The first discussion between Russia and the U.S. ended with the Russians secretly videoing it all without telling the U.S. or asking if they could do this and Russia putting the discussion video on youtube with no permission from the U.S. So, as a result deconfliction isn't in the cards (or anything else) between U.S. and Russia (at least pubicly).
A Semantic Downgrade for U.S.-Russian Talks About Operations in Syria
ROME — It seems there is a conflict with “deconfliction.” So, hello, “basic technical discussions.”
The Obama administration on Wednesday rejected the notion that the United States and Russia were coordinating their side-by-side military campaigns in Syria,
as American officials took pains to distance themselves from a combined
ground and air offensive undertaken by the Syrian government and backed
by Russian warplanes.
Defense
Secretary Ashton B. Carter sharply took issue with suggestions,
particularly in the Arab world, that the United States was cooperating
with Russia, and he insisted that the only exchanges that the Pentagon
and the Russian military could have on Syria at the moment were
technical talks on how to steer clear of each other in the skies above
the country.
All last week, senior defense officials had described such discussions as “deconfliction” talks, but on Wednesday, as Russian jets pounded groups opposed to Syria’s president, Bashar al-Assad,
and as Mr. Assad’s government embarked on a ground offensive, Mr.
Carter downgraded even the semantics used to describe any Russian and
American information-sharing.
Graphic
Russian Video Said to Show Cruise Missile Strikes on Syria
A video published by the Russian Defense Ministry
purports to show missile launches from the Caspian Sea to strike targets
in Syria.
Instead,
Mr. Carter called the conversations — which aren’t really even taking
place yet — “basic technical discussions on safety procedures for our
pilots over Syria.”
He added pointedly, “That’s it.”
His
remarks came at a news conference in Rome with the Italian defense
minister, Roberta Pinotti, before he flew to Brussels to confer with
NATO partners on Russia and Syria. The remarks underscored an increased
frustration within the administration, and particularly at the Pentagon,
over what defense officials say has been Russian intransigence in
responding to a Pentagon proposal on how American and Russian pilots can
avoid each other in the skies over Syria.
Last
week, the administration used the terms “deconflict” and
“deconfliction” again and again, after Russia began airstrikes in Syria —
where the United States and members of an American-led coalition have
long been conducting their own air campaign against the Islamic State.
Secretary of State John Kerry called for “a military-to-military deconfliction discussion.”
President Obama and Russia’s president, Vladimir V. Putin,
“agreed that it would be important to begin conversations on a
practical, tactical level to deconflict coalition and Russian military
activities inside of Syria,” Josh Earnest, the White House press
secretary, helpfully added.
Pentagon
officials said that for them, “deconfliction” meant simple things like
deciding which language the two armed forces would communicate in, what
radio frequency pilots would use and how they would go about sharing
Syrian airspace. That, the officials said, was the sum of the initial
American proposal to the Russians last week.
Putin Meets With His Defense Minister
President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia
met with his defense minister, Sergey K. Shoigu, on Wednesday to
discuss military action in Syria.
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS on Publish Date October 7, 2015.
Photo by Pool photo by Alexey Nikolsky.
Watch in Times Video »
The
Air Force has used “deconflict” to describe efforts to reduce the risk
of collision in combat airspace by separating warplanes’ flight paths.
So Pentagon officials, at least, sounded at ease with the term, as the
press secretary Peter Cook did last week when he said, “The purpose of
these deconfliction discussions will be to ensure that ongoing coalition
air operations are not interrupted by any future Russian military
activity, to ensure the safety of coalition aircrews and to avoid
misjudgment and miscalculation.”
Well, no more.
On
Wednesday, the Pentagon dropped deconfliction from its lexicon after
Russian officials said they had received no answer when they asked the
United States to identify armed groups other than units of the Syrian
Army that were fighting the Islamic State — so as to avoid them in
airstrikes.
“If
there are some forces — that also have weapons in their hands and are
on the ground fighting, as the coalition says — with the Islamic State
and they should not be touched, then wonderful,” said Maria Zakharova, a
Russian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman. “Give the list, give the call
signs of these people, tell us where are they located, explain why they
shouldn’t be touched. Indeed, this information is not provided.”
United
States officials said the last thing they were going to do was provide
coordinates for where American-backed opposition groups were, lest they
be bombed by the Russians as part of Moscow’s goal of protecting Mr.
Assad.
And
Pentagon officials said that until Russia got behind the American
position that the campaign against the Islamic State should occur
alongside an effort to remove Mr. Assad from power, they would limit any
talks with the Russians to simply those about what frequencies their
pilots should communicate on.
“The
Russians are seeking greater cooperation, and frankly we don’t want
that greater cooperation,” one senior defense official said on the
condition of anonymity because she was not authorized to speak publicly.
So
the word had gone out to administration officials: Don’t call it
deconfliction; call it basic technical discussions. “Deconfliction is a
very convenient word,” said a senior defense official. “But it’s not
appropriate.”
Derek
Chollet, a former senior assistant secretary of defense, said: “At the
very least it is important to know when and where they are operating to
avoid accidents. But ideally we would want to know more about what they
are targeting and why, and that does not seem to be happening.”
No comments:
Post a Comment