OT? A New Cold War

[RN7]

I'm kind of curious as to exactly what you guys- Nowhere and CDAT- think the U.S./NATO should be doing to counter Russia, that they currently "lack the political will" to do.

In Europe, various measures are being taken to address Russian militarism/aggression. New basing agreements, more armor and combat air power oriented eastward, and even the possibility of new additions to NATO.

In Syria, what could be done to prevent Russian intervention that wouldn't lead to an armed class between Western and Russian forces

What could be done to prevent Russian intervention that wouldn't lead to an armed clash between Western and Russian forces should have been done a year ago Raellus. Western troops on the ground in Syria with air support to hammer ISIL and kick the remnants back into Iraq and the mountains. Instead what has been done Cyber and electronic eavesdropping, drone strikes and a few morale boosting air strikes to look good, while Obama goes and signs a nuclear deal with Iran. And all the good it has done. ISIL are still there slaughtering innocent people. The Russians have moved into Syria who borders a NATO country (Turkey) and Israel right under the nose of the West and are attacking anti-Assad rebels. Iran is also sitting back and now laughing at the West, Israel and the Sunni Arab world.

Russia's motives are not driven by helping Assad, but are driven by their own agenda to undermine Western influence in the region. And while doing so they now strategically threaten the entire Middle East and the Eastern Mediterranean. If as I suspect Russia has S-400 SAM systems in Syria then they can threaten very effectively the entire air space as far as 400 kilometres east and west of Syria, and can hit aerodynamic targets up to 56 kilometres high depending on the missile variant. They also have anti-ballistic missile capabilities, and if Russia places anti-ship missiles and conventional ballistic missiles in Syria they can hit NATO warships and land targets in Europe. And they moved all of this into Syria via Iranian and Iraqi airspace right under the noses of NATO just after Obama signs a nuclear deal with Iran. What Putin thinks of Obama must be choice!

[LT. Ox]

CDAT

I am not, repeat not, attacking you. I strongly disagree with your statements.
I cannot fault nor will I infer they are not sincere and heart felt. I have had my share of Esperance with the type of experience you relate, I took the offer of an all-expense paid trip to Africa for which I had to resign my commission for similar reasons you express, remember I was in from 66 to70.
The politicals ran the war or more to the point the media who run the politicians directed the conduct of the war.
After a lot of time, and I cannot tell you how many hours of group and individual counseling, it sort of came to me (smile I am Irish and bit slow) I was blaming people that had no control over events and I was further condemning them without having all the facts they have to deal with.

I believe you may be in that boat.
I also know that I have heard your argument from Vets of WWII and Korea and Viet Nam and Gulf and I think. you get my meaning.
We have perhaps the Best Military in the world it got that way by having some pretty good leadership.
Ah hell this is my last post on it.

[Targan]

What could be done to prevent Russian intervention that wouldn't lead to an armed clash between Western and Russian forces should have been done a year ago Raellus. Western troops on the ground in Syria with air support to hammer ISIL and kick the remnants back into Iraq and the mountains. Instead what has been done Cyber and electronic eavesdropping, drone strikes and a few morale boosting air strikes to look good, while Obama goes and signs a nuclear deal with Iran. And all the good it has done. ISIL are still there slaughtering innocent people. The Russians have moved into Syria who borders a NATO country (Turkey) and Israel right under the nose of the West and are attacking anti-Assad rebels. Iran is also sitting back and now laughing at the West, Israel and the Sunni Arab world.

Russia's motives are not driven by helping Assad, but are driven by their own agenda to undermine Western influence in the region. And while doing so they now strategically threaten the entire Middle East and the Eastern Mediterranean. If as I suspect Russia has S-400 SAM systems in Syria then they can threaten very effectively the entire air space as far as 400 kilometres east and west of Syria, and can hit aerodynamic targets up to 56 kilometres high depending on the missile variant. They also have anti-ballistic missile capabilities, and if Russia places anti-ship missiles and conventional ballistic missiles in Syria they can hit NATO warships and land targets in Europe. And they moved all of this into Syria via Iranian and Iraqi airspace right under the noses of NATO just after Obama signs a nuclear deal with Iran. What Putin thinks of Obama must be choice!

Utterly destroying ISIL is a very worthy goal, but western ground forces rolling into Syria There's no legal basis, just as there wasn't any legal basis for rolling into Iraq in 2003. And rolling into Iraq in 2003 (and the subsequent really, really stupid decisions by the US governing administration in Iraq such as totally dismantling all Baathist institutions, the police and the Iraqi military) are what created ISIL in the first place. Like it or not, invading sovereign states without legal basis is a very slippery slope.

Russia's motives are more complicated than just to undermine Western influence in the region. Supporting Assad's regime is an entirely reasonable goal for Russia, if for no other reason that Russia's only Mediterranean naval base for its Black Sea Fleet is located in the Syrian port of Tartus.

[RN7]

Utterly destroying ISIL is a very worthy goal, but western ground forces rolling into Syria There's no legal basis, just as there wasn't any legal basis for rolling into Iraq in 2003. And rolling into Iraq in 2003 (and the subsequent really, really stupid decisions by the US governing administration in Iraq such as totally dismantling all Baathist institutions, the police and the Iraqi military) are what created ISIL in the first place. Like it or not, invading sovereign states without legal basis is a very slippery slope.

ISIL originated in Iraq and invaded Syria. Assad's government is also Baathist, and Russian and Iranian forces have been sent to Syria. And the West worries about a legal basis for intervention!

Russia's motives are more complicated than just to undermine Western influence in the region. Supporting Assad's regime is an entirely reasonable goal for Russia, if for no other reason that Russia's only Mediterranean naval base for its Black Sea Fleet is located in the Syrian port of Tartus.

Russia's naval base in Tartus is a small refuelling and maintenance facility. It cannot support any major Russian warship or nuclear submarine, and it would be completely indefensible in a conflict with NATO or Israel. Its lack of strategic importance was actually stated by the Russian Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs on 26th June 2013. However Russia is using it as a basis for intervention in Syria, and Russian intervention is part of a larger strategy to undermine Western influence in the region and reinforce the divide between Sunni and Shia Muslims in the Middle East, with Russia being the main backers of the Shia faction. Iran and Assad's regime in Syria is Shia.

[Raellus]

ISIL originated in Iraq and invaded Syria. Assad's government is also Baathist, and Russian and Iranian forces have been sent to Syria. And the West worries about a legal basis for intervention!

So the West should send in ground troops as well Forget political will, there's very little popular support for that sort of thing in the West. The West has been in Afghanistan for 14 years, with no positive endgame in sight. Aside from supporting the troops, there is very little desire among the American public for another long, drawn out counter-insurgency in the Middle East. Is sending ground forces into yet another majority Muslim country going to help the West win "The War on Terror" How's that strategy been working out for us It's all fine and good to talk about going in there with our full firepower and kicking ass, but it's too simplistic and short-sighted. It's another quagmire just waiting for a major power to get stuck in.

Russia's naval base in Tartus is a small refuelling and maintenance facility. It cannot support any major Russian warship or nuclear submarine, and it would be completely indefensible in a conflict with NATO or Israel. Its lack of strategic importance was actually stated by the Russian Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs on 26th June 2013. However Russia is using it as a basis for intervention in Syria, and Russian intervention is part of a larger strategy to undermine Western influence in the region and reinforce the divide between Sunni and Shia Muslims in the Middle East, with Russia being the main backers of the Shia faction. Iran and Assad's regime in Syria is Shia.

I agree with your strategic assessment here (although I think that the Tartus' important in terms of Russian national/military prestige is understated). I'd kind of like to see the West cede responsibility for fighting ISIS to the Russians. Yeah, the Assad regime will survive, but Russia will become the primary target of the jihadists. Let them spend 14 years trying to clean up Syria, with every international Islamist terror/insurgent sending its best and brightest there to fight the Russian invaders.

[RN7]

So the West should send in ground troops as well Forget political will, there's very little popular support for that sort of thing in the West. The West has been in Afghanistan for 14 years, with no positive endgame in sight. Aside from supporting the troops, there is very little desire among the American public for another long, drawn out counter-insurgency in the Middle East. Is sending ground forces into yet another majority Muslim country going to help the West win "The War on Terror" How's that strategy been working out for us It's all fine and good to talk about going in there with our full firepower and kicking ass, but it's too simplistic and short-sighted. It's another quagmire just waiting for a major power to get stuck in.

This regime of terror has publically murdered how many innocent Western journalists and aid workers (actually filmed their beheading) Has burned a Jordanian air man in a cage live on film. Has thrown how many homosexuals off buildings and filmed it Has brutalised, murdered, raped and enslaved how many thousands of Syrian Christians, Yazidis and Shia Muslim And then they brag about it! Saddam Hussein and the Taleban did not even do this. I think every decent person in the world would like to see them shot, blown to atoms, or crushed under the tracks of a tank. They are worse than the Nazis, far worse.

I agree with your strategic assessment here (although I think that the Tartus' important in terms of Russian national/military prestige is understated). I'd kind of like to see the West cede responsibility for fighting ISIS to the Russians. Yeah, the Assad regime will survive, but Russia will become the primary target of the jihadists. Let them spend 14 years trying to clean up Syria, with every international Islamist terror/insurgent sending its best and brightest there to fight the Russian invaders.

The Russian airbase at Latakia is far more important to them. The Russians are not sending ground troops to fight ISIL in Syria, just enough to secure their toehold in Syria plus some Spetznaz to scare ISIL away. And Russia has been a target for Jihadists for years and their well used to them, they have practically wiped Chechnya off the face of the Earth.

[Raellus]

This regime of terror has publically murdered how many innocent Western journalists and aid workers (actually filmed their beheading) Has burned a Jordanian air man in a cage live on film. Has thrown how many homosexuals off buildings and filmed it Has brutalised, murdered, raped and enslaved how many thousands of Syrian Christians, Yazidis and Shia Muslim And then they brag about it! Saddam Hussein and the Taleban did not even do this. I think every decent person in the world would like to see them shot, blown to atoms, or crushed under the tracks of a tank. They are worse than the Nazis, far worse.

I agree. They're scumbags and should be eradicated. Sure pretty much every sane Westerner would like to see that happen. But put Western boots on the ground in Syria and Iraq, enough to do the job and do it right I think you overestimate the public's will to send their sons and daughters to that godforsaken corner of the earth to do that.

The Russian airbase at Latakia is far more important to them. The Russians are not sending ground troops to fight ISIL in Syria, just enough to secure their toehold in Syria plus some Spetznaz to scare ISIL away. And Russia has been a target for Jihadists for years and their well used to them, they have practically wiped Chechnya off the face of the Earth.

So you're suggesting that the West use Russian scorched earth tactics against Syria and Iraq

[Targan]

I agree. They're scumbags and should be eradicated. Sure pretty much every sane Westerner would like to see that happen. But put Western boots on the ground in Syria and Iraq, enough to do the job and do it right I think you overestimate the public's will to send their sons and daughters to that godforsaken corner of the earth to do that.

Yup.

[Webstral]

I think we can all agree that ISIS are bad people. Their badness does not lend itself to any solutions. However impassioned our pleas for intervention, the American people do not support another war in the Middle East. Im not going back. Im not going to support a plan to send American troops in with yet another quarter-baked scheme with oeHope for the best underlined twice and highlighted in the mission statement. The American public cares about the victims of ISIS about as much as we care about any bloodletting in the media, which is to say that we care just enough to cry, oeThats awful before getting back to the business of life. Its shameful, but it underscores the absolute futility of getting involved without real commitment.

[RN7]

I agree. They're scumbags and should be eradicated. Sure pretty much every sane Westerner would like to see that happen. But put Western boots on the ground in Syria and Iraq, enough to do the job and do it right I think you overestimate the public's will to send their sons and daughters to that godforsaken corner of the earth to do that.

Well if we won't do it then we can't complain about the Russians being there.

So you're suggesting that the West use Russian scorched earth tactics against Syria and Iraq

No I'm telling you that they have had to deal with Islamic fundamentalists (mainly Chechen) on their doorstep and within their country for decades, and their answer to eradicating it has been to raise Chechnya to the ground. We can't judge Russia as we have only had to deal with still isolated terrorist incidents compared with Russia who has entire nations of hostile Islamists within their borders who have terrorised them, and they have retaliated by using brutal force against them in ways that no Western state would ever do.

[RN7]

I think we can all agree that ISIS are bad people. Their badness does not lend itself to any solutions. However impassioned our pleas for intervention, the American people do not support another war in the Middle East. Im not going back. Im not going to support a plan to send American troops in with yet another quarter-baked scheme with oeHope for the best underlined twice and highlighted in the mission statement. The American public cares about the victims of ISIS about as much as we care about any bloodletting in the media, which is to say that we care just enough to cry, oeThats awful before getting back to the business of life. Its shameful, but it underscores the absolute futility of getting involved without real commitment.

Well lets applaud the Russians for being there no matter what their real motives are.

[Targan]

Well lets applaud the Russians for being there no matter what their real motives are.

I'd be more inclined to applaud the Russians if they were going after ISIS and not just the US-backed rebel factions in Syria.

[LT. Ox]

major

I'd be more inclined to applaud the Russians if they were going after ISIS and not just the US-backed rebel factions in Syria.

O Yes!

[RN7]

I'd be more inclined to applaud the Russians if they were going after ISIS and not just the US-backed rebel factions in Syria.

Well they are according to themselves!

[Webstral]

Well lets applaud the Russians for being there no matter what their real motives are.

We don't need to do that, either. We simply need to be honest with ourselves about the relationship between our rhetoric and our commitment.