Russia, Turkey, Iran establish no-flight zones in Syria for US-led coalition planes

[Kuntantee]

@Skroe
They can enlarge the base if its needed, or sail their bigger ships to there. It's a non-issue.

[Deleted]

Yeah... a lot of Syrian men spending the mid-2000s being bused over the border into Iraq and fighting Coalition troops there. How many American, Iraqi and Coalition troops died by a Syrian's hands last decade?

Small wonder people who fought in an insurgency in Iraq went home, and a few years later, started their own, huh?

I don't really care what happens to Syrians. America's objectives in the region are more important. I'm not going to shed tears over the killers of US troops.




Is every partnership "being a bitch" to you or something? The US and Saudis just happen to largely agree. The Saudis view Syria (and even more so, Yemen) as part of their proxy war with Iran. They want to keep Iran in iran and don't want the Iranians to establish footholds to the Saudi's North and South. It's a very worthy goal of the Saudis, and one we should be assisting in.

And though we talk much of Russia in Syria in these threads, we talk a great deal less about Iran. Iran's losses in Syria have been staggering. They've spent billions of dollars there. They've lost many experienced Quuds force fighters and commanders. Israel managed to even kill off a number of their Iranian intelligence most wanted who went to prop up Assad.

Saudi Arabia cares about Syria largely through the Iranian-interests angle (Russia doesn't really interest them), and to that end, they've had a great degree of success in curtailing it.

Stereotypical vengeful internet warrior squadron REPORTING! You couldn't be any more stereotypical if you tried.

The fact that you agree you should assist the house of saud in spreading the dangerous ideologies that are ruining that part of the world and having consequences on world economics says loads about your ignorance.
Nasty mix of ignorance, arrogance and fanatism you have there. Be proud of yourself. You're serving your lobby well, at the expenses of your own country and people. A true patriot.
Let's all hope for an American roberspierre.

[Skroe]

@Skroe
They can enlarge the base if its needed, or sail their bigger ships to there. It's a non-issue.

And the US can put gigantic turbines on the USS George Washington and make a helicarrier if its needed, and who would need sea ports them! It's a non-issue.

Like what the fuck is this Kuntantee? You're basically waving a magic wand and saying "things that are don't matter, but things that could be do".

I thought you were a materalist/pragmatist?

[caervek]

Nobody gives a shit about Putin's popularity or approval outside of Russia.

But he and the people who vote for him are in Russia, hence why courting their favour is important to him.

[Deleted]

The US did last month. That puts a big red X through everythig in your post.

I actually went through line by line of what you wrote. and doubled checked. Everything you said was emphatically canceled out by the fact that Russia, and it's acoylytes, went around saying, for years, the US would never attack Assad directly because he is protected by Russian troops, and all that got Russia was a 60 minutes "hide in your barracks, our missiles are coming" warning.

Russia can't protect anybody.

Or not. A bit of theatre doesn't change anything. The situation is still exactly the same. Calling up Putin and warning him to move his troops isn't acting unilaterally. America formally could do exactly what it wanted, now Russia and China have popped up and thier power has waned.

[Deleted]

But he and the people who vote for him are in Russia, hence why courting their favour is important to him.

Damn Russians being in Russia!
Not for long though, according to Skroe, or sorry... stratfor (Lol ahhahah) Russia is breaking up again!
We are witnessing this now! Hundreds of people protested in Russia last month...
HUNDREDS!

[caervek]

He didn't trap Trump rofl. He didn't trap anybody. What in gods name are you trying to pull here?

He has executed a political chess move that has no outcome/response which is not beneficial to Putin and detrimental to the USA, Trump has to pick one of those responses, it's quite a trap. One has to wonder if Obama or Hillary would have been outplayed as easily.

[Deleted]

Or not. A bit of theatre doesn't change anything. The situation is still exactly the same. Calling up Putin and warning him to move his troops isn't acting unilaterally. America formally could do exactly what it wanted, now Russia and China have popped up and thier power has waned.

And the more the US, misguided by Skroe's owne... uh sorry I meant bosses, keep fucking up around the world in their... pathetic string of failures that's now spanning across several decades, the more China and Russia will keep "popping up".

[Kuntantee]

And the US can put gigantic turbines on the USS George Washington and make a helicarrier if its needed, and who would need sea ports them! It's a non-issue.

Sending ships there or enlarging the base is a matter of investment.

Like what the fuck is this Kuntantee? You're basically waving a magic wand and saying "things that are don't matter, but things that could be do".

I thought you were a materalist/pragmatist?

I am indeed. Russia doesn't need bigger military ships there, because rebels do not dwell in waters. A likely resource/energy line conflict will attract bigger Russian ships and potential infrastructure investment by Russia.

[caervek]

The fact that you agree you should assist the house of saud in spreading the dangerous ideologies that are ruining that part of the world and having consequences on world economics says loads about your ignorance.

In fairness you're talking about somebody who said the 9/11 attacks were a great price to pay for the damage that funding/training Osama/etc did to the USSR in Afghanistan.

[Deleted]

This "US people have inferiority complex" thing is fucking bizarre. If someone has inferiority complex it is the "bwaaaah bad bad US keeping us poor poor oppressed Slavs down" folks. (mind you mods, "Slav" is not used in derogatory capacity, but descriptive one, as it is the Pan-Slavist who started to use it first).

If US dictating the world order is so anxiety inducing for you folks, maybe you should do something about it?

Americans live off of their inferiority complex. That is why America exists in the first place. They wanted to be unique and different. At the same time, not being as smart and sophisticated as Europeans, they never managed to become unique. They are a shade of Europe, no more than that.

Slavs don't feel oppressed. We feel enlightened for a new time to come.

[Skroe]

Or not. A bit of theatre doesn't change anything. The situation is still exactly the same. Calling up Putin and warning him to move his troops isn't acting unilaterally. America formally could do exactly what it wanted, now Russia and China have popped up and thier power has waned.

SO now we're redefinining unilateralism so that it isn't unilateralism.

Can you point to me the UN or NATO resolution authorizing it? Can you name 1 ally that assisted the US? Yeah I thought not.

The US's power dynamic hasn't changed remotely in the way you're suggesting. The Russian military for example, was far more powerful vis a vis the US in 1995, or even 2002, than it is in 2017. The danger from Russia comes from how reckless it gets as its decline continues.

US power versus China has seen a modest relative decline, but both are more powerful today when compared to everyone else, than they were ten years ago. The EU has decline. The BRIC concept is a distant memory.

And the fact remains that the US is at this point, pretty much the only engine of economic activity int he world at the moment worth a scrap. So I'm not sure how you can be trying to make that point. On what basis? The US does Freedom of Navigation Patrols in the SCS regularly. it does not recognize the Chinese Air identification zone. China enforces neither. Russian troops being on a base the US struck didn't dissuade us. Like do you realize the significance of that? That's never actually happened up until now. In all the conflicts the US has fought, it's never struck a base that Russian troops were present on like this and just told them to stay inside.

It's laughable you can somehow sit there and claim the US is constrained to act, when the risk of killing dozens of Russian citizens last month, with cruise missiles, didn't constrain it. It just got Russia courtesy phone call.

[caervek]

Should it decide to, the US would be able to establish absolute air supremacy rapidly because of the lack of assets Syria and Russia have in play. To attempt to prevent the US from doing so would require a massive escalation by Russia involving attacking NATO countries and rendering at least one carrier combat ineffective.

I think you missed the point, they don't need to stop the US coalition, they just need to offer enough resistance that the USA come out of it looking like colossal bad guys and the Russian coalition looking good (in the eyes of their people).

It's somewhat similar to the Cuban missile crisis, the USSR never wanted missiles in Cuba, they wanted the US missiles in Turkey gone (as they could execute a first strike before a response could be launched), and via political chess and outplaying Kennedy that's exactly what they got.

[Kuntantee]

Slavs don't feel oppressed. We feel enlightened for a new time to come.

Is that Vlad the Impaler on your avatar?

[Skroe]

Sending ships there or enlarging the base is a matter of investment.

I am indeed. Russia doesn't need bigger military ships there, because rebels do not dwell in waters. A likely resource/energy line conflict will attract bigger Russian ships and potential infrastructure investment by Russia.

And will invite a US countermeasure which would entirely negate it. I mean let's keep something in mind: not even the Soviet Union was a Naval power. Russia isn't about to be either. It could grow it's little fishing boat base to Norfolk size, it'd still be entirely outmatched by what the US keeps in the Eastern Mediterranean every day of the week.

Which was entirely my point. On what planet do you people come from, whereby Russia putting a few missiles, a few planes and a few boats someplace it wasn't - and let's keep in mind, they are a few - is a game changer. Does it suddenly become a double game changer when the US goes back to keeping two carriers in the Mediterranean or something in response? There is no consistency. You're trying to give Russia 'win' for some reason, even though no rational mind could assess Russia's comparatively meager Syrian presence at all as a strategic camechanger versus what the West has long kept in the region.

[Deleted]

In fairness you're talking about somebody who said the 9/11 attacks were a great price to pay for the damage that funding/training Osama/etc did to the USSR in Afghanistan.

Doesn't surprise me. At the end of the day he is happy to damage his own country and own people as long as it benefits his own lobby.

- - - Updated - - -

Ohh sweet summer's child. Do you honestly think Putin would step down even if majority of Russians asked him to?

Dat question tho.

[Skroe]

I think you missed the point, they don't need to stop the US coalition, they just need to offer enough resistance that the USA come out of it looking like colossal bad guys and the Russian coalition looking good (in the eyes of their people).

It's somewhat similar to the Cuban missile crisis, the USSR never wanted missiles in Cuba, they wanted the US missiles in Turkey gone (as they could execute a first strike before a response could be launched), and via political chess and outplaying Kennedy that's exactly what they got.

Which were obsolete and due to be retired anyway because US Ballistic Missile Submarines, armed with the Polaris A-1 missile entered service less than a month after the crisis. '41 for Freedom' would replace he European land-based missiles as a concept, across the 1960s.

I vaguely recall having a rather pointless conversation with you about that little fact.

[Sliske]

No, they never actually explained it. It was just Insta WW3

So you're comparing the US putting a no fly zone over Syria, who are Allies with Russia, essentially telling Russia "if you protect your Ally, we will attack you"

with:

Syria's own allies placing a no fly zone over Syria to stop non-Allied-with-Syria planes from flying over it.

Can you see how far you're reaching?

If I came to your house and put down an area on your land where none of your friends could come without threats of violence, would you be happy - yes or no?

[Shalcker]

Best thing we can do in Syria is make sure it's terrible, then stick Russia with the bill.

...while you hold bill for Iraq, right?

...because obviously you aren't going to leave Iraq to Russia and Iran after all you have done there?

...and Afghanistan, for good measure. Clearly that's how WINNING looks like.

- - - Updated - - -

Ohh sweet summer's child. Do you honestly think Putin would step down even if majority of Russians asked him to?

Yeah, when it comes to majority people step down nicely or they step down not so nicely, but they do step down.

Problem is obviously getting majority to agree stepping down is necessary; and with Western pressure "closing the ranks" is much more natural response then "anyone but Putin".

[Skroe]

...while you hold bill for Iraq, right?

...because obviously you aren't going to leave Iraq to Russia and Iran after all you have done there?

US interests in Asia-Pacific and Europe are more important.

We just have to stop Iraq and Russia/Iran from getting too close, which we've successfully done for years. Iraq will never be able to replace Saudi Arabia, Qatar or the UAE for us. Not for decades to come at least.

But anyway, Crimea... Syria... what's next? Russia enjoys scoffing down expensive to sustain shit sandwiches. And you know what the part that gets me most about that is? Onstensibly, both allow Russia to project Naval power. Russia has never and will never be a significant naval power. It can't built ships. It never had the ships. It's spending resources on something it's not going to be. Russia's a land power. I mean sure, as Kuntandee said, it can expand it's little dock at Tartus to... what..? Host the Aircraft carriers it isn't building, or the destroyers it doesn't have?

And spare me hitting me with some ridiculous Russian Navy CGI about some 110,000 ton Carrier by 2026. We both know it's bullshit.