Military Review

Replace LIH with “opposition”: Washington’s “ideal” plan, which the Russians broke in Syria

48



Washington's plan was beautiful and elegant. ISIS (banned in the Russian Federation), having played its part in the destruction of Syria, had to clear the way and give way to a more handshaking successor. Bashar Assad was to be pressed to the sea and put up with defeat. The plan was good, but the Russians intervened, and the winner in Syria was not the one.

It looked different in 2016

Now it is meaningless to talk about what American politicians wanted to turn Syria into. I think something very similar to what was depicted on the map of Colonel Peters.



By the middle, especially by the end of 2016, it was already obvious that this plan had failed. Russian surprisingly quickly able to reorganize the Syrian government army, equip it weapons and ensure uninterrupted supply.

And they taught her to fight and win.

Russian aviation and ground units were able to provide a turning point in the war, and Washington needed a new plan of action.

The plan was pretty simple and even real. LIH with all its strength pounces on the government army and binds it in all directions. Meanwhile, parts of the SDF and the Kurds created by Washington without much resistance occupy areas of eastern and central Syria and go to the Jordanian border. At the same time, the “opposition” detachments in Idlib join them and in one “front” demand the withdrawal of Assad. At the beginning of 2016, the plan was good, but a new factor intervened. The coup in Turkey against Recep Erdogan failed, and he decided to go to war in Syria. Against Washington and their allies, of course.

Turkey confuses all cards

In the summer of 2016, the Turkish army and the Syrian “opposition” detachments supported by it invaded Syria. Damascus, as it should be in this case, protested, and Moscow was silent. After all, the Turkish army came to help her.



What was interesting and remarkable fights in the north of the province of Aleppo? Just a couple of weeks before the “invasion”, the Kurds took a large Syrian city on the right bank of the Euphrates, Manbij. They took light and very quickly. Against the background of this operation, the advance of the pro-Turkish forces in the same area against the same enemy looked like a real mockery of common sense. And the epic with the storming of El-Bab is like a clear misunderstanding.

But there was no bullying or misunderstanding. The August and September 2016 battles of the year in the province of Aleppo showed the real essence of ISIS and what tasks are set before it: to provide minimal resistance to the Kurds and maximum to the rest.

By this time, Plan B of Washington had already entered its force, and ISIL quickly handed over the SDF and the Kurds from area to area, where they were able to dramatically increase due to mobilization of local populations into their ranks.

The Turkish “aggression” confused the US with all their plans. The ISIS attack units, instead of assisting the bleeding bloggers in Aleppo with the “brothers” of An-Nusra (forbidden by Russia), had to fight with recent allies and hold off their advance with all their might.

The 2016 fall fights of the year were turning points in the Syrian campaign. The Americans saw that their very beautiful plan had burst, and we need to find another solution.

Blitzkrieg in Syria sample 2017 of the year

By the beginning of December 2016, the situation on the fronts of Syria was as follows. Aleppo was almost taken by the CAA, and it was only a matter of time when the militants inside it capitulate. Turkish units and the “opposition” controlled by them linked ISIS in the El-Baba region. It was obvious to Washington that as soon as the CAA regrouped its forces and stopped worrying about the rear, it would continue its offensive operations at an ever-accelerating pace. Calculations have shown that to solve their problems in Syria militarily, Washington has a maximum of 2017 a year.

The new plan was, in fact, a blitzkrieg. The Kurds and the Arab SDF detachments were shipped across the Euphrates near Tabka. At the same time, the United States created a strike force in Jordan. A blow from the north and south cut through ISIS and allowed the "pro-American" forces to join and cut off the CAA to the east in the Palmyra region. But it took months for Washington to prepare. And this time they had to provide their constant Syrian wand wand, that is, ISIS.

At the beginning of December, the “caliphate” secretly regrouped its forces (many detachments were withdrawn from Mosul and were withdrawn from the Kurdish front) and hit government forces in the Palmyra region. A real disaster has broken out. The retreat of the parts of the CAA that held the Palmyra area turned into flight and was only stopped after 100 km.

Restoring the original position in the area took the Syrian and Russian command more than two months. Thus, ISIS won for Washington three whole precious months in preparation.

By the beginning of spring 2017, the situation in Syria for the government troops was very threatening. They only fought off Palmyra from the enemy, and they needed rest and regrouping of forces. But there was no time, since by that time intelligence was reporting on the beginning of the concentration of pro-American forces in Jordan and the preparation of the crossing of the Kurds to the right bank of the Euphrates in the area of ​​Tabka.

The crossing of the Kurds coincided with a blow in the rear (end of March 2017 of the year). The Idlib group of the “opposition” launched a suicide attack. A rout was waiting for her, but it helped Washington win a couple of very important weeks.



The Americans delivered their main blow in the first days of May. Moreover, their "southern front" very quickly managed to take control of several strategic points in the Syrian desert. It seemed another pressure, and the goal will be achieved. The Russian response was elegant and deadly.

The plan, the implementation of which the United States had been preparing for six months, collapsed ... because of the enemy's craziness.

Meanwhile, the “tigers” of General Suheyl were able to cut off the Kurds all the way south in the area of ​​Tabka, and thus finally buried the last American hopes to take control of important strategic areas on the right bank of the Euphrates.



Then there was a run to the south, during which the CAA managed almost everything. They completely liberated Deir-ez-Zor, created a bridgehead on its left bank, took the last capital of the “caliphate” Al-Mayadin in ten days, and established control over the most important communication center of south-eastern Syria, Al-Bukamal, yesterday .

But they could not take the main oil fields of Syria on the left bank of the Euphrates opposite Al-Mayadin, although they really wanted to.

Summing up the fight

To understand who won the war in Syria, and who lost, you need to decide on a point of reference. If you take the 2011 year, then Bashar Asad and the people of Syria lost. Their country is destroyed and split, and its future has not yet been fully determined.

But if you push off from the 2015 or 2016 situation of the year ...

In the year 2015, one could expect that the United States would be able to control a significant part of Syria and thereby incline the country's leadership to surrender. Even Russia's intervention did not guarantee another victory, but only gave a chance to achieve it in the future.

In the 2016 year, before Turkey moved to the anti-American camp, everything was very sad. Until the summer, everything was hanging by a thread. And only in December it was possible to breathe a little calmly.

2017 year started not very. Until the middle of June, until the American blitzkrieg was completely disrupted, everything could have gone according to a not very consoling scenario. And only the dedication of the troops, a certain insolence and justified risk allowed by the end of June to eliminate the main threat to the American blitzkrieg.

Today we can safely say that the war has been won. Won, despite the most difficult conditions and very weak initial conditions. It won despite the fact that Washington created a seemingly flawless plan to reformat Syria, Iraq and the entire Middle East. Today, pro-American forces are thinking how to save the situation, and, by and large, they have no good way out. They need to negotiate with Bashar Asad on his terms and hope that fate will give them another chance in the future.
Author:
48 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. Akuzenka
    Akuzenka 10 November 2017 10: 51
    +2
    With your mouth, yes honey would drink.
    1. Yurasumy
      10 November 2017 10: 57
      +4
      Is there anything to argue in essence?
      1. novel66
        novel66 10 November 2017 11: 11
        +7
        a large number of armed opposition does not allow to talk about victory
        1. Yurasumy
          10 November 2017 11: 23
          +8
          Perhaps you have other data, but the number of armed opposition over the past two years has decreased dramatically, and the territory that it controls (I include ISIS, since it, including the “armed opposition”), has halved.
          If this is a defeat, give me a definition of victory. (just don’t talk about the last enemy. Then this victory is called complete and unconditional, And I did not use this term in the article)
          1. novel66
            novel66 10 November 2017 11: 25
            +6
            not a defeat. no, but not a victory - the war continues, however, on several best (for Assad) conditions
            1. Yurasumy
              10 November 2017 12: 08
              +3
              If you take it as you do, then we must admit that in the 1941 year there was no victory near Moscow. In the 1943 there were no victories near Stalingrad and Kursk. These were not victories, the war continued, albeit on somewhat better conditions. So? As I understand it, we have a misunderstanding at the level of terminology.
              1. novel66
                novel66 10 November 2017 12: 22
                +5
                victory in a particular battle and victory in a war?
                1. Yurasumy
                  10 November 2017 12: 38
                  0
                  Well, you are a formalist.
                  1. novel66
                    novel66 10 November 2017 12: 40
                    +5
                    I want for Bashar complete and final
        2. Alber
          Alber 11 November 2017 10: 55
          +2
          Quote: novel xnumx
          a large number of armed opposition does not allow to talk about victory


          All the same, it’s good when the Americans are ... a little blinded in the face
      2. Altona
        Altona 10 November 2017 11: 25
        +8
        Normally stated in principle. By military methods of its proxy forces, the United States does not achieve its goals. Now the United States is on the verge of a clash of its forces with ours, so everything is already pressed to the borders of Jordan and Iraq.
      3. slm976
        slm976 10 November 2017 11: 55
        +5
        Good afternoon. Everything is stated logically, in general it is always very interesting to read your reviews .. but, there is Idlib, there are Turks in Idlib, they have their own interests, with them we are somewhere along the way and somewhere there are our star-striped "partners" who never they will not abandon attempts to turn the situation in their favor, as long as they have at least the slightest opportunity for this, and they still have the possibilities .. although they really have become much less, you are absolutely right!
  2. Captain Nemo
    Captain Nemo 10 November 2017 10: 58
    +8
    The trouble is that the “opposition”, together with the Kurds, exists and this is a real force and there is no guarantee that they will not be sent to the Syrian government army, and that the civil war will not start again, without IS
    1. Yurasumy
      10 November 2017 11: 25
      +4
      The problem with the Kurds and the SDF is that they are not even close to ISIS in terms of combat effectiveness. They are surrounded by enemies and have supply problems. By and large, how the political decision will be made, the current SAA and the Turkish army will demolish this big top very quickly. But I hope that this is not required.
      1. GAF
        GAF 10 November 2017 14: 42
        +6
        Quote: yurasumy
        They are surrounded by enemies and have supply problems. By and large, how the political decision will be made, the current SAA and the Turkish army will demolish this big top very quickly. But I hope that this is not required.

        Kurds got into someone else's game. The Great Kurdistan project was blown away. Designers, of course, will do all the bad things. But in the end, everything will be decided by the coordinated position of Iran, Turkey, Iraq and Syria after cleaning up their territories from the main combat-ready part of the Ishilovites and Alkaida. Well, the Kurds occupied by someone else's raw material fields. And then what - irrigate the desert with oil or transport it by air. They will leave themselves peacefully.
        1. Shahno
          Shahno 10 November 2017 14: 51
          +1
          Do not simplify. Kurds will not go away. Both they and we live here.
  3. Altona
    Altona 10 November 2017 11: 26
    +5
    Quote: Captain Nemo
    The trouble is that the “opposition”, together with the Kurds, exists and this is a real force

    -------------------------------
    How to say? There are not so many Kurds and “oppus” as to occupy their lands that do not belong to them, and the distance from their native villages irritates them.
    1. MadCat
      MadCat 11 November 2017 02: 49
      +2
      Quote: Altona
      How to say? There are not so many Kurds and “oppies” as to occupy lands that they don’t own,

      which means not belonging, these lands have never belonged to Assad, and Kurds are the indigenous population. The invaders were just the Arabs, learn the story. Before Britain left, there was no such country as Syria, a completely artificial formation cobbled together from different peoples and ethnic groups.
      1. Alber
        Alber 11 November 2017 11: 00
        +1
        Quote: MadCat
        Quote: Altona
        How to say? There are not so many Kurds and “oppies” as to occupy lands that they don’t own,

        which means not belonging, these lands have never belonged to Assad, and Kurds are the indigenous population. The invaders were just the Arabs, learn the story. Before Britain left, there was no such country as Syria, a completely artificial formation cobbled together from different peoples and ethnic groups.

        Well, in principle, Africa and the north and the rest, all practically cobbled together from pieces and different peoples
  4. Monster_Fat
    Monster_Fat 10 November 2017 11: 31
    +1
    Bashar al-Assad and the people of Syria lost. Their country has been destroyed and split, and its future has not yet been fully determined.

    That is true. This is exactly what the United States and Israel sought there. Everything else is secondary and not essential ...
    1. Shahno
      Shahno 10 November 2017 11: 57
      +2
      No one can make a difference. No one will force most Syrians to respect Assad. Except for himself. But alas? Can be forcibly seated on the throne. But what's next.
      1. Shahno
        Shahno 10 November 2017 12: 01
        +1
        Yes, Russia's interests are taken into account as a result. And this is a plus for her. But this does not change anything in BV.
      2. Yurasumy
        10 November 2017 12: 10
        +2
        In the Arab world respect power
        1. meandr51
          meandr51 11 November 2017 12: 18
          0
          Do you know a world where it is not respected?
    2. Yurasumy
      10 November 2017 12: 10
      +1
      Yeah. Absolutely immaterial. that Turkey is in the country of Russia. Saudi Arabia plays two-vectors ... Do you even believe in what you wrote?
      1. Shahno
        Shahno 10 November 2017 12: 16
        +1
        This is your opinion interesting. Welcome to visit us.
        1. Shahno
          Shahno 10 November 2017 12: 20
          +2
          Saudis, Egyptians, Jordanians will never go against us in the coming .... and you guys are more careful with the statements. Shoigu would have learned something.
          1. E_V_N
            E_V_N 14 November 2017 23: 11
            0
            Quote: Shahno
            Saudis, Egyptians, Jordanians will never go against us in the coming .... and you guys are more careful with the statements. Shoigu would have learned something.

            You are here as the "Elusive Joe" from an old joke.
            Arabs will never forgive the formation of Israel in their lands. They just don’t have time for Israel, they need to put out the fires in the Arab world, the United States kindled for you. But what will happen if the United States takes care of its many problems, which are growing as a result of the accelerated reformatting of the world. When Communist China begins to dominate the economy. This is not for you the USSR, China cannot be carried away with “copper pipes”. And there is no influential Jewish diaspora and influential Jews with the leadership of China.
            Do you think how much Israel, one on one, will hold out against the Arab world. It’s easy to wave your fists from behind “daddy's” (USA) back, but all dads are not eternal. The Israeli leadership, unlike you, understands this and is already probing the positions with the Russian Federation, trying to enlist support for the future.
        2. Yurasumy
          10 November 2017 12: 39
          +1
          Where are you inviting?
  5. Altona
    Altona 10 November 2017 13: 24
    +9
    Quote: Shahno
    No one can make a difference. No one will force most Syrians to respect Assad. Except for himself. But alas? Can be forcibly seated on the throne. But what's next.

    -----------------------------
    That is, you stand for ISIS *. ISIS * was forcibly imprisoned instead of Assad; for 4 years he did what he wanted. ISIS *, in your opinion, is better than Assad. You used to sing that Gaddafi is the worst of evil for Libya. Today, Libya has built the most modern democracy, as you understand it for the rest.
  6. Altona
    Altona 10 November 2017 13: 29
    +5
    Quote: Shahno
    Yes, Russia's interests are taken into account as a result. And this is a plus for her. But this does not change anything in BV.

    ----------------------------
    How not to change? Everything changes. And why did you decide that the interests of Arabs, Persians, Berbers, Jews, Kurds, some nomads are so important to Russia? Russian control of hydrocarbons and BV transport corridors is important. And you yourself figure it out what you have there between each other, friendship or war.
    1. ando_bor
      ando_bor 10 November 2017 13: 53
      +3
      Quote: Altona
      Russian control of hydrocarbons and BV transport corridors is important

      All this is secondary, oil there is cheap, Russia needs to punish America, break its global dominance system, and it works great - now anyone can send Americans, fly to Putin and there will be nothing from the Americans, but they are not empty-handed in Russia fly, some control over hydrocarbons, some lucky over transport corridors, some orders for weapons. And if the Americans don’t want to agree on the same Ukraine, they will lose the whole East, and they cannot afford it - you can force them to agree only by force - and this force is applied where its least application with the greatest result is required.
      1. meandr51
        meandr51 11 November 2017 12: 23
        +1
        Yes, in order to have something real in this world, you must be able to format it for yourself better than competitors. Only after recognition can you agree on an equal footing.
  7. Altona
    Altona 10 November 2017 13: 59
    +8
    Quote: ando_bor
    All this is secondary, oil there is cheap

    ------------------------------
    The point is not the price of oil, but the control over it. We can break the United States anyway, but Putin prefers to build some kind of neutral country where the athletes do not have a flag and the Crimea does not have Sberbank.
    1. The comment was deleted.
    2. ando_bor
      ando_bor 10 November 2017 17: 41
      +2
      Quote: Altona
      We can break the United States anyway, but Putin prefers to build some kind of neutral country where the athletes do not have a flag and the Crimea does not have Sberbank.

      It’s well known that Putin is to blame for everything, and we will throw Americans with hats.
      “You can’t tell,” we know.
  8. Azim77
    Azim77 10 November 2017 15: 14
    +4
    In principle, on the maps, if you compare, everything shows: why Syria, Turkey, Iran, Saudi Arabia and even Pakistan were against these plans, and Jordan, Kurds, Yemen - for. And Russia was simply asked to help protect against a strong arm across the ocean, because the only one who could do it. And probably there is also a map in which countries are already marked above this one, i.e. higher than Afghanistan, Iran. And these are direct interests and threats for Russia itself.
  9. sabakina
    sabakina 10 November 2017 18: 14
    +6
    It seemed like another push, and the goal will be achieved. The Russian response was elegant and deadly.
    and then silence! And the dead with braids stand! Author, we have to guess on tarot cards how we answered?
    1. Vik66
      Vik66 14 November 2017 12: 54
      0
      I join - I also re-read the article twice and did not find it ... recourse
  10. Altona
    Altona 10 November 2017 18: 35
    +3
    Quote: ando_bor
    It’s well known that Putin is to blame for everything, and we will throw Americans with hats.
    “You can’t tell,” we know.

    --------------------------------------
    I didn’t talk about hats, you thought it over yourself. Nevertheless, there are countries that completely throw their hats on the United States. These are the DPRK and the PRC. China, represented by Chairman Xi, easily bent Trump to return gas from Alaska in exchange for debt, you yourself know about the DPRK. In general, take an interest in the art of diplomacy, and do not measure the military component, which we have at our very high level.
    PS I, by the way, didn’t seem to drink at the Brudershaft, so be more polite, otherwise I’ll throw such a “hat” on you that you won’t wash yourself.
    1. ando_bor
      ando_bor 10 November 2017 21: 14
      +2
      Quote: Altona
      C easily bent trump to return gas from Alaska in exchange for debt

      Or maybe Trump bent C, so that his own hydrocarbons are boiled up at inflated prices?
      1. Monster_Fat
        Monster_Fat 11 November 2017 07: 26
        +2
        And it’s cool that by doing so he “made” the Russian oil pipeline less necessary for the Chinese.
      2. E_V_N
        E_V_N 14 November 2017 23: 21
        0
        Quote: ando_bor
        Quote: Altona
        C easily bent trump to return gas from Alaska in exchange for debt

        Or maybe Trump bent C, so that his own hydrocarbons are boiled up at inflated prices?

        You do not know the price of gas from Alaska, and therefore it’s not worth talking about.
        You did not catch that the United States is building a gas pipeline in its permafrost, while the Chinese will own 70% of the gas liquefaction plant and 70% of gas will go to China. So think about it, 70% of this is China’s dividends at the plant, just taken in kind, it turns out that China receives gas at cost, almost equal to the pipeline.
  11. andrew xnumx
    andrew xnumx 10 November 2017 21: 58
    +2
    All this is wonderful. But Syria must get all of its resource regions. This must be achieved at all costs.
  12. Zina389
    Zina389 11 November 2017 02: 20
    +2
    How are we doing at the front? - the president asks. Sumptuously! Victory! - the general happily reports. So, then you can reduce the contingent? - the president asks. No . It must be increased 2 times in order to develop success.
    1. meandr51
      meandr51 11 November 2017 12: 25
      0
      What is stopping this?
  13. bratchanin3
    bratchanin3 11 November 2017 10: 34
    +2
    The war in Syria is not won until the American troops are located on its territory. It is necessary to slowly uproot them (amers) from there.
  14. Gennady Fyodorov
    Gennady Fyodorov 11 November 2017 11: 28
    +1
    Who fights for and dies in this war? Who are the "terrorists"? Boys seen a lot of American blockbusters? No, grown men who knowingly die for something. For what? For the bright future of all mankind? For the world revolution? Who would clearly explain to me what the war is going on and where whose interests are?
  15. P1956P1956
    P1956P1956 11 November 2017 13: 08
    +2
    .... ,, The Americans struck their main blow in early May. Moreover, their "southern front" very quickly managed to take control of several strategic points in the Syrian desert. It seemed like another push, and the goal will be achieved. The Russian response was elegant and deadly.
    The plan, the implementation of which the United States had been preparing for six months, collapsed ... because of the enemy's craziness.
    Meanwhile, the "tigers" of General Suheil were able to cut off the chickens all the way south in the vicinity of Tabka, and thereby completely buried the last American hope of taking control of important strategic areas on the right bank of the Euphrates ....
    US regular troops do not take part in the Syrian conflict. Funding, supplies, instructors, reconnaissance, minor attacks on selective points with missiles and the Air Force. It’s not worth it to jubilate and toss caps. Yes ISIS is retreating, but where is retreating? If in 1945 the Wehrmacht’s troops surrendered to the Americans, where did these militants retreat to the borders of the CIS? Something our rulers began to scurry around, run around the Asian republics, arrange warm friendly meetings, play hugs. What smells fried? Interest in the map published on the network, on which the lands of neighboring Russia, Uzbekistan and China were "attached" to Kazakhstan (many media outlets reprinted the map), shows that something is changing in relations between this former Soviet republic and the Russian Federation. It is noteworthy that articles on the need to switch the Kazakh language to the Latin alphabet illustrate unusually widening borders - experts assess this as a symbolic break with Russia. “It cannot be ruled out that the article by the president is a signal to both Moscow and the West. For Russia, this is a hint that it should be more compliant in matters relating to common economic interests. The uprising of the enemy of Russia, Khan Kenesary, in the middle of the XNUMXth century is described practically according to a Marxist training manual as a national liberation. “In honor of Kenesara, a monument was erected in Astana, and one of the streets bears his name”, owls, and for the West - a demonstration of loyalty and an independent position against the backdrop of worsening relations between Russia and the USA. ”Nazarbayev gave the go-ahead for the construction of the US naval base in the Caspian.
    .President of Kyrgyzstan Almazbek Atambayev signed a decree on renaming the October Revolution Day to the Day of History and Memory of the Ancestors. On November 7 and 8, the country will recall the events of 1916, when there was an uprising against the Russian Empire.
    Moldovan opposition politicians have repeatedly accused Dodon of conducting pro-Russian politics. In early October, the country's president promised President Putin not to pass anti-Russian laws. Dodon confirmed that the development of bilateral relations between Moscow and Chisinau continues “contrary to the provocations of the government and parliamentary majority” of Moldova, which is opposed to the president.
    After the Constitutional Court of Moldova made Dodon a de facto decorative president, and his signature no longer matters when approving ministers, judges and ambassadors, and is also not needed for laws to enter into force, Dodon announced the start of a campaign to hold early parliamentary elections and the country's transition to a presidential form of government.
    There is no point in recalling the policies of Ukraine and the Baltic republics regarding Russia. Why is the policy vector of the nearest neighboring republics more inclined towards the anti-Russian one? Without someone’s effort and someone’s work this cannot happen. Whose work is this? What is this all about? Ahead of the presidential elections in Russia and the World Cup. If Putin is re-elected for the next term, will we be allowed to hold such a significant event in the world as the World Cup.? Will they humiliate us once again? Such a significant event can only be prevented by large-scale military operations over a long border. To get caps and throw signs on TV telling what heroes we are? Why did he go to this ATEC Summit? To experience another rudeness from the side? Allowed to meet with trump on the run ...? What a humiliation! This is a ridiculous joint statement on Syria ... What can be good for us at these summits if we are in a humiliating blockade, in a general conspiracy against us? China, we’ve greased it, with contracts and will now squeeze us. We can get to the football championship and hold it. They will not make it so that everyone will not be up to the championship.? Well, Trump pats Putin on the shoulder - well done, a brave guy, but the Americans have not yet set a serious test for us .....