Russians in Syria (Full Version)

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Flashpoint Campaigns Series


ivanov -> Russians in Syria (9/20/2015 9:19:18 PM)

It sure deserves a separate thread.

subir imagen

Russian birds flying south

This is getting very interesting...

Stimpak -> RE: Russians in Syria (9/21/2015 12:13:47 AM)

Better there than Ukraine.

SwampYankee68 -> RE: Russians in Syria (9/21/2015 12:34:50 AM)

Have at it. Let Vlad have his warm water port and all that. Stabilize that nightmare of a country and maybe it will stop hemorrhaging refuges.

ivanov -> RE: Russians in Syria (9/21/2015 1:32:59 AM)

If they are there really to fight IS, then I'd be more than happy. But I doubt that. Most likely Russian objective is to preserve Assad regime, which is focused on fighting other opposition factions. The majority of the refugees are running away from government forces, not from IS.

What's interesting, Crimea seems to be the main staging base for the Russians on their route to Syria.

delete1 -> RE: Russians in Syria (9/21/2015 1:45:11 AM)

Well, Uncle Sam and his friends has and had lots of warm ports all over the place and I can't find a way to say "job well done, sir!". Why cant Vlad try? Is it because he is a bad boy? [:D] The always need to have a bad guy in order to point at him ones frustrations and the consequences of a poor policy. I can't say it is not easier that is always the other fault.

"MOSCOW — President Vladimir Putin on Tuesday defended Russia’s military support for Syria, saying it was necessary to defeat the Islamic State and “terrorist aggression.”

Speaking at a meeting of a regional security bloc led by Russia, Putin rejected Western criticism that his support of President Bashar al-Assad has prolonged Syria’s bloody war, and he implied that the West’s backing for Syrian rebels has led to Europe’s refugee crisis.

“We support the government of Syria in its opposition to terrorist aggression,” Putin said in Dushanbe, the capital of Tajikistan, according to a transcript of his remarks. “We have provided and will provide necessary military and technical support and call on other nations to join us.”

Russia has been vocal in its political support for the Syrian government since the beginning of the conflict but has been reticent about its provision of military aid. A Russian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman confirmed last Wednesday for the first time that Russian military advisers were present in Syria, saying that their mission was to train Syrian troops to use arms and military equipment imported from Russia.

We must sideline geopolitical ambitions, refrain from so-called double standards, from the policy of direct or indirect use of separate terrorist groups to achieve opportunistic goals, including the change of governments and regimes that may be disagreeable to whomever,” he said.

delete1 -> RE: Russians in Syria (9/21/2015 1:59:25 AM)

Russian objective in the region is at minimum not any better or prettier than the main objectives of the US-led western powers coalition for the region...I dont understand this anti-Russian paranoia.

Obama and the Royals: Human Rights Aren’t a Concern, When Oil is at Stake

Finian Cunningham
AP / Hasan Jamali

Whereas American support for Israel has both religious antecedents and is based on a powerful pro-Israel lobby in Washington, elsewhere in the region, the supply of oil and lucrative arms contracts continue to drive conflicts and regimes which at times seem centuries behind the rest of the world.

While pandering to the most repressive regimes on Earth with the finest American hospitality last week, President Obama came out with some outlandish, ludicrous statements.

Barack Obama was hosting the royal rulers of the six Persian Gulf Arab states in Washington. First there was the VIP treatment and photo-ops on the White House's South Lawn, then a fireside chat in the Oval Office, followed by a private meeting at the president's mountain retreat at Camp David in Maryland, some 100km north of the capital.

The oil-rich Arab guests hailed from Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Qatar, the United Arab Emirates, Oman and Bahrain. These sheikhdoms — historically carved out of the Arabian desert by the British Empire — are among the most wealthy and the most repressive regimes in the world.

Their rulers are pampered hereditary scions who systematically curtail free speech and public gatherings, ruling with an iron-fist. In all of these despotic regimes, people are routinely flung into dungeons for daring to make public comments that might be deemed critical of the ruling elite. In Qatar, for example, a young poet was jailed for 15 years because he wrote a poem that was mildly critical of the ruling Al Thani family, whose emir, Tamim bin Hamad al Thani, was in Obama's company this past week.

In Saudi Arabia, the ruling House of Saud has publicly beheaded 80 people this year alone; their blood-stained corpses were then dangled from helicopters as a warning to would-be offenders. Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Nayef was also among those enjoying Obama's hospitality.

Furthermore, the warped version of Islam espoused by the Gulf despots — called Wahhabism — is rabidly intolerant of any other form of religion, including more conventional forms of Sunni or Shia Islam, let alone Christianity and other faiths. All are condemned as "infidels" by the Gulf Arab rulers in their obscurantist, backward ideology.

This extreme intolerance under Wahhabism was encouraged by the British imperialists when Saudi Arabia was first formed as a state in 1932. It proved back then to be an efficient tool for imposing tyranny and crushing any dissent toward the rulers and their imperial master.

The same holds today. Washington has replaced London as the main international patron of the Gulf Arab dynasties. But their extremism still continues to serve as a tool for exerting geopolitical control in this vital oil-rich region.

In response to the high cost of US shale, Saudi Arabia has been selling its massive stockpile of crude oil at rock-bottom prices.

That explains why the Arab sheikhs in Washington this past week are among the foremost treasurers and arms suppliers for the myriad terror groups ranging from Al Qaeda to ISIL. These groups continue to threaten the Middle East, inciting sectarian conflicts in Iraq and Lebanon, destabilizing governments and fomenting regime change, as in Libya and Syria.

The financial and armaments links between the Saudis, Qataris and other Gulf despots on the one hand and terrorist mercenary groups on the other is well documented. Even US officials have acknowledged this; for example, former US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton was revealed through WikiLeaks disclosures to be well aware of the role of Saudi Arabia in supporting Al Qaeda-linked terror networks. So too was the former US ambassador to Iraq, Christopher Hill, who is also on record in 2010 as saying that the Saudi regime was instrumental in fuelling sectarian violence in that country.

Yet Obama regaled the Arab tyrants in Washington last week, saying that the US and the sheikhdoms are the "cornerstone of peace, stability and security in the Middle East."

The president added: "The United States and Saudi Arabia have an extraordinary friendship and relationship that dates back to Franklin Roosevelt [in 1945]."

All this was said by Obama with a straight face and sincere intonation. Which raises the question: is he a very good liar, or is this guy just really stupid? Why does the US continue to funnel billions of dollars of weapons every year to the Gulf dictatorships in the hopes that this will ensure peace and stability if these regimes are complicit in the terrorist activity that threatens the tranquility of the Muslim world?

Right now and for the past nearly seven weeks, the Saudi-led Gulf states have been pounding the people of Yemen day and night with American-supplied warplanes and bombs, including internationally banned cluster bombs that kill everything in their blast radius. Thousands of Yemeni women and children have been slaughtered in this US-backed campaign against the poorest country on the Arabian Peninsula.

Saudi Arabia may trigger a new kind of arms race in the middle east, as leaders insist the gulf state wants to match Iran's newly established nuclear enrichment capabilities.

The Saudi-led aerial bombardment has blockaded Yemen from air and sea routes delivering food, fuel and medical aid. The country depends on exports for 90 per cent of its food and fuel. Some 80 per cent of the Yemeni population of 24 million are now feared to be facing starvation and extreme privation. Children are dying from wounds and diseases because there is no transportation. Families are huddling in sewers to avoid air strikes.

In this desert country, diesel fuel is essential for drawing drinking-water from wells. Because of the Saudi-imposed blockade on Yemen, people are left without any drinking-water. This Saudi-led and American-backed barbarity breaks every precept of international and humanitarian law under the baseless, contemptible pretext of "protecting Yemen from Iranian-supported rebels."

This barbarity of collective punishment meted out to civilians was condemned this week by United Nations Humanitarian Coordinator Johannes van der Klaauw.

On April 28, American-supplied Saudi fighter jets bombed the runway and traffic-control tower of the international airport in Yemen's capital, Sanaa, in order to prevent an Iranian civilian cargo plane from landing with humanitarian aid. An Iranian cargo ship, coordinated with the International Red Cross Committee, is due to dock in Yemen next week with food and medical supplies. The vessel may again be blocked by Saudi forces, thus provoking a possible war with Iran.

These are the kind of maniacal, lawless regimes that Washington considers "extraordinary friends", who together, allegedly, maintain peace, stability and security in the Middle East.

We, of course, shouldn't exempt Israel from condemnation; right up until last year it has been jumping at every excuse to fight one-sided wars of annihilation against its Palestinian neighbors. The 2014 Gaza conflict claimed over 2,100 Palestinian civilian lives; despite deafening state propaganda in the social and traditional media promoting the state's response to the Gaza menace, only six civilians died on the Israeli side.

While it can be argued that American support for Israel has both religious antecedents and is based on an extremely powerful pro-Israel lobby in Washington, elsewhere in the region, the supply of oil, the propping up of the petrodollar, and lucrative contracts for arms dealers continue to drive ongoing conflicts and regimes which at times seem centuries behind the rest of the world.

If American activity in the region seems confusing, it's instructive to view it as a reaction to Arab nationalism and the British experience in the region. When British assets were nationalized in countries like Iran and Egypt, the British and the Americans were made to understand that local leaders such as Mohammad Mosaddegh answered to their citizens and could not relied upon to facilitate the transfer of oil to companies like the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company (now BP). As long as the US had a reliable local regime to work with which was fundamentally anti-communist, it would be ensured that the oil would continue to flow. The establishment of monarchies in the region as client states was a modern-day Metternich-style solution.

Unfortunately, the establishment of OPEC and other similar events eventually revealed to the US that it couldn't control the region completely; the Saudi monster it had helped to perpetuate was one that was easier to appease than to tame. President Obama was compelled, for example, to cut a major state visit to India short earlier this year to attend the funeral of Saudi King Abdullah, and was joined by Vice President Joe Biden as well as Secretary of State John Kerry, CIA Director John Brennan, former Secretaries of State James Baker and Condoleezza Rice, not to mention Senator John McCain. Perhaps the question shouldn't be whether or not Obama is ignorant to praise the Saudis; maybe we should ask how much power the Saudis really have.

delete1 -> RE: Russians in Syria (9/21/2015 2:24:54 AM)


The majority of the refugees are running away from government forces, not from IS.

You should be very very careful with statements like this.

"Syrian Refugees Escaping ISIS Put Lives at Risk on Dangerous Seas. The brutality of ISIS and the ongoing war in Syria has triggered the biggest wave of refugees in modern history".

You can't measure that. The fact is that things blew up since the absent of any viable government in Syria. Assad in fact barely rules his country, the mess is absolute. I am directly involve in a camp in my country that receives lots of Syrian nationals. I have close friends that are Syrian descendants and that's why I got involved. ISIS brutality is a frequent common history among them and one key reason to give up and flee. It is pure terror what you can see in their eyes when they talk about it.

ivanov -> RE: Russians in Syria (9/21/2015 11:14:40 AM)

Keep in mind that IS has conquered sparsely populated, desert areas of Syria. From the other hand, Assad is razing to the ground entire cities closer to the coast. Most of the refugees are running away from Assad troops. To lesser degree from Turkish army ( the Kurds ) and IS ( Yazidis ).

Russian move into Syria could be a brilliant one. It serves two main purposes: it preserves Assad as a Russian proxy, helps to reestablish good relations with the west and restore Russian reputation damaged by the events in Ukraine.

delete1 -> RE: Russians in Syria (9/21/2015 11:32:25 AM)

I am talking about the freaking sense of terror. I doesnt matter if ISIS is mainly in the middle of a unpopulated desert. The brutality is so unbelivable that the terror had spreaded out in the entire region. When you heard about lunatics that impale entire families alive, that could be happening at the other side of the country, you just grab your loved ones and run. Add to that there is no government anymore and several other groups are fighting each other.

delete1 -> RE: Russians in Syria (9/21/2015 11:35:50 AM)

Russian reputation based on western geopolitical interests? Does not mean much for me. US has a lot of bad reputation worldwide based on others interests.

ivanov -> RE: Russians in Syria (9/21/2015 12:54:15 PM)

It's Russia who is looking for a rapprochement with the west.

Terminus -> RE: Russians in Syria (9/21/2015 1:24:06 PM)

Uh-huh... Riiiiight. You keep telling yourself that.

CapnDarwin -> RE: Russians in Syria (9/21/2015 2:31:48 PM)

Let's keep it civil in here with these current events topics or we will be forced to take them down or have them moved into the main Matrix forum.


TheWombat_matrixforum -> RE: Russians in Syria (9/21/2015 3:47:40 PM)

It's interesting from a military point of view, in that whenever you have a power vacuum like Syria, it becomes a tempting arena for various forces to play in. Russia has had a long-standing strategic relationship with Syria; the port of Latakia was a significant factor in the USSR's Med strategy during the cold war, and of course Moscow has been supporting Syria's military since the 1960s. In pure geo-political terms, what the Russians are doing is not only predictable, it is fairly normal. We'd do the same thing, and have in the past.

I'll leave aside the issues of good and evil--that's not terribly useful when dealing with international politics, as it's a pretty swampy mess, and we really don't need an ideological battle going on here. But there are some great questions this Russian build-up presents. Such as, what are they going to do? Are the assets they're bringing in simply to make sure that anti-Assad forces don't get any ideas about Latakia, which so far has avoided a lot of the fighting it seems? I'd suspect the Russians also hope their presence is an indirect boost to Assad, who they regard (and I think with some reason) as at the very least the least of the evils in the mix there. Will they intervene more directly? If they were to mount operations against ISIS, how could the US or the West complain, as the US and others are already deep into a campaign against the same foes. What might happen if, instead, the Russians help the regime's forces against the FSA or Al Nusra or other, non-ISIS forces? Complexities galore!

And tactically, it will be interesting to see just what the Russians are sending, as it might give us a clue as to what they intend, or how they intend to fight if they do fight. How much will Russia's experience in Georgia, the Caucasus, Ukraine, or even more distantly Afghanistan affect their planning? I doubt we'd get much interesting info on things like armored combat per se, as the level of armored force being used in Syria is pretty crappy in terms of major-league tank formations, but there could be interesting insights into infantry ops and special ops.

The Americans have voiced concern over air-defense fighters being deployed, but given that the skies over Syria are pretty common venues for coalition aircraft, and that some of those aircraft are from countries that, let us say, don't inspire that much confidence, it's rather hard to blame the Russians for wanting some sort of air cover just in case. Though I suspect, the real reason is to thumb their noses at the USA, which is also a bit of turnabout is fair play probably. It's old Cold War posturing returned with a new veneer of paint I suppose.

delete1 -> RE: Russians in Syria (9/21/2015 4:14:15 PM)

Thats a more interesting reasoning!

"I'll leave aside the issues of good and evil--that's not terribly useful when dealing with international politics,"

This is mainly my point during this entire Russia in Ukraine, Russia in Syria stuff. I have been just trying to gather infos from the other side perspective all this time. Otherwise this will be another discussion about how bad russians are and how the source of all bad things they are. If you want to blame someone about a crisis consider equally all parties involved. Specially in geopolitical situations, because indeed they are very complex.

Cheers for you all,

delete1 -> RE: Russians in Syria (9/21/2015 4:29:11 PM)

Easy to say than do..but this might be a first step...

"To that end Putin proposes a revival of what is in essence the peace plan to bring an end to the Syrian conflict proposed by Kofi Annan at the Geneva Conference in 2012 – that there should be negotiations between the Syrian factions to set up a power sharing government until a final settlement of the conflict can be agreed.

As Putin points out, Assad has accepted this proposal (“President Assad is ready to involve the moderate segment of the opposition forces in these processes, in managing the state”)."

ivanov -> RE: Russians in Syria (9/21/2015 5:37:39 PM)


I'm pretty sure that we won't see Russian troops involved in the direct combat. Most likely they will step up training of the government forces and deliver them some weapon systems. The presence of Russian combat aircraft is interesting. I guess Russians want to make sure, that the US led coalition doesn't attack Assad forces and infrastructure from the air.

ivanov -> RE: Russians in Syria (9/21/2015 6:59:08 PM)

By the way, the planes from the first photo are not Su-27's. They are Su-30SM's.

ivanov -> RE: Russians in Syria (9/21/2015 8:19:06 PM)

Su-25's and Mi-24's make more sense...

sube fotos

ivanov -> RE: Russians in Syria (9/21/2015 9:20:21 PM)

What is Russia’s game?

Max 86 -> RE: Russians in Syria (9/21/2015 9:21:13 PM)

Funny that no one mentions that they are going for control of the oil in the ME. That is what the U.S. is usually blamed for. If the Russians are going to do anything outside of Syria after occupying Syria, here is a simple map for reference. Where would they go? There are the Turks to the north, not a great history between them but is that really worth it? Otherwise it is a great jumping off point into several oil rich nations. Just saying... Hey, has anyone heard anything about Jordan? Yhey have to be feeling some of this heat from their neighbor?


delete1 -> RE: Russians in Syria (9/21/2015 9:45:47 PM)

Lack of common cause risks handing Syria to ISIS

September 21, 2015 Fyodor Lukyanov, Rossiyskaya Gazeta

Political analyst Fyodor Lukyanov discusses why there is no united front in the struggle against ISIS.

An official representative of the US administration has warned Russia that it risks being isolated if it continues supporting Bashar al-Assad’s regime in Syria. Other western leaders are also concerned, albeit rather vaguely – no one has a clear idea of what should be done in the crisis zone. The two camps fall broadly into those opposed to Russian troops entering the conflict and those who think they might just achieve what hand-wringing and western air strikes have failed to.

If we distance ourselves from the ideological preconceptions that colour all views of Russia, we may understand why there is no united front in the struggle against the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIS), even though all agree such an approach is desperately needed.

There are a range of basic discrepancies, either stated or implicit. First, ISIS is seen as a terrorist group, which is why everyone is speaking about an anti-terrorist campaign. This is not the right definition.The problem can be traced back to the beginning of the 2000s when the international fight against terrorism, declared by the Bush administration, stimulated processes that culminated in the current chaos.

Also, even if the world is now confronted by terrorism, ISIS represents a new type and level of terrorism. The Islamists headed by Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi are overrunning and destroying the institutional structure of the Middle East, intent on rebuilding not only the ideological but also the national and political order.

ISIS deserves to be countered by the most serious measures using the most modern arsenal that countries have at their disposal. The West continues viewing ISIS through the prism of familiar concepts of the fight against terrorism, while Russia is inclined to take up measures that are usually characteristic of interstate wars.

Ideas about Syria’s future also do not correspond. The West’s obsession with Assad is related to the question of who will manage Syria after the conflict. Here, the original meaning of the talks on sharing powers with the opposition, the renewal of the Geneva process and so on, come into focus.

Russia supported the Geneva and the Moscow processes, albeit with its own agenda, but now it is convinced that the challenge is much more acute. The problem is what will happen to the Syria that existed before. The country has practically been divided into zones of control (or lack thereof) and it is difficult to imagine the reconstruction of former statehood. Now, the question is: where will it be possible to dig in to stop the advance of ISIS?

It is clear that the issue of power in a reformatted system, whatever it may be called in the future, will arise. No doubt power will have to be shared, but first it is important to understand what exactly will remain.

As for the present, many in Moscow reasonably believe that a coalition in the conditions of a massive external attack is good only when the various forces, having set their differences aside, sincerely unite against a common enemy. That is not the case in Syria. Both the government and the opposition’s level of obstinacy is close to absolute. And to use force to impose co-operation in such a situation (theoretically external players can try to achieve this) means condemning the coalition to immediate failure with a clear result: the enthronement of ISIS in Damascus.

So despite the above-mentioned divergences, is it possible for the leading players to reach an agreement on joint actions in Syria? The inflows of refugees to Europe and its complete inability to do anything about it is quickly changing the public’s mood in the Old World. Now the mood is dominated by the opinion that, to stop the situation, Europe should do everything possible and not on its territory.

The American position is dictated by a tangle of various motifs, but in general it is no longer monolithic. Public declarations and real views do not always correspond, while opposition to Moscow is determined not by the desire to remove Assad, but by fears that Russia will strengthen its position in the region. But this is an issue of a rational balance of interests, which is always easier to solve (though still very difficult) in comparison to when the situation concerns ideological preferences.

It is clear that by initiating the anti-ISIS campaign and getting more involved in Middle Eastern intrigues, Russia is taking risks. Besides the threat of material and, more importantly, human losses (which cannot be denied, especially considering the inhumane enemy that will be opposed), there are always doubts related to reaching the objective. There are no guarantees of success, especially in this complex situation where everyone is fighting multiple enemies, and so-called allies are stabbing each other in the back. Russian public opinion must prepare itself for various scenarios.

It should also be recognised that Russia’s decision to participate more actively in the Syrian battle is informed by its past experience. In international politics, it is action and not criticism that is valued above all else.

Although it is action that wins points and elevates status, the opposite may occur. However, without risk there is no “Big Game”.


TheWombat_matrixforum -> RE: Russians in Syria (9/22/2015 2:06:07 PM)



Funny that no one mentions that they are going for control of the oil in the ME. That is what the U.S. is usually blamed for. If the Russians are going to do anything outside of Syria after occupying Syria, here is a simple map for reference. Where would they go? There are the Turks to the north, not a great history between them but is that really worth it? Otherwise it is a great jumping off point into several oil rich nations. Just saying... Hey, has anyone heard anything about Jordan? Yhey have to be feeling some of this heat from their neighbor?


I've always felt the oil angle has been overplayed, for a variety of reasons. For instance, in 1990, when the Iraqis invaded Kuwait, there was never any risk to oil supplies. Saddam would have sold that oil just like the Kuwaitis. After all, you can't eat it. Maybe Islamic State would blow it all up but even those folks need money. And as oil continues its long, slow, slide into the twilight, while still a vital resource it is no longer the sort of thing that panicked people as it did back in the 1970s.

Besides, the Russians have so much oil that one of their problems is that the price is too low and they can't sell it at enough of a profit to fund their ambitions. I guess we could craft a way-out-there hypothesis of Russians trying to control Middle East oil to raise prices, but that's pretty much fantasy. As the map shows, Syria is far from, well, anywhere useful. It looks fairly close, but that's an awful lot of (hostile and crawling with nasty people) desert between Latakia and even western Iraq. And there's no way anyone would let the Russians physically occupy that area, even if they could. Hell, the US and its partners didn't have enough personnel to really occupy and pacify just Iraq.

But, there's a good point here nonetheless--the presence of a substantial Russian military force (and even if small, it's high-quality, trained, and presumably very capable) in the region shifts the balance a bit, and makes Russia a player in a way they haven't been before. I think that's the main reason for all of this--backup to Assad, sure, but also to get the Russians skin in the game.

Unfortunately, it all reeks of the Imperial era and things like the Moroccan Crisis and Fashoda at times....

ivanov -> RE: Russians in Syria (9/22/2015 9:05:28 PM)

And Su-24M2's enter the fray :)

subir imagenes gratis

There's also an info by US DoD, that Russians are building two bases outside Lattakia. It seems that they are there to stay [X(]

Stimpak -> RE: Russians in Syria (9/22/2015 9:10:17 PM)

Honestly, I'm excited to see Russia come down with the hammer on ISIS. Maybe their incursions in Dagestan were a good enough excuse?

TheWombat_matrixforum -> RE: Russians in Syria (9/22/2015 9:55:43 PM)

It will be interesting to see if they actually do anything, or just sit there looking pretty. I'm pretty sure they won't begin ops against ISIS in the near term, while the coalition is doing so, because the risk for unintentional clashes between the different groups pounding ISIS is too great. And I can't really see the US and Russia teaming up on ISIS, though that might actually not be a bad idea.

ivanov -> RE: Russians in Syria (9/22/2015 10:17:40 PM)

It looks like the airstrikes by Russian expeditionary regiment are quite possible. But I really doubt that Russian ground troops will be involved in any serious combat. They need some special forces for CSAR missions, marines to protect the bases and more special forces to train the Assad's troops. Maybe we'll see some artillery which has been a very effective Russian force multiplier in Ukraine.

TheWombat_matrixforum -> RE: Russians in Syria (9/23/2015 5:04:02 PM)

The problem with any Russian air activity is interaction with the coalition. Unless there's some sort of effective, even if clandestine, coordination, Bad Things will happen.

ivanov -> RE: Russians in Syria (9/25/2015 12:14:20 AM)

5 Russian Weapons of War ISIS Should Fear

ivanov -> RE: Russians in Syria (9/25/2015 11:43:51 AM)



And vehicles:

imagenes gratis

Page: [1] 2 3 4   next >   >>

Valid CSS!

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI