Russia actually sends airstrikes against ISIS in Syria. AP

Gun camera footage from a Russian fighter jet during a strike in Syria. Yahoo/AP/Russian Defense Ministry. 

In a new round of strikes, Russia has actually targeted ISIS positions in north and central Syria. AP. Russian defense officials claim that they have flown 20 sorties over Syria and 9 of them have targeted ISIS directly. An ISIS command post and weapon depot was destroyed near the capital of the Islamic State, Raqqa. Other targets were destroyed in Damascus and in Idlib province, though those were unlikely to be related to ISIS.  These sorties also destroyed command posts and ammo dumps. Until this point most of the Russian airstrikes were directed in the northwestern part of Syria, where Syrian government troops are fighting against various rebel groups. 

Russian airstrike in Syria, supposedly targeting ISIS.

A RT Report showing various Russian fighters operating out of Latakia, Syria.

My Comment:

The above videos are from RT, so you should understand that they are Russian propaganda. I wouldn't put too much stock in what the reporter was saying in the second report but the images alone are interesting enough. And it seems like much of what he said was plausible at least, though it is obviously made to look the Russians look as good as possible. It seems like Russia is taking these airstrikes very seriously, but I wish I had a non-propaganda source to use, but alas, there isn't one. Oh well, RT can be a useful resource for those of us in the west, but understand that they are pushing an agenda. 

As for the strikes itself, it is good to know that the Russians are, in fact, targeting ISIS as well. During the first phases of the intervention, Russia was mostly targeting various rebel groups. Some of those rebel groups were our "allies" and had backing from the Pentagon. Some of them were, most likely, al-Nusra Front or allied forces. For those of you who don't know, al-Nusra is al-Qaeda's army in Syria, so I have no problem with ISIS bombing them. I actually don't have a problem with Russia bombing these so called "secular" rebels because they don't really exist. Excluding the Kurds and a few forces in the south, there aren't any secular groups left in Syria. Except for the regime led by Assad. 

It's also fairly easy to tease out which groups Russia was targeting during each strike. Obviously the strikes near Raqqa were aimed at the Islamic State. No other group has forces anywhere near the city, so Russia is, in fact, targeting ISIS at some level. How much they are doing so remains to be seen, but at least they are doing something there. As for the strikes in Idlib province, that's the al-Nusra Front's home turf. Sure there are other rebel groups in the area, but almost all of them work with the al-Nusra led "Army of Conquest". Pretty much all terrorists in that area. Damascus is a bit different since neither ISIS or al-Nusra have any forces in the area. Those strikes are probably against more secular rebels, with a lose definition of secular. 

I think Russia is sending a clear message here to both the United States and the various other powers in the region. Syria will not fall and Assad will remain the president/dictator. Any group that is fighting against Assad, be they rebels or terrorists, will have to face Russia's wrath. The fact that some of these rebels are supported by the United States is a clear message that Russia is taking over the Syrian battlefield. They may not want America out of Syria, after all, we all share the same goal of destroying ISIS and al-Nusra, but it's clear that they won't tolerate any more training programs.

Which reminds me of something. Wasn't there a guarantee put out by the US government protecting the rebels that we support? Something about not letting them be attacked by airstrikes, if I am remembering correctly.  Perhaps those are different rebel groups since the US trained ones have either been wiped out or handed their weapons over to the al-Nusra front. I guess it goes to show how much a promise from the Obama administration is worth. Not that I want to go to war with Russia over Syria, of course, but it does go to show that our policy over there is an absolute mess. 

I wonder how long it is going to take for Russia to lose a plane. Though ISIS and the various rebel groups don't have much in the way of anti-air, some of Russia's planes are vulnerable to anti-aircraft fire. Russia's SU-30 Flankers should be fairly safe but I wonder if the same is true for their SU-24 Fencers and the SU-25 Frogfoots. Both of those planes specialize in ground attack and the SU-25's especially tend to fly low. Syria itself has lost a SU-24 due to MANPADS fire, so it isn't implausible that a Russian jet could share the same fate. And that's to say nothing of the much more vulnerable helicopters Russia has deployed. In the 2nd video posted above, the reporter claimed that the jets always change up their approach to avoid any possible ground fire, and it was by far the most plausible thing he said. 

Still, I'm expecting low casualties for Russian troops in Syria. Their bases are fairly secure and I doubt ground forces will get into any offensive battles. That role is falling to the Syrian regime and their Iranian allies. The real question is what happens if a Russian plane or helicopter is shot down and the pilot(s) are captured by ISIS? My guess is that no good will come for that. In fact, I would not be surprised if there is a major terrorist attack targeting Russia or Russian civilians abroad for their new involvement in the Syrian Civil War...