Australian jets diverted from Syria as Russia's entry complicates mission
Operations chief David Johnston says pause because RAAF resources were not needed but admits Russian intervention has ‘increased complexity’
Shalailah Medhora
Wednesday 7 October 2015 13.42 AEDT Last modified on Wednesday 7 October 2015 14.13 AEDT
Australia has not conducted airstrikes in Syria since last Wednesday as the chief of joint operations, V-adm David Johnston, conceded that Russia’s involvement in the region has added a level of complexity to the deadly conflict.
Johnston said in Canberra on Wednesday that Australian military resources were not needed in Syria, and that pauses in airstrikes were not because of operational restrictions.
Malcolm Turnbull says transition from Assad is the only option for Syria
“We continue to have the ability to fly in Syria when the tactical circumstances require it,” Johnston said.
“Our tasking depends on the priorities of the day that come out of the air operations centre. There is no change in our availability to conduct air operations in Syria,” he explained. “Tactically our focus has been elsewhere.”
Russia began airstrikes in Russia last Wednesday to shore up the leadership of its ally the Syrian president, Bashar al-Assad.
The US and Russia have discussed how the airstrikes would tie in with coalition forces’ goal of halting the advance of extremist group Isis, also known as Daesh.
Canberra is seeking a reassurance that Russian forces will not inhibit Australia’s air mission in Syria, and not deliberately target coalition forces. No such guarantees have been offered.
“It is increasingly a complex area in Syria, and I think the entry of Russian forces increases that complexity further,” Johnston said. “It would be ideal if it was complementary, and working to the same objectives that the coalition are working to.”
When pushed by reporters on whether Russia’s mission as it stood was complementary, Johnston said: “That’s still to be determined.
“We’re not yet sure. Where it’s complementary and it’s about fighting Daesh, then there’s a clear complementarity of effect there. Beyond that it becomes much more complex if the missions are different.”
Russian claims that its military was working against Isis, rather than striking anti-Assad forces, were yet to be verified, Johnston said.
Australia has conducted nine airstrikes on two targets since joining the air campaign in September.
Another 434 missions have taken place over Iraq in the year since Australia has been involved in an air campaign over the country.
The vice admiral was adamant that no civilians were killed by Australian bombs.
“Our assessment is none from our airstrikes. There has been a significant amount of weaponry delivered,” Johnston said. “Every one of those missions that involved weapons delivery is analysed and we’re very confident in the outcome.”
http://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2015/oct/07/australian-airstrikes-in-syria-on-hold-as-russias-entry-complicates-mission
The key difference, and I think this is something Julie Bishop has picked up on, is that Syria has long been a client state of the Soviet Union, going back generations. Bashar al-Assad invited that Russians in. Nobody invited us in, so there's a real legitimacy deficit for Australia's and the west's actions against Assad. This enormously complicates our efforts there.
http://www.vice.com/read/we-asked-an-expert-why-australia-has-stopped-bombing-syria
situation so far:- ...everyone is awaiting russian instructions on when and where and on allowed or not allowed...
Err, how are we gonna break the news to Paphitis? I mean he’s already burst 4-5 major organs and in the emergency ward! 
