Syria conflict: UN suspends all aid after convoy hit

[Skroe]

We're already talking about something impossible on several levels at this point.

Iraq was cooperating with us on Syria at every step once we decided to get going there, noone is going to start war right before elections, there is absolutely no support in US for actually going to war in Syria with full-scale American invasion, more so actually engaging Russia there, and US isn't going to win this war with just air raids and "moderate rebels".

So expectations here should be that US backs off again despite their rhetoric - because they don't have enough at stake there.

Wrong on two counts.

First there is an absolutely huge amount the US could do, but hasn't because of three people: Barack Obama, Susan Rice and Ben Rhodes, because of the crazy "reformist" foreign policy ideas that live in their heads. The Pentagon, the State Department and the NSC are all united in punishing both Assad and Russia severely for their transgressions. The President, the one who would decide, is isolated in his decision, but he is gone in 4 months.

We saw this in Ukraine as well mind you. The Pentagon, the CIA and the State Department were and remain ready to send surplus heavy weapons to Ukraine, but it is Barack Obama and Barack Obama alone who has limited it to little more than kevlar and surplus, underarmored old Humvees (not even later up-armored Iraq-War era surplus).

The man is simply a menace, and you're making the same mistake he is, but falsely assuming the two options are "nothing" and "full scale war". The US could, for example, decide to take the risk of Russian casualties and bomb the Syrian Air Force out of existence. Unofficial estimates say such an operation would take 24 hours. It could also do what Russia did in Donbass and take the step of flooding Syria with anti-air equipment and force Russia to fight on the ground. It could also "accidentally" hit those S400 batteries just to send a message just like it "accidentally" hit those Syrian troops a few weeks back. And that's just the start of the list.


Secondly, if you think Americans wouldn't support a war in Syria, you don't understand Americans in the slightest. For the record, before we go into this, I do not support a large ground assault in Syria. So don't take me as advocating for it. But that said, the story with War and Americans, wherever it may be, is how it is packaged. America views itself as a profoundly moral state. Many Europeans have never understood that, but that feeling comes from the nexus of history, of our civil religion, of our view of the rest of the world. It is of course, idealized because this country has done profoundly immoral things, but still "America, the shining city on the hill, is a force force for good in the world" has and long shall remain, at the very center of our national mythology.

So what does this have to do with Syria? Here we have a minority group, supported by your Autocratic government, battering a majority that's been opposed for decades and causing significant war crimes. And on top of that your country has been externally aggressive in Europe and here as well. Painting the scene for a conflict in Syria to get widespread American support isn't too hard. If the story of American myth is good fighting evil, democracy fighting tyranny, then we would in Syria, be living up to our historic calling.

Americans continuously believe that, even when things go awry. Even today, polls show support for going in and obliterating ISIS is extremely high, undercutting the mostly baseless claims of an inward looking America. As a nation, wrongly in my view, we're very prone to looking for Dragons to Slay. For a while that's been ISIS. It could turn into Assad's Regime and even Russia by proxy very quickly, with the right marketing.

Foreigners always make this mistake though. In 1990 Saddam Hussein made this mistake. In the 1990s Osama bin Laden made this mistake. Pre-9/11, most of the world made this mistake. The United States has obliterated the regimes of three countries across the planet in the past 15 years and played an active role in the ongoing dismantling on a few more by various means. It used it's military power, at a very high operational tempo, uninterrupted, for 15 years. It spent trillions of dollars and sustained many thousands of casualties.

All this, and still, some around the world think Americans are passive to war and external adventurism? It's really exactly the opposite. We got the biggest hammer in the world, and we're extremely quick to wield it.

I've written about this exactly before, but with reference to China specifically. The US and Russia at least talk to each other in a professional way among the top military ranks and foreign service ranks. Those relations were there during the Cold War, and both acted as a moderating and limiting force on those above and below them on both sides. This gave a very clear understanding as to what the US and USSR's red lines were for each other, and although they prodded and tried to circumvent, very rare was the outright 'bridge too far" moment. China on the other hand? The US has been trying to build those style relations (transparency at some level specifically) for 15 years and the Chinese do not want them (they're actually paranoid of them). And thus the danger is, China thinks the US won't go to war for the South China Sea or something, crosses that particular bridge, and doesn't actually realize the sequence of events it unleashes.

[Ulmita]

I am going through the posts and i am wondering how come the obamabots didn't comment on the Russian Defence Minister who commented on the F-22 and F-35:

“Russian air defense system crews are unlikely to have time to determine in a ‘straight line’ the exact flight paths of missiles and then who the warheads belong to. And all the illusions of amateurs about the existence of ‘invisible’ jets will face a disappointing reality,” Konashenkov added.

They must be able to track F-22's over Syria to claim publicly something so blatant as that.

https://www.rt.com/news/361800-russi...usa-aistrikes/

[Shalcker]

Wrong on two counts.

First there is an absolutely huge amount the US could do, but hasn't because of three people: Barack Obama, Susan Rice and Ben Rhodes, because of the crazy "reformist" foreign policy ideas that live in their heads. The Pentagon, the State Department and the NSC are all united in punishing both Assad and Russia severely for their transgressions. The President, the one who would decide, is isolated in his decision, but he is gone in 4 months.

We saw this in Ukraine as well mind you. The Pentagon, the CIA and the State Department were and remain ready to send surplus heavy weapons to Ukraine, but it is Barack Obama and Barack Obama alone who has limited it to little more than kevlar and surplus, underarmored old Humvees (not even later up-armored Iraq-War era surplus).

The man is simply a menace, and you're making the same mistake he is, but falsely assuming the two options are "nothing" and "full scale war". The US could, for example, decide to take the risk of Russian casualties and bomb the Syrian Air Force out of existence. Unofficial estimates say such an operation would take 24 hours. It could also do what Russia did in Donbass and take the step of flooding Syria with anti-air equipment and force Russia to fight on the ground. It could also "accidentally" hit those S400 batteries just to send a message just like it "accidentally" hit those Syrian troops a few weeks back. And that's just the start of the list.

Well, problem is you're already doing that.

But your have various factions pulling in different directions, thus making overall efforts laughably weak. CIA has their rebels, Pentagon has their, Kerry has his, Obama clearly also has his own separate preferences, Turkey is both needed and has coup arranged, Saudi Arabia is both needed and gets 9/11 bill passed through Congress and so on.

I mean, nobody buys that American bombing of Assad troops near Deir ez-Zor was "a mistake" - because if it was a mistake it would mean Americans planned to bomb ISIS right where it contacts with Assad forces, thus helping Assad... which is much more crazy then some American faction with ability to order airstrikes saying "screw those diplomats and their ceasefire, we're bombing Assad". But that undermined effort by Kerry to help Aleppo rebels, to help them regroup and resupply! And same week someone also bombed UN aid convoy...

So you have faction that prefers ISIS to Assad, and faction that prefers Aleppo rebels to Assad, but they are working at cross purposes.

And since they couldn't align on Syria for what, five years at this point? Nothing points out to them aligning before next president is elected.

[Skroe]

Well, problem is you're already doing that.

But your have various factions pulling in different directions, thus making overall efforts laughably weak. CIA has their rebels, Pentagon has their, Kerry has his, Obama clearly also has his own separate preferences, Turkey is both needed and has coup arranged, Saudi Arabia is both needed and gets 9/11 bill passed through Congress and so on.

I mean, nobody buys that American bombing of Assad troops near Deir ez-Zor was "a mistake" - because if it was a mistake it would mean Americans planned to bomb ISIS right where it contacts with Assad forces, thus helping Assad... which is much more crazy then some American faction with ability to order airstrikes saying "screw those diplomats and their ceasefire, we're bombing Assad". But that undermined effort by Kerry to help Aleppo rebels, to help them regroup and resupply! And same week someone also bombed UN aid convoy...

So you have faction that prefers ISIS to Assad, and faction that prefers Aleppo rebels to Assad, but they are working at cross purposes.

And since they couldn't align on Syria for what, five years at this point? Nothing points out to them aligning before next president is elected.

Well this is sort of exactly my point. The factions pulling in different direction is a direct result of the Obama Power Vacuum.

The entire world has Barack Obama figured out to a degree that they've never figured out any President prior. They know that he would be perfectly content as like, Prime Minister of New Zealand or something... being a pure internal affairs President focused on healthcare and urban renewal and the issues only important to him. He absolutely hates the half of his job that is managing the global security situation as head of the world's most powerful military and as head of the world's largest and most experienced foreign diplomatic service.

His entire strategy in Syria, like Ukraine, like the South China Sea, has been procrastination because he knows what he SHOULD do (he's not stupid), but he also knows that doing so will turn him into the kind of President he doesn't want to be. It's actually manifestly selfish of him. But this is a guy who spent the first year of his term declaring that he wasn't a "War President", as if that term meant something and was anything more than a mostly rhetorical device. All Presidents are War Presidents. All Presidents are Peace Presidents. The world is complicated like that.

The abberation that is Barack Obama is reflected in how isolated he is. The State Department and Pentagon rarely agree. on Syria and Ukraine, among others, they agree. Maybe not in the specific fine details, but they certainly agree on consequences to Russia and Syria needing to be imposed that Obama not only rejects, he goes and rants in Atlantic Magazine, bragging about rejecting them.

Which is to say, this disorganization you're referencing, is tied to him. The next President - whoever that may be, it could honestly just be anybody other than Obama - will execute more definitive control because unlike Obama, they won't have the luxury of running out the clock. The coordination escaping the US comes from that.

I mean we see this everywhere. In the South China Sea, for example, it's gotten so serious the Pentagon has basically gone rogue and just started doing things, with Ash Carter's blessing, until they risk rebukes from the White House, when they tone it down.

Obama checked out. He checked out a while ago. He was a young Senator who was convinced to be President to help on the issues important to him, like education and health care. But he didn't come to respect the other half of the job that is foreign policy, and came to largely resent the downard pressure it had on his domestic agenda very early. Maybe foreigners don't quite get it, but here in America, Assad and the Red Line in 2013... that effectively ended Obama's second term. Within 9 months he was a lame duck. His political authority from re-election evaporated because allowing Assad to cross that red line showed that THIS President will not use the power available to him to achieve his goals, and as such, nobody, not even his domestic political enemies, had anything to fear from him.

This also means that Russia needs to watch itself. It it seeks to aggressively expand and lock in it's "gains" before Barry O is out of office, it needs to prepare for the next President to counterpunch in a brutally effective way. As your prior post showed, you're already expecting that not to happen, when that exact thing has happened before.

At what point are you folks going to start to remember? Because the policy is formulated. The studies are done. The assets are ready. All that is missing is a President who will say "go" and we're getting one in 4 months.

[Deleted]

I mean, nobody buys that American bombing of Assad troops near Deir ez-Zor was "a mistake" - because if it was a mistake it would mean Americans planned to bomb ISIS right where it contacts with Assad forces, thus helping Assad...

So you speak for evrybady now then you say "nobady buys that American" What gain did US get for intentionally killing a smale number of Assads troops compared to the propaganda and opinion loss they sufferd for it? Then its Troll logic you use in put up a false scenario, US was not there to helpe Assad they where there to destroy ISIS.

- - - Updated - - -

They must be able to track F-22's over Syria to claim publicly something so blatant as that.

Words are cheap, and its impress people like you.

[Skroe]

So you speak for evrybady now then you say "nobady buys that American" What gain did US get for intentionally killing a smale number of Assads troops compared to the propaganda and opinion loss they sufferd for it? Then its Troll logic you use in put up a false scenario, US was not there to helpe Assad they where there to destroy ISIS.

To be fair observers general consensus was that, that happening after a Russian air raid narrowly missed US special forces working with Rebels, it was meant to send a message along the lines of "do that again, and see what happens".

It's funny because the Putinistas were gloating about Russian bombers sending US special forces heading for cover. But then the US Air Force blew up a few dozen Syrian troops in an "accident", and Russia got the message and came to heel on that particular type of provocation.


This just gets back to the argument though that what Russia is doing is totally within it's safe zone of being able to do things, and the second it actually steps out of it - like it did with that bombing episode - and gets it's face slapped for it's misbehavior, it's back to doing things that mostly are low risk and play well on RT.

The fault for this though lies in Barack Obama though. He's basically putting the US military in this kind of impossible situation because he's committing them to a conflict without a clear demarkation of who is fighting what. If Russia had managed to kill any US troops playing their game for example, Obama would have pretty much had to order the destruction of the Syrian Air Force, or faced mass resignation of his military leadership (who consider "force protection" one of their highest priorities). The only reason this hasn't happened yet is because Barack Obama is both (1) lucky and (2) hoping Russia won't play games that lead to US fatalities. That's really all that's standing in the way of everything truly going to shit in Syria.

So hopefully that "accident" sent the proper message. The reason to be concerned is that, well... Putin's old KGB superiors considered him unpromising, sloppy and a bad gambler who mistook luck for talent, which is why he was sent to that East German backwater to begin with. Let's hope Putin truly knows his limits or there could be "accidents" at those S-400s that give Ulmita a warboner like nothing else.

[Shalcker]

So you speak for evrybady now then you say "nobady buys that American" What gain did US get for intentionally killing a smale number of Assads troops compared to the propaganda and opinion loss they sufferd for it? Then its Troll logic you use in put up a false scenario, US was not there to helpe Assad they where there to destroy ISIS.

Had they EVER bombed close enough to Assad troops before? Can you point another example?

Some Americans are there to destroy ISIS (or claim to), but actual American efforts seem more focused on undermining Assad.

And it happens because right hand of US has nor knowledge nor control of what left hand of US does. Ones who suffer "propaganda and opinion loss" are not the same as the ones who actually order bombings (or do coups) - and those who bomb might be actually fully invested in undermining them.

[Deleted]

I'm going to enjoy watching Skroe's post apocalyptic scenario never happen.

[Shalcker]

The fault for this though lies in Barack Obama though. He's basically putting the US military in this kind of impossible situation because he's committing them to a conflict without a clear demarkation of who is fighting what. If Russia had managed to kill any US troops playing their game for example, Obama would have pretty much had to order the destruction of the Syrian Air Force, or faced mass resignation of his military leadership (who consider "force protection" one of their highest priorities). The only reason this hasn't happened yet is because Barack Obama is both (1) lucky and (2) hoping Russia won't play games that lead to US fatalities. That's really all that's standing in the way of everything truly going to shit in Syria.

So hopefully that "accident" sent the proper message.

Yes, it sent proper message - that any further "incidents" should be prevented by Russian force rather then Russian words. For the same reason as you outlined above - there are Russians embedded in Syrian forces at various levels, and losing them to US attack would be just as unacceptable.

[Skroe]

Yes, it sent proper message - that any further "incidents" should be prevented by Russian force rather then Russian words. For the same reason as you outlined above - there are Russians embedded in Syrian forces at various levels, and losing them to US attack would be just as unacceptable.

It's fine, we're planning for just that contingency.



http://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone...bat-jet-scheme

America’s aggressor squadrons are a colorful bunch. Nearly half a century in existence, these units’ aircraft have worn a wide variety of camouflage schemes, including those they could face in air combat. One of the Navy’s adversary support units, VFC-12 “Omars” based out of NAS Oceana in Virginia, has led the way in mimicking the latest adversary paint schemes in recent years.
Now team Ambush has painted one of its Hornets in a newer Russian paint scheme that has become prevalent across the country’s tactical aircraft fleet—some of which are flying above war-torn Syria.

Known for its “Ambush” callsign, VFC-12 has played the enemy for decades so that east coast Navy fighter squadrons can hone their air-to-air skills against as realistic an aerial adversary as possible. A couple years ago, as the unit transitioned from F/A-18C/Ds to F/A-18A/B+s, it started painting its Hornets in an awesome monochromatic “splinter” style camo scheme like the ones worn by Russia’s T-50, and at the time the not yet operational Su-35.

The USAF’s 65th Aggressor Squadron quickly followed suit, fielding its own blue, white and gray version of the splinter scheme. Now that the 65th has been shuttered and its eclectically painted F-15C/Ds have been sent to other units, its sister unit, the 64th Aggressor Squadron, has applied the same scheme to some of its F-16s.

Now team Ambush has painted one of its Hornets in a newer Russian paint scheme that has become prevalent across the country’s tactical aircraft fleet—some of which are flying above war-torn Syria.





Originally, this charcoal gray on top / sky blue on the bottom motif appeared on the platypus-nosed Su-34 Fullback, and the big fighter-bomber wears it well, but now other Flanker derivatives like the Su-30 and Su-35 have also donned the same paint scheme. Even Russia’s Su-25 Frogfoots and some of their helicopter forces are painted in this charcoal tone, and with bright red stars contrasted on their tails they sure do look foreboding.

Deploying this replica paint scheme on American adversary aircraft makes a lot of sense, not just because it continues with a long tradition of emulating Russian paint schemes, but because American pilots are actually encountering aircraft painted just like this over Syria.

Now maybe Top Gun/NSAWC will paint one of their F-16s this way. That would look exceptionally sinister.

A small, but symbolic way of preparing our pilots to deal with those ridiculously painted flying pieces of scrap you call an Air Force.

We got your guy's number good. You forget Shalcker. Messing with Russia is the US Military's bread and butter. Getting back to it is going home again.

[Deleted]

I'm going to enjoy watching you never have the world work like you want it to.

I never expressed an opinion of how I want the world to work? So how can you enjoy that?
What I'm talking about, you know a trading led international community, that's ALREADY happening. That's reality right there gabriel.
But it's funny, while Skroe literally advocates for an open war scenario that would see places like your own hometown be destroyed at worst or collapsing economically at best, you're still going to lick his dirty asshole.

You're a burden gabriel. To your community, your country, Europe, and to be honest, the whole mankind. At least Skroe has a reason to come up with his abominations. He protects his interests. You don't. You're exactly what is going to hold europe back.

[Skroe]

I never expressed an opinion of how I want the world to work? So how can you enjoy that?
What I'm talking about, you know a trading led international community, that's ALREADY happening. That's reality right there gabriel.
But it's funny, while Skroe literally advocates for an open war scenario that would see places like your own hometown be destroyed at worst or collapsing economically at best, you're still going to lick his dirty asshole.

You're a burden gabriel. To your community, your country, Europe, and to be honest, the whole mankind. At least Skroe has a reason to come up with his abominations. He protects his interests. You don't. You're exactly what is going to hold europe back.

I advocate for the defense of our allies. They struck up their relationship with us in good faith and we are honor bound, for their good and our good, to follow through.

The threat doesn't emanate from the United States. It comes from Russia. You're one of the vanishing few who don't see that. You are in fact, the type of person who holds Europe back. You're desperately clinging to the illusion of 20 years of reconciliation with a country that would view you as it's domain if given the opportunity, despite the fact the world has changed. You, Djalil, have failed to keep up with events in the past few years as relationships worsened, so much so that you're stuck linking old quotes and news items with the date removed to make your case.

The status quo ante with Russia is never coming back. They are the West's enemy again, not our partner.

The US should not throw the first punch with Russia. But we should certainly make sure that if they choose to throw the first one, we break their arms and legs, so to speak, so they're left crawling around in the dirt by their chin. Does that make me 'advocating for open war'. No. That makes me someone who wouldn't bend over for an aggressive authoritarian regime, which I know is the kind of thing continental Europeans historically are rather prone to. That makes me a believer that it is in the interest of the United States, Europe and human freedom as a principle that free peoples stand up to the likes of the War Criminal Vladmir Putin. But don't worry. Uncle Sam will always be there to save you from yourselves. Because at the end of the day, we're family, and Russia is a home invader.

[Deleted]

You doge my questions, it is polite to answer the questions, before you throw some irrelevant question back....

Had they EVER bombed close enough to Assad troops before? Can you point another example?

No I do not know about it, becuse what I know Assads troops have nevere been bombed by the US before, so what relevence have it?

Some Americans are there to destroy ISIS (or claim to), but actual American efforts seem more focused on undermining Assad.

Yes its it not strange, both US, Russia, Rebells and Assad claim that there main priority is to destroy ISIS... but it look like all fencing for position.

And it happens because right hand of US has nor knowledge nor control of what left hand of US does. Ones who suffer "propaganda and opinion loss" are not the same as the ones who actually order bombings (or do coups) - and those who bomb might be actually fully invested in undermining them.

Now you come back to the motive, what gain did US get from purposely bomb as smale force of Assad troops? If the "bomber hand" do not care about "propaganda and opinion loss" Why just bomb one target? The US have the abbility to bomb more then one target.

[Deleted]

Ohh but you have. For the past 2 years you've done nothing but vomit your wishful thinking on this forum.

No. In fact you wouldn't have the slightest idea. The reason why you talk now is you're attempting an "educated guess".
The reality is you don't have a fucking clue about my political opinion as I never really said anything about it.

- - - Updated - - -

I advocate for the defense of our allies. They struck up their relationship with us in good faith and we are honor bound, for their good and our good, to follow through.

The threat doesn't emanate from the United States. It comes from Russia. You're one of the vanishing few who don't see that. You are in fact, the type of person who holds Europe back. You're desperately clinging to the illusion of 20 years of reconciliation with a country that would view you as it's domain if given the opportunity, despite the fact the world has changed. You, Djalil, have failed to keep up with events in the past few years as relationships worsened, so much so that you're stuck linking old quotes and news items with the date removed to make your case.

The status quo ante with Russia is never coming back. They are the West's enemy again, not our partner.

The US should not throw the first punch with Russia. But we should certainly make sure that if they choose to throw the first one, we break their arms and legs, so to speak, so they're left crawling around in the dirt by their chin. Does that make me 'advocating for open war'. No. That makes me someone who wouldn't bend over for an aggressive authoritarian regime, which I know is the kind of thing continental Europeans historically are rather prone to. That makes me a believer that it is in the interest of the United States, Europe and human freedom as a principle that free peoples stand up to the likes of the War Criminal Vladmir Putin. But don't worry. Uncle Sam will always be there to save you from yourselves. Because at the end of the day, we're family, and Russia is a home invader.

You don't. You're advocating full on war. Something that goes directly against your allies' interest.
You do that because it benefits your own little lobby. Not your allies. Not even your country.

[Shalcker]

You doge my questions, it is polite to answer the questions, before you throw some irrelevant question back....

I do not answer for "everyone", all opinions expressed are my own (or ones i agree with) unless otherwise mentioned.

No I do not know about it, becuse what I know Assads troops have nevere been bombed by the US before, so what relevence have it?

It is relevant because it shows magnitude of "mistake". Not just flying to any ISIS position somewhere in desert to degrade their capabilities or somewhere where Kurds clash with them, specifically to one at the edge of Assad-ISIS conflict. Do you think they have no intelligence gathering? No idea where Assad troops or ISIS are? Flying to randomly bomb somewhere?

You could also make plausible scenario that they had spy inside ISIS calling their positions that used his previous reliability on calling out ISIS positions to call airstike on Assad troops (in case claim about recording about it being available are true).

Now you come back to the motive, what gain did US get from purposely bomb as smale force of Assad troops? If the "bomber hand" do not care about "propaganda and opinion loss" Why just bomb one target? The US have the abbility to bomb more then one target.

You're again speaking of US as some monolithic entity. In my view it is mix of different goals and different factions.

Those bombing "gained" loss of face for Obama/Kerry team, undermining their diplomatic efforts. They "gained" increased tensions. And they might even "gain" actual clash in the end. But they cannot do it openly in a way that cannot be even "implausibly" denied like Deir ez-Zor, as that would amount to mutiny and/or treason.

[ParanoiD84]

They have killed like 50k isis fighters and dropped thousands of bombs, us and a bunch of other countrys including denmark dropps one and hit assads troops and now the us is working with daesh? Haha that's hilarious to say the least.

[Deleted]

If you wish to portray an image of something else than senile old dude you might want to actually bring forth some of these political opinions of yours every once in a while, instead of, you know the equivalent of "back in my day..." arguments.

Get with the times, gramps.

I know that at your age 32 might sound ancient. It isnt however, so I really don't know what you're talking about.

I'm perfectly able to discuss various topics without having to discuss my own political views.
If I don't, and I never did, it doesn't mean you're free to guess what political field I belong to, what ideologies I support and coming back to your post, what kind of world I envisage for the future.
I'm sorry gabriel, I don't do football politics. That allows me to make fun of the likes of you, totally and fully engaged in football politics.
"GO MY TEAM, YOUR TEAM SUCKS!"
"NO YOUR TEAM SUCKS!"

[Skroe]

You don't. You're advocating full on war. Something that goes directly against your allies' interest.
You do that because it benefits your own little lobby. Not your allies. Not even your country.

LOL. Whatever you say man..... Whatever you say....

Like I don't even know how to respond to this guy anymore. What do you do when I say X and somebody says "NO! You're Saying Y!"

The fuck is this really?

You know what the best part about this is Djalil? You've had to see all this happen over the last few years. You've had to see your hopes for a peaceful Eurasia bounded by economics crumble into dust, in slow motion.

You, personally, deserve it. I mean that. Those who will not stand against tyranny deserve to see their beliefs rejected.

You have been at the very forefront of the War Criminal Vladmir Putin's useful... well ya know... because rather than change with the times, at 32, you're holding on to a world that's dead and isn't coming back. And to do that you've let Russia literally get away with murder. From Crimea to MH17 to Syria.

[Deleted]

LOL. Whatever you say man..... Whatever you say....

Like I don't even know how to respond to this guy anymore. What do you do when I say X and somebody says "NO! You're Saying Y!"

The fuck is this really?

You know what the best part about this is Djalil? You've had to see all this happen over the last few years. You've had to see your hopes for a peaceful Eurasia bounded by economics crumble into dust, in slow motion.

You, personally, deserve it. I mean that. Those who will not stand against tyranny deserve to see their beliefs rejected.

You have been at the very forefront of the War Criminal Vladmir Putin's useful... well ya know... because rather than change with the times, at 32, you're holding on to a world that's dead and isn't coming back. And to do that you've let Russia literally get away with murder. From Crimea to MH17 to Syria.

Reality:

In February-March 2016, the European Leadership Network contacted its members
– former, present and emerging political, military, and diplomatic leaders from the
broader Europe area – to seek out their opinions regarding the current state of and future
prospects for EU–Russia relations and the pan-European security architecture. The 42
respondents represent a diverse and experienced group of individuals from 20 countries
and all major regions of Europe.
The main findings of the survey can be summarized as follows:
• The pan-European security system is not ideal, but it is worth preserving.
While some modifications were proposed, there was very little support for the creation
of a new system.
• The EU should put its weight behind the OSCE as an instrument for monitoring
and mediating the conflicts in the broader European area.
• A transformation of Russia’s policy, not accommodation with Moscow, should
be the EU’s goal. The current EU policy of making a full resumption of ties and any
future deepening of cooperation with Russia contingent on a change in Russian behaviour received the broadest support.
• The top three areas of potential EU security cooperation with Russia, as identi-
fied by the respondents, should be:
• The Middle East crisis;
• the fight against terrorism and;
• Non-proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and arms control.
• Regarding the common EU-Russia neighbourhood, cooperation is possible to
envision, but difficult to pursue at the present time.
The majority thought that it is possible to reach a satisfactory modus vivendi with Russia at some point, but Moscow’s policy towards the region remains the main obstacle.
• An overwhelming majority of respondents (85%) remained in favour of maintaining the original linkage of EU sanctions removal with Russia’s actions in
Ukraine.
More specifically, half of the respondents supported the position that the sanctions
should be gradually phased out only in return for progress on the implementation of
the Minsk 2 agreements. There was substantial backing for the EU’s engagement with the Eurasian Economic Union, but most of the respondents opted for a conditional offer, with EU-
EEU cooperation being made dependant on the modification of Russian behaviour.
• With regard to the sufficiency of protection of EU member states against hybrid
warfare through EU/NATO cooperation, the survey revealed widely diverging
assessments.
While 26% considered the actions taken so far by NATO and the EU as adequate, 29%
thought them insufficient.

Fantasy:
Your posts.


You keep talking about a "peaceful Eurasia crumble", while that's not happening at all.
Stop living in your fantasy world full of anger and hatred. No one wants the full on war you're wishing for. It wouldn't benefit anyone. Not Russia, not your allies, not your country. Just your tiny little lobby.
You're willing to sacrifice your own brothers and sisters for your own little selfish power schemes, driven by your own real life problems? Aren't you a bit ashamed of yourself?

"Stand against tyranny"
Bwahahahah

- - - Updated - - -

Oh and sorry one more question.
Are you saying you're not advocating for full on war?
Are you really telling us that what you're saying, isn't actually what you're saying?

[Ulmita]

Americans accuse others for war crimes must be the funniest thing i've read ever.