Russian military presence in Syria poses challenge to US-led intervention

[Kasierith]

Russia is smarter than the US, then. :P

We tend to be very.. trepidatious, about things involving the Middle East and intervention. For historical reasons.

[Themius]

Not for another 30+ years. They have a long way to go before they present a substantial threat to the US, even if they continue along their current route in progress. They have to survive their incoming population crash.

Yes, but, China is something to think about in the oncoming decades.

[Elegiac]

I die a little when pretentious people post.

There are really only two countries that can pose any real threat, that are quite large and powerful. Those being China and Russia. Saying that China poses absolutely no threat at all is ignorant.

China does not pose a threat simply because their vested economic interest in the US is so great.

Russia is a different story. But, their current government seems to be vastly more conciliatory than its Imperial predecessor.

[Themius]

The Chinese are too busy pushing around their neighbors to the south and trying to get the Japanese to start a war to care about what happens in Syria.

I'm not so much talking about Syria, but countries in general that can pose a threat.

---------- Post added 2012-12-24 at 08:53 AM ----------

China does not pose a threat simply because their vested economic interest in the US is so great.

Russia is a different story. But, their current government seems to be vastly more conciliatory than its Imperial predecessor.

Currently; however, we can not say for certain that sometime in the next 50 years things will remain the same, with US being a giant consumer of Chinese goods.

[Kasierith]

I die a little when pretentious people post.

There are really only two countries that can pose any real threat, that are quite large and powerful. Those being China and Russia. Saying that China poses absolutely no threat at all is ignorant.

China has massive infrastructure problems, as well as technological, and even if they have one of the largest militaries in the world they don't have the funds to equip them all half as well as the US. Not to mention, a lack of a substantial air force would make a naval invasion laughable. Seeing as their strongest resource is cheap labor, they're also going to hit a very hard point when the child limitation laws hits, after their current labor generations get old and put massive strain on their resources.

Russia is not stable, not really. We're improving, to be sure, but the absolute collapse followed by years of near anarchy had a substantial effect on us. We're also still doing restorations from things all the way back to world war II, dealing with culture shocks, working to extent basic resources over a vast area (for example, some of the hospitals in the outlaying cities in the wilderness are so subpar you might be better off having a surgery in your house), dealing with lashback from Soviet relations with other countries in the world, dealing with a very multifaceted party system pulling politics in multiple directions while radical leaders stir up youth movements for their own ends... it is unlikely that Russia will be willing to initiate a conflict for quite some time.

[Themius]

NATO, is that still around? I suppose, but it really doesn't mean that the US has any business getting involved.

China and Russia are just sabre rattling, nothing more.

US will be dragged in if things escalate though, because of NATO. It also doesn't matter whether or not the US is actively taking part in NATO, just that word is enough for most of the middle east to instantly think about America.

[Deleted]

I was Navy (Submarines) before I went Army, Never had the lash though.

Just the sodomy eh?

[Elegiac]

Currently; however, we can not say for certain that sometime in the next 50 years things will remain the same, with US being a giant consumer of Chinese goods.

Well, if the people whining about outsourcing have their way, this may be the case.

But even then, China still has a significant infrastructural gap that is not going to be overcome within the next five decades, and barring that, MAD still holds.

[Beavis]

China has massive infrastructure problems, as well as technological, and even if they have one of the largest militaries in the world they don't have the funds to equip them all half as well as the US. Not to mention, a lack of a substantial air force would make a naval invasion laughable. Seeing as their strongest resource is cheap labor, they're also going to hit a very hard point when the child limitation laws hits, after their current labor generations get old and put massive strain on their resources.

Russia is not stable, not really. We're improving, to be sure, but the absolute collapse followed by years of near anarchy had a substantial effect on us. We're also still doing restorations from things all the way back to world war II, dealing with culture shocks, working to extent basic resources over a vast area (for example, some of the hospitals in the outlaying cities in the wilderness are so subpar you might be better off having a surgery in your house), dealing with lashback from Soviet relations with other countries in the world, dealing with a very multifaceted party system pulling politics in multiple directions while radical leaders stir up youth movements for their own ends... it is unlikely that Russia will be willing to initiate a conflict for quite some time.

Plus, warfare is moving towards greater mechanization and automation, and the US is the only country with the infrastructure to have dem drones blowing things up on the other side of the planet while being pilot from a shed in Nevada.

[Kasierith]

Plus, warfare is moving towards greater mechanization and automation, and the US is the only country with the infrastructure to have dem drones blowing things up on the other side of the planet while being pilot from a shed in Nevada.

I thought that France was the world leading expert on remote military aircraft?

[Beavis]

I thought that France was the world leading expert on remote military aircraft?

I'm too sleepy to tell if you're joking.

[Elegiac]

Russia is not stable, not really. We're improving, to be sure, but the absolute collapse followed by years of near anarchy had a substantial effect on us. We're also still doing restorations from things all the way back to world war II, dealing with culture shocks, working to extent basic resources over a vast area (for example, some of the hospitals in the outlaying cities in the wilderness are so subpar you might be better off having a surgery in your house), dealing with lashback from Soviet relations with other countries in the world, dealing with a very multifaceted party system pulling politics in multiple directions while radical leaders stir up youth movements for their own ends... it is unlikely that Russia will be willing to initiate a conflict for quite some time.

Russia....is difficult. Even people who have spent half their lives studying history and political science have problems classifying Russia's nature and predicting its directions. Russia is at a crossroads, yes, but really it has been at a crossroads since the days of the Kievan Rus.

[Deleted]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012...itary-presence



ups the stakes a bit doesnt it. just need some chineese troops in Iran and the stage is set.

Meh, leave them to it. Let's not get involved. We'll just get shit for it anyway.

[Kasierith]

I'm too sleepy to tell if you're joking.

I am not, actually. I'm fairly certain they first started using drones in the mid '90s, and have invested quite a bit in their development.

Russia....is difficult. Even people who have spent half their lives studying history and political science have problems classifying Russia's nature and predicting its directions. Russia is at a crossroads, yes, but really it has been at a crossroads since the days of the Kievan Rus.

True... but when you get down to it, the best way to attempt to predict what Russia will do next, is what is most practical for completing the current leadership's goals. Currently, we're lucky enough to have a government focused on the nation progressing and growing, even if they do so with a utilitarian mindset.

[Elegiac]

Does the precise word matter when in the end the US is not invading Syria?

Yes. Because 'prevent' implies that the US is unable, not merely unwilling.

Either way, while the notion of Russian prevention is a joke (sorry Kas), I would rather the US not get involved in Syria either way. Libya was bad enough.

[Deleted]

I die a little inside when people try to state that China is a threat to the US.

Some people on this board just apply RTS logics into real world conflicts scenarios. "We have bigger army than them, so they are no threat to us." Are you really that hollow to believe that a nation fully capable of striking back in an open conflict is not a threat to the USA? And do you really believe the USA(or any other "superpower", for the matter) will risk going into a global(and possibly nuclear) conflict because of something like this?

[Beavis]

Does the precise word matter when in the end the US is not invading Syria?

The US isn't looking to invade Syria, nor has it been seriously considering intervening. Thus, calling something a deterrent when the behavior you're trying to deter isn't on the table to begin with isn't exactly accurate.

[Elegiac]

Some people on this board just apply RTS logics into real world conflicts scenarios. "We have bigger army than them, so they are no threat to us." Are you really that hollow to believe that a nation fully capable of striking back in an open conflict is not a threat to the USA? And do you really believe the USA(or any other "superpower", for the matter) will risk going into a global(and possibly nuclear) conflict because of something like this?

Please. The lack of threat does not arise from disparity in size, but a delta in infrastructure, technology, and the simple fact that China and the US are economically codependent.

[Beavis]

I am not, actually. I'm fairly certain they first started using drones in the mid '90s, and have invested quite a bit in their development.

The US has been using recon drones in combat since the early 60s. But, our big edge today is our space infrastructure. So, make of that what you will.

[Elegiac]

And the other word implies that they can do whatever they want, which isn't true either.

That being the issue. They don't want to. If they did, they could.