ISR

Sunday, April 17, 2022

Is this what World War between nuclear powers looks like?

Sunday, April 17, 2022

On this platform, the 2011 war in Syria was characterized as a proxy war before it became obvious that it was so. Here, too, the war in Ukraine was characterized as a war between nuclear powers who cannot have direct military confrontation because of the danger of nuclear weapons that can be deployed.

Now, with the British head of government visiting Kyiv and promising Ukraine more military aid, and with US and most NATO members supplying Ukraine with weapons that are beyond the defensive ones, it is clear that this war is the closest to a war between nuclear powered actors. It is another proxy war but one of a higher level with much more dangerous consequences. It is so because Russia is directly involved in a confrontation with a country that sees itself more like a member of the EU and NATO even if it is not so. Perhaps this is the calculus of Ukrainian leaders: if, with the help of NATA and the EU, Ukraine fights Russia to a standstill or even defeats Russian forces on the ground, Ukraine would have earned its place in the alliance and in the union at the same time. Perhaps this is the only option left for Ukraine now, short of agreeing to the terms of peace proposed by Russia.

The sinking of the Russian warship in the Black Sea, the Russian losses near Kiyv, and the flow of more weapons to Ukraine could force Russia to adopt a new strategy; one that is still in line with its strategic goals but less risky in terms of human and hardware losses. This means that Russia may opt to control the Donbas region and all of the southern border and sit back and use its air force and long-range missiles to strike in the rest of the country. Such strategy will render the defensive posture adopted by the Ukrainian forces useless because their will be no close contact combat to use such weapons.

Should Russia adopts this war from distance strategy, first, it will rely on the help of the Chechen Muslim fighters to hold new ground and support the armed forces of the autonomous republics in the Donbas region. Second, and most importantly, it will have to rely heavily on its military planes and long-distance missile systems for monitoring, locating, and striking targets in Ukraine using assets in Russian land or taking off from Russian territories. So how able and ready is the Russia military air force for carrying out such plan?

Russian military aircraft

According to what Russian President Vladimir Putin announced, controlling all of the Ukrainian geography is not one of the objectives of the operation, and that is why we see the greater emphasis on the use of the air force. Here are the highlights of the Russian Air Force:

The Russian army owns more than 4,000 warplanes, including fighters, bombers and helicopters, including 8 of the most dangerous fighters in the world.

The Tu-160: the queen of strategic bombers

This is the first aircraft in the world equipped with reversible launch missiles, which can intercept targets behind them, especially missiles launched to target them.

This aircraft has a tail-mounted radar, which makes it capable of rear sighting, which is the most appropriate because it is a low-maneuvering aircraft.

The Tu-160 can change its direction of flight by 180 degrees very quickly.
It can cover 14,000 km without refueling.
It can carry 12 missiles equipped with nuclear warheads and hypersonic missiles, with a payload of up to 40 tons of ammunition.
It is more than 54 meters long, equipped with 4 motors and a special coating against the heat generated by the explosions.
It is a supersonic missile launcher and is considered one of the most dangerous strategic bombers in the world and has been called the "Queen of Strategic Bombers".

In 2015, the Russian Defense Minister announced that Moscow was about to launch 50 new aircraft of the same type, and was working on completing the Tu-160M series.

MiG-31 interceptor aircraft

It is an interceptor fighter dating back to the Cold War era, as it was designed to be in the category of heavy interceptor fighters that have a high speed that can intercept American supersonic bombers.

Its first test flight was in 1975, of which Moscow produced more than 500 aircraft.

At a low altitude, its speed reaches 1,500 km per hour, which is equivalent to Mach 1.23, while it reaches Mach 2.83 at an altitude of 17.5 km.

Its length is 21.5 meters, and the distance between the two wings is 14 meters.

It is 6.6 meters high and has a suite area of 61.41 square metres.

It has an empty weight of 22 tons, and after arming it reaches 36.7 tons.

The MiG-31 operates with two engines, has the ability to refuel in the air and can change its altitude at a rate of 208 meters per second.

This aircraft can carry 4 long-range R33E air-to-air missiles, in addition to 2 medium-range and 4 short-range missiles.

This plane is equipped with a radar that enables it to follow more than one target at high altitudes and can track winged missiles.

Several versions of this aircraft were developed, including the MiG-31BM fighter, which can destroy 24 air targets simultaneously. It is also an ideal alternative to ground air defense means, as its radar can detect any target from a distance of 1,000 km.

This aircraft has the ability to destroy a number of American bombers and aircraft, including the SR-71 Blackbird.

It also put into service the Air Force: 806 fighter planes, 1124 military transport planes, 1438 attack planes, 387 training planes, and the number of military helicopters is 1389.

Thursday, April 07, 2022

Turkish-Qatari dispute may break apart the Syrian opposition

Thursday, April 07, 2022

by Alaa Halabi

The opposition known as the “Syrian Coalition” is experiencing difficult days. After Turkey began a large-scale arrangement process in its corridors, which was manifested in the dismissal of its leader, Salem al-Maslat, by 14 members, followed by the withdrawal of an opposition bloc in protest against the decision, which it considered "arbitrary", at a time, a great rift emerged between the wings of the opposition affiliated with several parties, most notably the Qatari wing, which saw what was happening as a "coup to monopolize the opposition." Amid the current state of tension between opposition members and bodies, the parties began exchanging accusations of dependence, even on the “regime” (the Syrian government), which some considered “signaling the disintegration of the opposition and the collapse of the coalition.” Others think the opposition will come out of the political context sponsored by Ankara, which is represented by the tracks of the Constitutional Committee and Astana.”

During the last period, a clear rift emerged between the Turkish and Qatari positions regarding the performance of the Syrian opposition, as Doha tried to escalate and return to the stage of “overthrowing the regime”, a stage that was bypassed on the international scene. Turkey thinks that Qatar’s new position is biased towards the US position at the expense of Russia, with which Turkey is trying to maintain a balanced relationship.

According to opposition sources, the crisis experienced by the opposition began a few months ago, when Qatar tried to reimpose Riad Hijab, the dissident former Syrian Prime Minister, who announced the holding of a conference to “unify the opposition” in Qatar, before this “conference” was reduced to a mere “dialogue seminar”, due to Turkey’s openly opposing the Qatari efforts.

A Turkish security official met with the leaders of the "coalition" more than once, as the latter's officials received a clear order not to be drawn into the Qatari project, and not to boycott it at the same time, but rather to participate in a symposium.

According to the opposition sources, the "Coalition" and its "Interim Government" sensed the danger of strong Turkish support for "Hay'at Tahrir al-Sham" led by Abu Muhammad al-Julani and its "Salvation Government", especially with Turkey opening the door for al-Julani to expand in the countryside of Aleppo.

In light of the state of great chaos experienced by the factions that receive great financial support, Turkey showed a desire to reduce it, compared to the state of “relative stability” experienced by al-Jolani areas, which do not receive similar support, which turned the latter into a “project that Turkey can build on.”

Turkey began to reduce the budget allocated to the opposition, whether political or even to the fighting factions in northern Syria, which prompted the opposition "coalition" to close its headquarters in Ankara, in addition to stopping several projects in northern Syria, where Turkey's attention focused on building residential communities on lines close to the Syrian-Turkish border, to resettle Syrian refugees who are being pushed out of Turkey with the aim of forming a population belt that trends toward Turkey on the one hand, and to get rid of the largest number of Syrian refugees in Turkey, on the other hand. It seems that the Turkish move harmed the interests of several opponents and opposition bodies, which receive funding from different countries, including the United States, Qatar and some European countries, as their exclusion from the political scene will lead to cutting off funding for them, in light of the futility of this funding.

Monday, July 26, 2021

What Authority Does The President Have Under Article 80 Of The 2014 Constitution Of Tunisia?

Monday, July 26, 2021

On July 25, the president of Tunisia, Kais Saied, cited article 80 of the ratified 2014 constitution to declare a national emergency. The presidential order suspended the parliament for 30 days, dismissed the prime minister, and lifted immunity on parliamentarians. Here is a translation of the article that the president is relying on to justify and enforce his declaration.

Article 80 * Emergency provisions
In the event of imminent danger threatening the nation’s institutions or the security or independence of the country, and hampering the normal functioning of the state, the President of the Republic may take any measures necessitated by the exceptional circumstances, after consultation with the Head of Government and the Speaker of the Assembly of the Representatives of the People and informing the President of the Constitutional Court. The President shall announce the measures in a statement to the people. The measures shall guarantee, as soon as possible, a return to the normal functioning of state institutions and services. The Assembly of the Representatives of the People shall be deemed to be in a state of continuous session throughout such a period. In this situation, the President of the Republic cannot dissolve the Assembly of the Representatives of the People and a motion of censure against the government cannot...

Wednesday, September 19, 2018

Terms of the #IdlibDeal: Copies of the official document released by the governments of Russia and Turkey

Wednesday, September 19, 2018

Leaders of Russia and Turkey have agreed to create a demilitarized Idlib buffer zone in Syria’s northwestern province to separate government forces from rebel fighters based there.

The Russian president said that under the deal, all heavy weaponry, including tanks, rocket launch systems and mortar launchers operated by rebel groups would need to be pulled out of the buffer zone by 10 October.

Copies of the document the

two leaders signed was forwarded to the UNSC are displayed below.


Cover letter

Terms of the Idlib Deal

_________

Wednesday, September 12, 2018

Has the Syrian government used chemical weapons in ISIS -held territories?

Wednesday, September 12, 2018

With every military operation in areas held by the so-called moderate opposition fighters, Western governments accuse the Syrian government of having planned to use chemical weapons or of having used chemical weapons. In the latter case, they responded by bombing sites and assets that allegedly enabled the government to use such weapons. So has the Syrian government used chemical weapons and if so, why?

Western governments explain the Syrian government’s use of chemical weapons this way. The chemical attacks occurred in areas where the Syrian government encountered stiff resistance. The Syrian government uses weapons of mass destruction to speed up military operations or to force armed groups to surrender. However, based on this reasoning, one would expect the Syrian government to use chemical weapons against the most hardened fighters, again, for speedy victory or to force surrender.

By all accounts, ISIS fighters are the most zealous and committed fighters who are willing to fight until death. Moreover, these fighters often carve territories and rule them alone without intermixing with other opposition groups. For instance, the city of Deir Ezzor was controlled exclusively by ISIS until the group lost it to government troops about two years ago. Similarly, Yarmouk refugees camp (south of Damascus) and Yarmouk Basin (near the border with Jordan) were under the control of ISIS until the group lost them this summer. Currently, government troops have been battling ISIS fighters in the rugged country side of Damascus and Suweida for nearly two months. ISIS fighters have built fortified shelters in the rugged volcanic desert in the south east of Damascus, far from any major civilian presence. Yet, in all these cases, and unlike the operation in East Ghouta, there were no reported use of chemical weapons. This raises the more important question: If the Syrian government does use chemical weapons to speed up operations, kill hardened fighters, or force a surrender, why hasn’t the Syrian government use chemical weapons against ISIS fighters in Deir Ezzor, Yarmouk Camp, Yarmouk Basin, Suweida, or Damascus country side? In the case of Damascus country side, and since ISIS fighters are hiding in rugged terrain far from civilian areas, one would think that using chemical weapons will achieve a quick victory instead of dragging the battle for months, risking the lives of troops and committing the overstretched armed forces, which are needed elsewhere.

Possible answers to these questions raise even more questions.

If the Syrian government had used chemical weapons in these ISIS controlled areas but Western media and governments did not care to report on and react to such use, then that would reveal the selective outrage on the part of these actors. That is, Western governments don’t mind the use of chemical weapons against peoples they don’t care for. In other words, their problem is not with the use of chemical weapons, but against whom such weapons are used.

If the Syrian government did not use chemical weapons in these cases, despite its need for speedy victory against hardened fighters, then the logic used by Western governments to explain the Syrian government’s use of chemical weapons collapses.

For the Syrian government to use chemical weapons against Western supported opposition groups is to intentionally invite an attack on its troops and facilities at a time when it is making advances. That does not seem to be a rational choice at all. But, that is not a problem in the eyes of those who want the world to believe this narrative, because Western supremacists often peddle the idea that non-Western communities, especially Muslims, and their leaders are irrational beings. Therefore, there is no need to find a rational explanation for a decision by people, who unlike white Westerners, are genetically prone to make irrational decisions, lie, commit war crimes and genocides, and use weapons of mass destruction!