How much of a military threat is Russia really?

[Harrystottle]

That you would obviously sooner condemn the UK's attempts at mitigating Syria's civil war

 

I don't think that we are mitigating anything L00b.More likely we are engaged in trying to enforce regime change by overthrowing Assad, before moving on to more regime change in Iran, leaving Syria in the same state as Libya and Iraq.

 

Putin's intervention has put a spoke in that wheel; if Trump lives up to his words on fewer foreign wars (big If, I know) then his election will as well.

[L00b]

and then....where do you think THESE countries get their weapons from to supply the rebels who are fighting a democratically elected leader?

USA and the UK

Well, going by combat footage (of both sides) that I have watched over several years, I was not previously aware that the USA and the UK manufacture AK47s, RPKs, PKGs, RPG-7s, Toyota Hi-Luxes, T55s, T72s, BMPs <...> which constitute the staple ordnance for both sides

 

Sure, there's US, UK, Czech and Belgian ordnance too, but those are Iraqi lend-lease stock captured from the retreating Iraqi military, and this is very well-documented (even RT acknowledges it as such).

 

You're going to have to come up with some evidence to support your claim about weapons, if you want to be taken seriously.

 

The only support the US, UK and France have provided (and to which WestTinsley's Obama reference relates), is a limited air strike capacity and a small sprinkling of special forces to aid surgical strikes. Very small potatoes, considering the scale of Putin and Assad's war crimes against Syria's civilian population (does the expression "barrel bomb" ring a bell with either you or West Tinsley?)

 

But by all means, don't let me interfere with your pro-Putinism with my small bit of factual context.

I don't think that we are mitigating anything L00b.More likely we are engaged in trying to enforce regime change by overthrowing Assad, before moving on to more regime change in Iran, leaving Syria in the same state as Libya and Iraq.

 

Putin's intervention has put a spoke in that wheel; if Trump lives up to his words on fewer foreign wars (big If, I know) then his election will as well.

That much is true, because we're checked by Putin on one side, and domestic politics on the other.

 

And therefore we get millions of refugees pressing on our doorstep.

 

You'll perhaps notice that they're not going to, or ending up in, the US, Saudi or Russia, are they?

 

And perhaps go so far as to notice and understand the rippling effects they're having on European politics, so much internal as international?

 

Connect the dots.

Edited December 9, 2016 by L00b

[banjodeano]

Well, going by combat footage (of both sides) that I have watched over several years, I was not previously aware that the USA and the UK manufacture AK47s, RPKs, PKGs, RPG-7s, Toyota Hi-Luxes, T55s, T72s, BMPs <...> which constitute the staple ordnance for both sides

 

Sure, there's US, UK, Czech and Belgian ordnance too, but those are Iraqi lend-lease stock captured from the retreating Iraqi military, and this is very well-documented (even RT acknowledges it as such).

 

You're going to have to come up with some evidence to support your claim about weapons, if you want to be taken seriously.

 

The only support the US, UK and France have provided (and to which WestTinsley's Obama reference relates), is a limited air strike capacity and a small sprinkling of special forces to aid surgical strikes. Very small potatoes, considering the scale of Putin and Assad's war crimes against Syria's civilian population (does the expression "barrel bomb" ring a bell with either you or West Tinsley?)

 

But by all means, don't let me interfere with your pro-Putinism with my small bit of factual context.

That much is true, because we're checked by Putin on one side, and domestic politics on the other.

 

And therefore we get millions of refugees pressing on our doorstep.

 

You'll perhaps notice that they're not going to, or ending up in, the US, Saudi or Russia, are they?

 

And perhaps go so far as to notice and understand the rippling effects they're having on European politics, so much internal as international?

 

Connect the dots.

 

Hey, i am not Pro Putin, i am just seeing things as i see them, i will not blindly support our own country when we are in the wrong, (not that Putin is right) I USED TO...but not any longer, let me ask you a few questions, if you dont want to answer, then thats fine, but just have a look at the questions anyway..

 

1,What are we doing in Syria, why are we actually there?

2, who do you think is financing the rebels, where is the money coming from?

3 why do the UK and the USA want Assad gone, why is it so important to us?

4, do you think we got rid of ghaddafi to liberate his people, and do you see a connection?

[L00b]

1,What are we doing in Syria,

We (the UK) are not really 'there'.

 

We fly a few drones over there and Iraq (which are piloted from the UK and elsewhere), maybe the odd Tornado every now and then. And certainly far less than the US and France.

 

It'd be a gross misrepresentation to call that presence as anything more than 'token'.

why are we actually there?

Insofar as the UK's presence (by drone/planes) is concerned, to help take out the IS CCC and infrastructure, to reduce their local force projection capabilities, and accessorily impede their funding and coordinating of overseas terrorism, besides gathering a mountain of electronic intelligence (where do you think MI5 is getting a lot of terrorism-related intelligence originally from/where do you think some MI6 and special ops personnel are to gather that data? Do you think they are operating 'where they are' without air support?)

 

Less frequently (2 instances IIRC), to prevent or stop Assad's war crimes in progress.

2, who do you think is financing the rebels, where is the money coming from?

Depends which rebels you mean, as it's quite a disparate constellation over there.

 

If you mean IS and -generally- other Sunnis, then certainly -and generally- Saudi and Turkey.

 

If you mean Shia and Kurds, then certainly -and generally- Iran.

3 why do the UK and the USA want Assad gone, why is it so important to us?

Your guess is as good as mine in that regard. You'd have thought Iraq, and more recently Libya, would have taught Western politicians something...i.e. leave ME tyrants who are in a reasonably strong power hold well alone.

4, do you think we got rid of ghaddafi to liberate his people

No. Lybia has some oil and a Himalaya of natural gas, and Ghaddafi made the same mistake Saddam did: he threatened to shift the bulk of his petro and gas trade to € rather than $. Western politicians don't have a monopoly on failing to learn from others' mistakes

do you see a connection?

Other than the fact that Lybian and Syrian ports are, historically, the only ports used by the Russian Navy in the Med, no.

 

All this posted without bias one way or the other, just call it being realistic (...with a thin veneer of cynicism, granted ).

Edited December 9, 2016 by L00b

[WestTinsley]

Well, going by combat footage (of both sides) that I have watched over several years, I was not previously aware that the USA and the UK manufacture AK47s, RPKs, PKGs, RPG-7s, Toyota Hi-Luxes, T55s, T72s, BMPs <...> which constitute the staple ordnance for both sides

 

Sure, there's US, UK, Czech and Belgian ordnance too, but those are Iraqi lend-lease stock captured from the retreating Iraqi military, and this is very well-documented (even RT acknowledges it as such).

 

You're going to have to come up with some evidence to support your claim about weapons, if you want to be taken seriously.

 

The only support the US, UK and France have provided (and to which WestTinsley's Obama reference relates), is a limited air strike capacity and a small sprinkling of special forces to aid surgical strikes.

 

.

loob.. I'm well impressed by your military know how.. but are man pads not made by usa?? the Obama pledge last night is obviously an early xmas present for the Jihadists..

As for East European arms, that youve seen on jihadist propaganda vids..What's your point?? the usa supplied the afghan[and foreign] jihadists fighting USSR in the 80s just as the isrealis gave the Syrian mb weapons in the 70s early 80s, which were of East European and soviet stock...

You may also find plenty of u.s weapons over the past 5 years amongst the Jihadists if you look well enough.

 

The usa and NATO states are up to their knees in it in Syria and have been since before day1..

 

As for those countries ordnances you mention, Libya was awash with them [nato state weaponry esp belgian]after the overthrow of gaddafi govt... most making their way around the middle east to other conflict areas

 

 

Yesterday's lifting of the previous act by the outgoing Obama administration, in relation to the u.s.Transporting weapons to the Jihadists in Syria is quite serious and I'm surprised there's little mention of it in the mainstream media

Edited December 9, 2016 by WestTinsley

[Guest]

Syria war is over. Assad won.

Now, I hope Putin will prevent uncontrolled retribution and

killing of innocent people.

 

And you all forget one thing. Assad is actually product of cold war Russia, his intelligence, army, everything is going back to 1970 and before.

 

That way, Putin is always present on middle East.

[999tigger]

Link doesnt work...

but i assume it is a link to say that the election was rigged?

either way, its none of our business, and we should keep out..

how many governments has the USA destabilised, or tried to destabilise?

call me a Putinbot or whatever, sorry...but i just see things as i see them?

 

He's still right though. Having a poll of your own supporters, whilst not including all the people who oppose you is a funny way of being democratic. Same goes for gassing and shooting your own people, as you say you do a fine job of supporting him and actively making it none of your business.

[banjodeano]

He's still right though. Having a poll of your own supporters, whilst not including all the people who oppose you is a funny way of being democratic. Same goes for gassing and shooting your own people, as you say you do a fine job of supporting him and actively making it none of your business.

 

But we only make it our business when it suits us, why are we turning a blind eye to the Saudis destruction of Yemen? whilst we feed them weapons?

double standards anyone...

 

---------- Post added 09-12-2016 at 17:17 ----------

 

We (the UK) are not really 'there'.

 

We fly a few drones over there and Iraq (which are piloted from the UK and elsewhere), maybe the odd Tornado every now and then. And certainly far less than the US and France.

 

It'd be a gross misrepresentation to call that presence as anything more than 'token'.

Insofar as the UK's presence (by drone/planes) is concerned, to help take out the IS CCC and infrastructure, to reduce their local force projection capabilities, and accessorily impede their funding and coordinating of overseas terrorism, besides gathering a mountain of electronic intelligence (where do you think MI5 is getting a lot of terrorism-related intelligence originally from/where do you think some MI6 and special ops personnel are to gather that data? Do you think they are operating 'where they are' without air support?)

 

Less frequently (2 instances IIRC), to prevent or stop Assad's war crimes in progress.

Depends which rebels you mean, as it's quite a disparate constellation over there.

 

If you mean IS and -generally- other Sunnis, then certainly -and generally- Saudi and Turkey.

 

If you mean Shia and Kurds, then certainly -and generally- Iran.

Your guess is as good as mine in that regard. You'd have thought Iraq, and more recently Libya, would have taught Western politicians something...i.e. leave ME tyrants who are in a reasonably strong power hold well alone.

No. Lybia has some oil and a Himalaya of natural gas, and Ghaddafi made the same mistake Saddam did: he threatened to shift the bulk of his petro and gas trade to € rather than $. Western politicians don't have a monopoly on failing to learn from others' mistakes

Other than the fact that Lybian and Syrian ports are, historically, the only ports used by the Russian Navy in the Med, no.

 

All this posted without bias one way or the other, just call it being realistic (...with a thin veneer of cynicism, granted ).

 

A bloody good post that Loob...

whilst not agreeing with everything you have wrote, i appreciate the time and effort thats gone into that reply, and on some points i actually agree...if only i had as much time and patience to spend on such replies

Edited December 9, 2016 by banjodeano

[999tigger]

Hey, i am not Pro Putin, i am just seeing things as i see them, i will not blindly support our own country when we are in the wrong, (not that Putin is right) I USED TO...but not any longer, let me ask you a few questions, if you dont want to answer, then thats fine, but just have a look at the questions anyway..

 

1,What are we doing in Syria, why are we actually there?

2, who do you think is financing the rebels, where is the money coming from?

3 why do the UK and the USA want Assad gone, why is it so important to us?

4, do you think we got rid of ghaddafi to liberate his people, and do you see a connection?

 

I think Loobs was a pretty god answer, but:

1. I agree with him IS is the real reason, but as one of the worlds leading democracies, then wed prefer to be dealing with other democracoes rather than dictators who kill their own people. It puts the the UK and other democracies in a difficult situation on whether to support a potential fledgling democracy or not. The answers are not easy though and there was a natural opposition who we could support. It is just very messy.

 

2. I think most of IS is self financing. The FT did some great articles showing where their money comes from. If you control territory, then you can smuggle oil, antiquities, drugs as well as tax your own people. They have more money than they will ever need to be effective terrorists for years to come.

 

3. Dictators who open fire on peaceful protesters don't tend to be respected in the west. Something to do with principles. It would ne highly likely if he went then there would be a less oppressive regime in place and that it wouldnt be quite as anti western as the current one.

 

4. In a way yes. These people were allegedly interested in democracy and Gadaffi was threatening to attack Benghazi with a resultant masacre of the civilian population. Gadaffi was also a loon who sponsored terrorism.

 

Not really seeing the connection, unless you mean supporting democracy, not wanting people to get slaughtered. Intervention has been very limited though because the west hasnt wanted real involvement as it had trouble removing themselves from Iraq and Afghanistan. International politics and diplomacy is a tricky game.

[banjodeano]

4..The connection i refer to is, there seems to be a theme running that we have to take control of other countries to bring them freedom and democracy from a tyrant (whilst we loot their country of oil) and install a puppet dictatorship..

 

i honestly believe ISIS is just a smokescreen, just an excuse to get involved over there..when the Russians were destroying ISIS, Turkey who are supposed to be our allies were quite happy to shoot at the Russian planes..(and buy isis oil)..now if we really wanted ISIS destroyed, why didnt we just let the Russians get on with it? from what i understand, we refused an offer from the Russians to collaborate our intelligence and make a concerted effort to attack ISIS in a joint effort..Why?

After the Russians started to attack ISIS on a serious scale, we then saw USA planes target ISIS tankers taking oil across the desert, why in the name of god wasnt this done before? it looked to me like the USA were thinking "we're not looking serious here, and we had better look like we are doing something"...

Nope, it doesnt add up to me