in this RAF engagement.

Who the hell are you and what have you done with Tito!

Seriously now, if you were Putin, Assad would ve been removed by now and that would suck for all of us who wish for a balanced share of power between leading countries, stability in Syria and Isis lossing ground.

Russia intervention in Syria, while not without its drawbacks ( biggest being total ridicule and humiliation by Turkey, after having their aircraft shot down and being forced to sit it out, doing nothing and the military stalemate in the actual fighting), it definately (imo) had more advantages. Not only did it sent a message to both the Usa/Eu that Russia can step out of its neighborhood and deploy far away with success, it also proved it can be a loyal and powerfull ally to have in the region. It gained some very usefull battle experience and most importantly, secured Assad's regime, which was all that really mattered.

I believe it really was the right time for Putin to withdraw, since he couldnt gain more ground, he saved money, Assad was secure, Usa changed its stance and he managed to pull it off during Obamas run. Smart moove.