I wonder what effect this bombing is having on the longer term war. For the past 10+ years we’ve seen an endless parade of experts trotted out in the media that have said if foreign forces inflict so much as a splinter on an innocent person in collateral damage that the next morning the enemy recruiting offices will be packed and all forward bases will be overrun my maniacal revenge seeking natives with no regard to anything.
So how’s that working out for the Russians? There are a LOT more factors than just their showing up but after they joined it there seemed to have been a distinct change in the military fortunes of the Assad Regime. I’ve heard lots of mentions in the media that credit much of it to the Russian air campaign. But this seems in contradiction to what this article is saying (that the bombing is tactically untargeted due to lack of accuracy) combined with the position many experts have taken over the years that indiscriminate bombing doesn’t really accomplish anything.
Given the danger/disconnect on the ground over there and the difficulty of a westerner getting the real scoop I wonder. Rebels could have lost ground because they were too busy fighting each other or didn’t have the logistics to maintain operations, but it’s much easier to blame the Russians.
Does the Russian involvement prolong this conflict outside of propping up the Assads. One could argue the conflict would conclude fastest if someone, anyone were to “win”, even the Assads. But are Russian actions strengthening the rebels more than weakening them? Or is it just one more log on the big bonfire of hate that is burning the whole place down.