Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst ...
2
3
4
  1. #61
    The Undying Cthulhu 2020's Avatar
    15+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Rigging your election
    Posts
    36,799
    Quote Originally Posted by Skroe View Post
    I mean, I'll say it again, as I've been saying for ages now: the entire premise is ridiculous. Russia has about 30 fixed wing combat aircraft in Syria and about 12 of them (may actually be fewer now) are air superiority fighters. And it has a couple of handfuls of S-300 and S-400 launchers. This is not the stuff of World War III, especially when the US has hundreds of aircraft, bombers, carrier strike groups pretty much everywhere around it.

    The idea, from both Trumpkins and from Putinistas, that there was ever going to be some kind of showdown - be it over a no fly zone or something else - in Syria was always fanciful and delusional. Russia simply doesn't have the forces in Syria to make that a credible risk, nor does it have the manpower, money, or aircraft to scale up their presence in a way that acts as an effective counterweight to the US-allied presence in the region.

    These cruise missile strike really just laid that bare. Of course, the US striking a Russian base and exposing the fact that Russia can't protect Syria in no way implies Russia can't protect itself, on its home territory. But it does lay bare the enormous amount of bullshit people like Ulmita, Shalcker and the Trumpkins have spent years parroting. Syria is not important enough to Russia to get into World War III over, and there were always going to scope their mission with that in mind.

    I mean even the "naval base" at Tartus is scarcely worthy of the name. It can host 4 mid-sized ships, and it's far too small for Russia's most capable combat ships. It's scheduled for modest expansion, but Naval Base Subic Bay-on-the-Mediterranean, it ain't gonna be.

    Hopefully this acts a reality check for the you-know-who's. But I doubt it. For whatever reason they have a really hard to seeing the difference between how the US holds Baltic or German security as a core interests with how Russia holds Syria. They're entirely different.
    I do like how @Shlacker and other Putinistas are in here minutes after an incident to immediately deny Putin's role in something. It's almost like they're Putin's direct right hand men posting on an MMO gaming forum to make sure some WoW players don't get the wrong idea about dear leader Putin, or they are completely full of shit.
    2014 Gamergate: "If you want games without hyper sexualized female characters and representation, then learn to code!"
    2023: "What's with all these massively successful games with ugly (realistic) women? How could this have happened?!"

  2. #62
    Quote Originally Posted by caervek View Post
    That may be true, but who has the balls?

    Lets be blunt here, the US launched an air strike against the military of a sovereign nation because they didn't quite like something they allegedly did, a nation they are currently bombing against the will of that nation because they claim to have a legal grey area to do so, and nobody is going to do anything about any of it because it's a superpower and there's nothing they can do but cry :P
    Pretty much. This get's back to what I was saying by the way, months ago: you know what you get when you have an America that isn't acting as a defender of the Rules Based International Order? An America unleashed that is too strong for anybody, even collectively, to do anything about.

    It would be this, on steroids, with a ton of crack. The Rules based international order acts as a constraining force to protect the weak from the strong to a greater degree than the great-power competition that preceded it. And who is stronger than the US? It boggles my mind how people think that it's undoing would see a lessened US. No. One does not build 355 ship navies and hundreds of bomber aircraft to patrol ones shores. Absent the rules, the US could become a marauding nation the likes of which the world has never seen. It is rich enough, strong enough, populous enough, geographically isolated enough, to do so. It would be a catastrophe for the global community that it would be unable to respond to.

    So if people don't like the US doing pretty much whatever it pleases... you know what you have to do.

    (1) Get Russia out of Crimea and get them paying restitution to Ukraine.
    (2) Get Russia to re-observe the INF Treaty and have them destroy their illegal missiles
    (3) Get China out of the SCS and sink their artificial islands.

    This is kind of the big-three rules being broken at the moment. Fix them, and the rules-based international order starts to gain some of its credibility back.

    The alternative to this is the US doing it's own kind of counterweight asymmetry. Space weapons. Global strike weapons. Cyberwarfare and Global survellience that makes what's come already look tame. Expanding the use of sanctions as a means of leverage.

    And here's the thing: don't take this as me saying this is good, or I WANT this. This is rather the emergent properties of a powerful country that is challenged and unconstrained by rules.

    "Doing Nothing and keeping to ourselves" is never going to be in the cards. The human race is stuck with a powerful America and it's way past time that the Old World figure out how to make its peace with it.

  3. #63
    Elemental Lord
    15+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Wales, UK
    Posts
    8,527
    Quote Originally Posted by Skroe View Post
    The idea, from both Trumpkins and from Putinistas, that there was ever going to be some kind of showdown - be it over a no fly zone or something else - in Syria was always fanciful and delusional. Russia simply doesn't have the forces in Syria to make that a credible risk, nor does it have the manpower, money, or aircraft to scale up their presence in a way that acts as an effective counterweight to the US-allied presence in the region.
    The thing is though, if there was an "incident" between the USA/Russia in Syria where the USA was the clear aggressor then the benefit of that to Russia would far outweigh any material loss, and considering Putin's almost chess like political/military strategies it's conceivable they would be willing to take the loss to get the win if that makes sense. There is an entire generation of people now who didn't live during the cold war and who see the USA as worse than Russia because of the way it tramples across the middle east leaving corpses in it's wake (sounds dramatic but that's how they see it).

    Russia are winning a "hearts and minds" campaign against the USA and in future it will be harder and harder for western governments to pass sanctions against them when their public don't support it.

    Hell it's not like the USA could go to the UN with a straight face and say "We need to pass more sanctions against Russia because we attacked them in Syria and that sparked an incident resulting in a load of their guys dying".

  4. #64
    Quote Originally Posted by caervek View Post

    Hell it's not like the USA could go to the UN with a straight face and say "We need to pass more sanctions against Russia because we attacked them in Syria and that sparked an incident resulting in a load of their guys dying".

    The UN rarely acts with fair rational in mind. In truth the US could probably do something outrageous to Russia and still get tighter sanctions on them just because the weaker Russia is the more it benefits certain other countries. Russia has a fair history of getting screwed over starting back in WW2 when it held up its end of the bargain and the US spit in its face.

  5. #65
    Quote Originally Posted by Jedi Batman View Post
    I do like how @Shlacker and other Putinistas are in here minutes after an incident to immediately deny Putin's role in something. It's almost like they're Putin's direct right hand men posting on an MMO gaming forum to make sure some WoW players don't get the wrong idea about dear leader Putin, or they are completely full of shit.
    Sadly Western media is about as often full of shit in their claims, and that's what gets threads going here.

    And when truth finally gets out noone is interested as they are already chasing next shiny story confirming their prejudices.

  6. #66
    Quote Originally Posted by Shalcker View Post
    Sadly Western media is about as often full of shit in their claims, and that's what gets threads going here.

    And when truth finally gets out noone is interested as they are already chasing next shiny story confirming their prejudices.
    Uh huh.

    Riddle Me this: How does one defeat 30 Russian aircraft and an integrated air defense system?

    Answer: With a simple phone call.

    Russia can't protect anybody.

  7. #67
    Elemental Lord
    15+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Wales, UK
    Posts
    8,527
    Quote Originally Posted by Skroe View Post
    I mean, I'll say it again, as I've been saying for ages now: the entire premise is ridiculous. Russia has about 30 fixed wing combat aircraft in Syria and about 12 of them (may actually be fewer now) are air superiority fighters. And it has a couple of handfuls of S-300 and S-400 launchers. This is not the stuff of World War III, especially when the US has hundreds of aircraft, bombers, carrier strike groups pretty much everywhere around it.
    IIRC that was only done to scare Turkey into not even thinking of going after another Russian jet. They don't have any intention or the balls to get into it with 'Murica.

  8. #68
    Quote Originally Posted by caervek View Post
    IIRC that was only done to scare Turkey into not even thinking of going after another Russian jet. They don't have any intention or the balls to get into it with 'Murica.
    Generally correct I think, along with typical Putin-style low-cost/high-impact displays of power and influence, that only work when the other side doesn't do anything.

    But when that other side does... it lays bare how low-cost is actually low-cost, and high-impact is really, really relative.

  9. #69
    Quote Originally Posted by caervek View Post
    Oh my god.. Reading the comment section on that article literally gave me cancer. Putin has some good bots.

  10. #70
    Quote Originally Posted by GennGreymane View Post
    Wonder if hes considering a no flight zone
    Russia has already done that.

  11. #71
    Quote Originally Posted by Skroe View Post
    Uh huh.
    Riddle Me this: How does one defeat 30 Russian aircraft and an integrated air defense system?
    Answer: With a simple phone call.
    Russia can't protect anybody.
    We're not there to "protect", that's American job, go do it, those Mosul/Raqqa kids are waiting for another of your "liberating" airstrikes.

    Our job there is to help Assad fight extremists, and eventually win. We protect our own assets, and that base wasn't one of them.

  12. #72
    The notion that Putin would dare get in to an actual war with the US is laughable. He is much too smart for that.

  13. #73
    The Lightbringer stabetha's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    middle of the desert U.S.A.
    Posts
    3,517
    Quote Originally Posted by GennGreymane View Post
    I just find it funny how quickly people are turning around on a major point.
    no ones turning around, things have changed.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Shalcker View Post
    We're not there to "protect", that's American job, go do it, those Mosul/Raqqa kids are waiting for another of your "liberating" airstrikes.

    Our job there is to help Assad fight children, and the elderly, and eventually win by breaking international laws and becoming war criminals. We protect our own assets with chemical warfare, and that base wasn't one of them.
    I think you skipped the important parts there, I got it for you.
    you can't make this shit up
    Quote Originally Posted by Elba View Post
    Third-wave feminism or Choice feminism is actually extremely egalitarian
    Quote Originally Posted by Mormolyce View Post
    I hate America
    Quote Originally Posted by Mormolyce View Post
    I don't read/watch any of these but to rank them:Actual news agency (mostly factual):CNN MSNBC NPR

  14. #74
    Theres no WW3 incoming.


    Also kinda roll my eyes at people thinking UK, Canada, France, Germany, Australia, etc wouldnt fight In a USA vs Russia conflict. They would all fight even if USA fired first actually. Until we have tech that can neutralize nuclear weapons like in ghost in the shell, no war will be fought. Lets be realistic the only reason the west and east expansionism is left to shitholes is because of nuclear weapons. Remove those and Russia will vanish witin a decade. Staline knew this, thats why he fast tracked the nuke, thanks to his spies.

  15. #75
    Banned GennGreymane's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Wokeville mah dood
    Posts
    45,475
    Quote Originally Posted by stabetha View Post
    no ones turning around, things have changed.

    - - - Updated - - -

    I think you skipped the important parts there, I got it for you.
    But hes had the chemical weapons for years and apparently had used them very early on, not much changed

  16. #76
    The Lightbringer stabetha's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    middle of the desert U.S.A.
    Posts
    3,517
    Quote Originally Posted by GennGreymane View Post
    But hes had the chemical weapons for years and apparently had used them very early on, not much changed
    Obama and Susan Rice "took care" of the chemical weapons remember

    “We were able to find a solution that didn’t necessitate the use of force that actually removed the chemical weapons that were known from Syria, in a way that the use of force would never have accomplished."
    Susan "Pinocchio" Rice
    you can't make this shit up
    Quote Originally Posted by Elba View Post
    Third-wave feminism or Choice feminism is actually extremely egalitarian
    Quote Originally Posted by Mormolyce View Post
    I hate America
    Quote Originally Posted by Mormolyce View Post
    I don't read/watch any of these but to rank them:Actual news agency (mostly factual):CNN MSNBC NPR

  17. #77
    Banned GennGreymane's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Wokeville mah dood
    Posts
    45,475
    Quote Originally Posted by stabetha View Post
    Obama and Susan Rice "took care" of the chemical weapons remember

    Susan "Pinocchio" Rice
    Ah so nothing changed

    coolio

  18. #78
    Quote Originally Posted by stabetha View Post
    no ones turning around, things have changed.
    - - - Updated - - -
    I think you skipped the important parts there, I got it for you.
    Please choke on your shit yourself, don't try to stuff in anybody else. Thanks.
    Garrison Mission Manager: Select best followers for BfA, Legion and WoD missions.
    Instance Spec: Switch to spec suitable for your role when "dungeon ready" pops up.
    LDB: WoW Token: Monitor WoW Token price changes in LDB display.
    Other addons: Quest Map with Details * LFG Filter for Premade Groups * Obvious Mail Expiration.

  19. #79
    Quote Originally Posted by Wyrt View Post
    If the US attacks Syria and then Syria's allies attack the US, does that invoke NATO because the US is attacked or does it not since the US attacked first?
    Officialy it will depend where the (in this case) US forces are when attacked to trigger NATO Article 5. To determine that there is Article 6:

    Article 6

    For the purpose of Article 5, an armed attack on one or more of the Parties is deemed to include an armed attack:

    on the territory of any of the Parties in Europe or North America, on the Algerian Departments of France [2], on the territory of or on the Islands under the jurisdiction of any of the Parties in the North Atlantic area north of the Tropic of Cancer;

    on the forces, vessels, or aircraft of any of the Parties, when in or over these territories or any other area in Europe in which occupation forces of any of the Parties were stationed on the date when the Treaty entered into force or the Mediterranean Sea or the North Atlantic area north of the Tropic of Cancer.
    So technically when US forces are attacked on the ground in Syria it wouldn't trigger Article 5. But don't worry, every NATO ally in the vicinity will respond
    "The opposite of love is not hate, it's indifference. The opposite of art is not ugliness, it's indifference. The opposite of faith is not heresy, it's indifference. And the opposite of life is not death, it's indifference."

    Elie Wiesel (1928 – 2016)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •