Russia's at it again

[2cents]

Where a force that we back ends with total or significant political power enabling similar Western influence.

Name that force - the SDF?

Probably as a democratic state with credible elections

That's a fantasy. Be realistic.

 

[Raoul]

Name that force - the SDF?



That's a fantasy. Be realistic.

It is the end state that will eventually come to be, whether in a few years or a decade. Assad is unsustainable after 7 years of civil war, as are the myriad of other groups who opposed him.

 

[2cents]

It is the end state that will eventually come to be, whether in a few years or a decade. Assad is unsustainable after 7 years of civil war, as are the myriad of other groups who opposed him.

You've been saying this for seven years.

 

[Raoul]

You've been saying this for seven years.

The time horizon is irrelevant. What is important is the reality that Syria is not going to revert to pre-civil war authoritarianism after 7 years of the Assad regime taking a murderous recking ball to the country, and that on top of decades of dictatorship. Too many rubicons have been crossed to ever go back without yet more protracted civil war.

 

[Cheesy]

The time horizon is irrelevant. What is important is the reality that Syria is not going to revert to pre-civil war authoritarianism after 7 years of the Assad regime taking a murderous recking ball to the country, and that on top of decades of dictatorship. Too many rubicons have been crossed to ever go back without yet more protracted civil war.

Of course it can. Plenty of countries have experienced severe turmoil and not gone on to become democracies afterwards. It's an ideal solution but hardly a guarantee, and any democracy - however functioning it may be - will likely exist within a heavily fractured and divided country, the prominent politicians in all likelihood being in their own rights types with poor human rights records and far from being clean at all.

 

[2cents]

The time horizon is irrelevant. What is important is the reality that Syria is not going to revert to pre-civil war authoritarianism after 7 years of the Assad regime taking a murderous recking ball to the country, and that on top of decades of dictatorship. Too many rubicons have been crossed to ever go back without yet more protracted civil war.

Your assertions are remarkably unaffected by realities. Algeria went back to its previous authoritarian regime after a brutal civil war which probably resembles what has happened in Syria more than any other comparable conflict. On the other hand Afghanistan succumbed to the Taliban after its post-Soviet civil war. Just two alternative ways the Syrian conflict could progress, both far more realistic than "democracy in a decade."

 

[RedTiger]

What would a favourable outcome for the West look like in Syria?

I have no idea what the feck the west wants out of Syria or any other middle Eastern nation. My personal favourable outcome is no more bloodshed and death regardless of which group is left standing.

 

[Nucks]

I'm not seeing the jump from pushing Russia back in Syria to automatically bombing Moscow.

Do you really think in the war games simulations that Russia's leaders undoubtedbly play out every few months, the situation of "Western forces have attacked Russian aircraft attempting to bomb Syrian rebels" is met with the unanimous jumping up of everyone in the room to the cry "ALL IN"? The options put forward will be something like "counter-attack and prepare for escalated conflict by sending more Russian forces to the region", "pursue a diplomatic solution with a weakened hand" or "pull out", whereby the former simply leads to heavier Russian casualties culminating in the eventual loss of the war anyway, whilst the latter two allow them to save face and spin themselves as the more mature country.

In practical terms I don't see why they are going to think any more suicidally than us when it comes to Syria, and very little loss of life would actually be involved in attaining a favourable outcome for the West.

That wasn't the point of the post. The point is, we're running down a rabbit hole, and who knows what might set off a full scale war. Everytime we bomb the Syrian government, there is the chance that some guys operating Russian S-400's in Syria think they are under attack, and start putting their missiles in the air. A couple of US planes go down, suddenly the US is sending a sortie to take out that S-400 batteries, and then who knows what happens. Hopefully de-escalation, but maybe Russia becomes fair game in Syria, are you going to bet that Russia takes it lying down?

How much do you want to gamble with "they will just take it" with the country that has historically been the least likely to "just take it" in the last 300 or so years? Any conflict between US/Coalition forces and Russian forces risks immediate escalation.

It's just an awfully big risk to take on morale grounds, when we really don't have a morale platform to stand on regarding war crimes in the middle east. With one hand we are smacking Assad and Russia over allegations. With the other hand we're arming the Saudi's and supporting them with drones while a genocide is carried out by our closest Arab ally. Should we really be flirting with disaster over the allegations of chemical attacks? Mattis even came out and said that there is still zero evidence that the chemical attack last year which promoted the Trump cruise missile strike on the airbase, was done by the Regime. Maybe Assad is gassing his own people for some inexplicable reason. We're going to risk WW3 over that, while the Saudi's are massacring Yemeni civilians on a scale that makes the Syrian conflict look quaint? You can't argue it's about war crimes then, it's got to be about something else. Is that something else worth risking WW3?

 

[Raoul]

Of course it can. Plenty of countries have experienced severe turmoil and not gone on to become democracies afterwards. It's an ideal solution but hardly a guarantee, and any democracy - however functioning it may be - will likely exist within a heavily fractured and divided country, the prominent politicians in all likelihood being in their own rights types with poor human rights records and far from being clean at all.

Thats because you're looking at narrow time horizons. We are currently in uncharted territory where all states are building up intense sub state pressure where populations are seeking more rights in terms of governance, their day to day freedoms, and the ability to seek a better more stable way of life. People are also communicating across geographic boundaries in ways never before. The world of the present and future is simply not amenable to authoritarian states at at time when people needs more rights and stable rules, norms, and a legal framework that reflects their interests. Therefore at some point in the not too distant future, Russia will flip and once that happens all their proxy states will be let go to gradualy migrate into full on democratic systems. This is major macrosociological change that could take a few decades to fully take shape.

 

[Raoul]

Your assertions are remarkably unaffected by realities. Algeria went back to its previous authoritarian regime after a brutal civil war which probably resembles what has happened in Syria more than any other comparable conflict. On the other hand Afghanistan succumbed to the Taliban after its post-Soviet civil war. Just two alternative ways the Syrian conflict could progress, both far more realistic than "democracy in a decade."

Looking at the recent past isn't a good indicator of what is happening in the present or what will happen in the future. All of these states will eventually go democratic. The changes won't likely be sudden, nor will they seem unilinear or monocausal. But they will happen across the board as the international system can't sustain authoritarian systems in a world of complex interdependence.

 

[2cents]

Looking at the recent past isn't a good indicator of what is happening in the present or what will happen in the future. All of these states will eventually go democratic. The changes won't likely be sudden, nor will they seem unilinear or monocausal. But they will happen across the board as the international system can't sustain authoritarian systems in a world of complex interdependence.

It's pretty much impossible to discuss these things with you, since nothing you write is based on any realities or facts on the ground, or on any particular knowledge about Syria or the wider region, but rather on a couple of articles you've read which have convinced you that a democratic world government is imminent.

I have no idea what the feck the west wants out of Syria

Which is exactly why the West won't be going to war with Russia over Syria. The West hasn't known what it wants out of the Syrian conflict for a long time, beyond some initial vague platitudes about democracy which then descended into a cynical "ensure neither side wins" policy. In contrast, Moscow knows exactly what it wants to achieve in Syria and has gone all in to ensure it happens.

 

[Raoul]

It's pretty much impossible to discuss these things with you, since nothing you write is based on any realities or facts on the ground, or on any particular knowledge about Syria or the wider region, but rather on a couple of articles you've read which have convinced you that a democratic world government is imminent.



Which is exactly why the West won't be going to war with Russia over Syria. The West hasn't known what it wants out of the Syrian conflict for a long time, beyond some initial vague platitudes about democracy which then descended into a cynical "ensure neither side wins" policy. In contrast, Moscow knows exactly what it wants to achieve in Syria and has gone all in to ensure it happens.

The situation on the ground is a completely different situation from what I'm talking about, which is a longer term play on the future of the international system at large.

 

[2cents]

The situation on the ground is a completely different situation from what I'm talking about, which is a longer term play on the future of the international system at large.

How convenient.

 

[Raoul]

How convenient.

Ok, lets talk about how jihadi group A interacts with the Assad regime and why they are better than group b, c, or d.

 

[2cents]

Ok, lets talk about how jihadi group A interacts with the Assad regime and why they are better than group b, c, or d.

Well that's obviously a caricature of the actual discussions that have been had about Syria but still, it's the type of detail that will contribute to building a far more reliable indication of how things might play out in Syria than the theories of one or two political scientists in America who know nothing about Syria or the Middle East.

 

[Raoul]

Well that's obviously a caricature of the actual discussions that have been had about Syria but still, it's the type of detail that will contribute to building a far more reliable indication of how things might play out in Syria than the theories of one or two political scientists in America who know nothing about Syria or the Middle East.

Technically you don't have to be a cultural or political expert about a particular country to make an assessment on the international system at large. The fundamental building blocks - rules, norms, interests, - are broadly applicable to any political system and even more so to the international system at large - both among states, non-state actors, international organizations et al. Humans are communicating across borders more than ever and eventually that creates pressure for people to function under a new set of rules and norms in order to create a sense of balance and equity across the board. Authoritarian states can't function under these rules, which is why they will gradually go away.

 

[Cheesy]

Thats because you're looking at narrow time horizons. We are currently in uncharted territory where all states are building up intense sub state pressure where populations are seeking more rights in terms of governance, their day to day freedoms, and the ability to seek a better more stable way of life. People are also communicating across geographic boundaries in ways never before. The world of the present and future is simply not amenable to authoritarian states at at time when people needs more rights and stable rules, norms, and a legal framework that reflects their interests. Therefore at some point in the not too distant future, Russia will flip and once that happens all their proxy states will be let go to gradualy migrate into full on democratic systems. This is major macrosociological change that could take a few decades to fully take shape.

I'm not at all. I'm looking at a highly fraught conflict which has demonstrated that there aren't really any 'good' sides, and where ethnic and social tensions mean that even if Assad is removed there will likely still be extreme social tensions and a persistence of violence as multiple sides fight to gain power, with the US, Russia and various other actors all trying to ensure their preferred option gets in.

There will be many in Syria who are as you describe - people interested in the advancement of their human rights, but many will either be sympathetic to extremist blocs (as has been evidenced) and many others will be content with relative safety in the aftermath of war as opposed to larger conceptions of freedom and democracy. As was evidenced after the fall of the Soviet Union, many citizens end up finding that they feel more comfortable under authoritarian rule than democratic rule when they fall upon hardship, because those democratic rules we value can feel tenuous in nations filled with corruption where democracy isn't hailed to the same extent that it is here.

I admire your optimism and I'm sympathetic to the idea that we'll conceptually live in a fairly united, democratic world, but any such world is an incredibly long way off. Even when people are able to communicate across geographic boundaries as you describe, their views towards Western ideas and ideals aren't always universally popular, and even here there are plenty of people who disagree or are hostile to the ideas you champion.

Obviously events need to be regarded in a wider context because internal Syrian politics doesn't exist in a vacuum, but likewise we can't look at our values and supposed democratic trends and assume they'll apply to Syria by ignoring the grim situation which has persisted within the country.

 

[endless_wheelies]

Name that force - the SDF?

That wasn't the point of the post. The point is, we're running down a rabbit hole, and who knows what might set off a full scale war. Everytime we bomb the Syrian government, there is the chance that some guys operating Russian S-400's in Syria think they are under attack, and start putting their missiles in the air. A couple of US planes go down, suddenly the US is sending a sortie to take out that S-400 batteries, and then who knows what happens. Hopefully de-escalation, but maybe Russia becomes fair game in Syria, are you going to bet that Russia takes it lying down?

How much do you want to gamble with "they will just take it" with the country that has historically been the least likely to "just take it" in the last 300 or so years? Any conflict between US/Coalition forces and Russian forces risks immediate escalation.

It's just an awfully big risk to take on morale grounds, when we really don't have a morale platform to stand on regarding war crimes in the middle east. With one hand we are smacking Assad and Russia over allegations. With the other hand we're arming the Saudi's and supporting them with drones while a genocide is carried out by our closest Arab ally. Should we really be flirting with disaster over the allegations of chemical attacks? Mattis even came out and said that there is still zero evidence that the chemical attack last year which promoted the Trump cruise missile strike on the airbase, was done by the Regime. Maybe Assad is gassing his own people for some inexplicable reason. We're going to risk WW3 over that, while the Saudi's are massacring Yemeni civilians on a scale that makes the Syrian conflict look quaint? You can't argue it's about war crimes then, it's got to be about something else. Is that something else worth risking WW3?

Your issue is you underestimate the absolute superiority the American military has over any other force in the world. It's apt that you refer to the USSR's military history @Nucks to predict how they will react in the present, because that's where the majority of their equipment is still from. It doesn't matter if the USA is facing Assad, Russians, Turks, all of them combined, they will obliterate everyone. The others know this and therefore full scale conflict is unlikely as no-one else will actually turn up when the party happens.

It doesn't matter what force they backed, USA would win. Their guarantee of full scale support alone would unite the rebel factions.

 

[Nucks]

Your issue is you underestimate the absolute superiority the American military has over any other force in the world. It's apt that you refer to the USSR's military history @Nucks to predict how they will react in the present, because that's where the majority of their equipment is still from. It doesn't matter if the USA is facing Assad, Russians, Turks, all of them combined, they will obliterate everyone. The others know this and therefore full scale conflict is unlikely as no-one else will actually turn up when the party happens.

It doesn't matter what force they backed, USA would win. Their guarantee of full scale support alone would unite the rebel factions.

The US doesn't have military superiority over Russia in a war between the two. There is an absolute military equivalency between the US, and any nuclear state that has a stockpile large enough to obliterate its opponent. Yes, the US certainly has a superior conventional military, but that doesn't really matter when it comes to the USA and Russia. Any war between then, any hot shooting war, can go nuclear. Russia knows it cannot win a prolonged conventional war, and at best it can just make winning bloody enough for the US to not want to consider it. Russia has to show that it is willing, and capable of going the nuclear option if Russia is threatened directly, at which point, all the conventional supremacy of the US matters for jack and shit. Just like in the 50's when the Soviets had a vast conventional supremacy, and Eisenhower just said "let's build more nukes".

Unfortunately, it would seem, that in fact you misunderstand the actual military balance of power on this planet. The US has the most powerful conventional forces. Conventional forces don't matter when the two state actors involved have nuclear arsenals capable of killing each other several times over. Russia can't win a conventional confrontation, so they won't take one unless they have no other choice, and the US can't take a conventional action against Russia either, because it knows Russia can't win, and pressing that hard means Russia might start lobbing nukes at which point, how many F-22's the US has doesn't matter.

I think you completely misunderstand the nature of warfare today, between first rate military powers. The first thing that is going to happen if Russia and the US go to war? All our smart phones are going to stop working. Why? The first targets by both sides, are going to be to wipe out all communication and military satellites. That is the actual conventional military advantage the US has over Russia and the rest of the world. Iraq and the Taliban did not have the ability to target satellites. The Russians do, and if suddenly things went hot, that's the first casualty. No more eye in the sky. No more drones. No more up to the minute accurate data feeds allowing the US to drop GPS guided bombs on targets. We will be back to needing laser guided bombs. We won't know infallibly where everything is. We will be on equal footing. Oh, not that that matters, because nukes. The idea that Russia would engage in a war against the US where nukes were off the table, is a fairy tale.

 

[endless_wheelies]

The US doesn't have military superiority over Russia in a war between the two. There is an absolute military equivalency between the US, and any nuclear state that has a stockpile large enough to obliterate its opponent. Yes, the US certainly has a superior conventional military, but that doesn't really matter when it comes to the USA and Russia. Any war between then, any hot shooting war, can go nuclear. Russia knows it cannot win a prolonged conventional war, and at best it can just make winning bloody enough for the US to not want to consider it. Russia has to show that it is willing, and capable of going the nuclear option if Russia is threatened directly, at which point, all the conventional supremacy of the US matters for jack and shit. Just like in the 50's when the Soviets had a vast conventional supremacy, and Eisenhower just said "let's build more nukes".

Unfortunately, it would seem, that in fact you misunderstand the actual military balance of power on this planet. The US has the most powerful conventional forces. Conventional forces don't matter when the two state actors involved have nuclear arsenals capable of killing each other several times over. Russia can't win a conventional confrontation, so they won't take one unless they have no other choice, and the US can't take a conventional action against Russia either, because it knows Russia can't win, and pressing that hard means Russia might start lobbing nukes at which point, how many F-22's the US has doesn't matter.

I think you completely misunderstand the nature of warfare today, between first rate military powers. The first thing that is going to happen if Russia and the US go to war? All our smart phones are going to stop working. Why? The first targets by both sides, are going to be to wipe out all communication and military satellites. That is the actual conventional military advantage the US has over Russia and the rest of the world. Iraq and the Taliban did not have the ability to target satellites. The Russians do, and if suddenly things went hot, that's the first casualty. No more eye in the sky. No more drones. No more up to the minute accurate data feeds allowing the US to drop GPS guided bombs on targets. We will be back to needing laser guided bombs. We won't know infallibly where everything is. We will be on equal footing. Oh, not that that matters, because nukes. The idea that Russia would engage in a war against the US where nukes were off the table, is a fairy tale.

So if Russia gets pushed out of Syria they will fire a nuke? Their reaction to losing a distant war which up until a few years ago they had no active investment in, will be to cause the end of the world?

 

[MoskvaRed]

So if Russia gets pushed out of Syria they will fire a nuke? Their reaction to losing a distant war which up until a few years ago they had no active investment in, will be to cause the end of the world?

Probably not but why take the risk as you never know how things will pan out. WWI was set off by an incident in the strategically unimportant province of Bosnia when Austria-Hungary (a former great but then relatively weak, smoke and mirrors power like modern Russia) felt it had to respond to maintain face.

 

[endless_wheelies]

Probably not but why take the risk as you never know how things will pan out. WWI was set off by an incident in the strategically unimportant province of Bosnia when Austria-Hungary (a former great but then relatively weak, smoke and mirrors power like modern Russia) felt it had to respond to maintain face.

Russia took the risk to bomb the hell out of our Syrian allies on the calculation that we're too cowardly to protect them. No-one gained anything risking nothing.

 

[Raoul]

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

 

[Mrs Smoker]

By a 70-year old neighbor.

Man, KGB does not forget!

 

[Eboue]

good thing there are no car accidents in the west

 

[Red Defence]

The military research base in Shikhany, southern Russia, that produced Novichok throughout the Soviet period is in the process of being demolished, according to the town’s mayor.

Read more at: https://inews.co.uk/news/russian-ba...has-been-demolished-before-inspectors-arrive/

https://inews.co.uk/news/russian-ba...has-been-demolished-before-inspectors-arrive/

Perhaps it was due to be demolished anyway. Then again perhaps it’s a result of recent events.

 

[antihenry]

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

The man's checked into a hospital and he's fine.He got a few bruises on his head and hematoma on his right arm and leg. Apparently he was hit by a car driven by a 70-year old man who by the way stopped and helped the victim after the accident.

I'm sorry to disappoint you Raoul, but it's just an elderly having a senior moment at the wheel, not a KGB hit squad chasing people down in their cars. Come to think of it, why would anyone want to run this guy over anyway? If Uglev was in possession of some classified information, he'd be aware of that and wouldn't be giving out interviews about the nerve agent he was involved in developing long time ago.

But keep digging. Next time some someone TPs your house you'll obviously figure you're marked for death by Kremlin for criticizing Putin on an internet forum and it's not some bored neighborhood kids that did it, despite what police says. It's Russians again. They're everywhere.

 

[Pexbo]

The man's checked into a hospital and he's fine.He got a few bruises on his head and hematoma on his right arm and leg. Apparently he was hit by a car driven by a 70-year old man who by the way stopped and helped the victim after the accident.

I'm sorry to disappoint you Raoul, but it's just an elderly having a senior moment at the wheel, not a KGB hit squad chasing people down in their cars. Come to think of it, why would anyone want to run this guy over anyway? If Uglev was in possession of some classified information, he'd be aware of that and wouldn't be giving out interviews about the nerve agent he was involved in developing long time ago.

But keep digging. Next time some someone TPs your house you'll obviously figure you're marked for death by Kremlin for criticizing Putin on an internet forum and it's not some bored neighborhood kids that did it, despite what police says. It's Russians again. They're everywhere.

You do realise that Raoul didn’t actually make a single comment about the tweet he posted? It was loosely related to the scenario and mildly interesting.

 

[Raoul]

More bad news for Vlad

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

 

[Raoul]

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

 

[Adisa]

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

 

[antihenry]

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

 

[Silva]

Oh get fecked. Photographs, videos, audio etc. aren't released for of victims of any type of crime without their explicit permission.

 

[Red Defence]

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

The more this man speaks the more of a prat he sounds. Does he not yet know that we in the U.K. do not publish pics of hospital patients without their consent? Does he not yet realise that a hospital patient’s records are confidential? Does he not yet realise that people in the U.K. do not give interviews to the press unless they wish to?

Well he should know these things by now. He’s been Russian ambassador to this country for 7 years and he still doesn’t know what a free press is and still hadn’t got a clue about democracy. He’s squirmingly embarrassing to listen to.

 

[Classical Mechanic]

Slow day at the Kremlin propaganda department.

 

[antihenry]

And how do we know about their concent or lack thereof? Because the UK government is so trustworthy? They've been lying to the world and covering their tracks for two months now. The only time we've heard the victim's voice was when she talked on the phone to her cousin back home at Russia.

Like I said earlier, if that was the other way around, the outcry would be enormous. Just another example of western double standards and hypocricy.

 

[Ubik]

And how do we know about their concent or lack thereof? Because the UK government is so trustworthy? They've been lying to the world and covering their tracks for two months now. The only time we've heard the victim's voice was when she talked on the phone to her cousin back home at Russia.

Like I said earlier, if that was the other way around, the outcry would be enormous. Just another example of western double standards and hypocricy.

Let's trust the guys who stuffed ballots on camera a couple of months back, instead.

 

[antihenry]

Let's trust the guys who stuffed ballots on camera a couple of months back, instead.

I prefer not to trust any governments.

 

[Silva]

let he who hasn't shared government propaganda accuse people of being shills first

 

[Raoul]

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date