OT? A New Cold War

[RN7]

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.

Well to be honest with ourselves we are (in Europe) reaping the effect of our lack of commitment. Our southern borders are now being besieged by refugees escaping the crisis in Syria and Iraq, plus many more from elsewhere taking advantage of this crisis. Most are also able bodied men and soon we will have at least one million more refugees living among us with millions more on the way. And there is no other way in saying this but Europe will face all sorts of problems stemming from this.

[kato13]

Unless Russia can can do something with its economy (like force up oil prices) I feel this adventure will be short lived.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/economics/11937348/Russia-retreats-to-autarky-as-poverty-looms.html

The most interesting quote IMO

The chief effect has been to shrink the Russian economy in global terms. "GDP was $2.3 trillion at the peak. It is now $1.2 trillion, and I fear we are going back to the level of 1998 when it was $700bn," he said.

This would be smaller than Holland ($850bn) or half the size of Texas ($1.4 trillion), a remarkable state of affairs for a country vying for superpower military status in Europe and the Middle East.

[Webstral]

Well to be honest with ourselves we are (in Europe) reaping the effect of our lack of commitment. Our southern borders are now being besieged by refugees escaping the crisis in Syria and Iraq, plus many more from elsewhere taking advantage of this crisis. Most are also able bodied men and soon we will have at least one million more refugees living among us with millions more on the way. And there is no other way in saying this but Europe will face all sorts of problems stemming from this.

I understand that you are unhappy about the way things are going on a much larger scale than events in Syria. I rather doubt that Syrians and Iraqis are trying to get into the US across the US-Mexican border. They'd have to get into Mexico first. Mexico is unfriendly to Central American migrants attempting to reach the US. Its hard to imagine that significant numbers of Arab refugees could get to Mexico, get off the ships unnoticed, and then make their way across the US border in the same fashion as Mexican migrants do.

Perhaps the unfolding situation in Syria will improve the level of commitment of the American electorate to decisive action. Im not going to put the mortgage money down on that idea.

[RN7]

Unless Russia can can do something with its economy (like force up oil prices) I feel this adventure will be short lived.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/economics/11937348/Russia-retreats-to-autarky-as-poverty-looms.html

The most interesting quote IMO

Russian intervention in Syria has as a lot more to do with unsettling Saudi Arabia and the West as it has with aiding Assad. Saudi Arabia is the prime instigator in devaluing oil prices and its targeted as much against Iran and Russia as it is against US shale producers. Iran and OPEC (outside of the Gulf states) would be the main supporters of Russian intervention in Syria, and their hope would be that it will force oil prices back to pre-2014 levels.

It is quite obvious that Russia is supporting the Iran/Shia faction in the Middle East, and the fact that Iran is also intervening in Iraq, Syria (Assad regime is Shia) and supporting the Shia rebel faction in Yemen is targeted against Saudi Arabia who is now the leading Sunni Muslim state in the region.

If Russia fails to unsettle Saudi Arabia and force oil prices up then it could be in trouble. It hasn't got the finances to sustain a military build up without oil and gas prices rising to levels they were two years ago, and its economy is neither large enough or diverse enough to cushion the impact of falling revenues from oil exports. Russia could go the self-reliance route but unlike Germany in the 1930's it does not have the level of science and engineering excellence that existed in the German economy. However there is no trade ban with Russia. The Russians can still import what they need and try and produce the rest themselves which will be difficult. The role of China in all of this could be very relevant to Putin's scheming. China does have the financial reserves to support Russia, although with the trouble they are also having with their finances and economy it may not be as much as Putin hopes. But China can aid the Russian economy be exporting excess manufactured products. China produces many of the same products that Russia imports from Western countries such as Germany, just the quality and reliability of these products is not as good. But they are cheap, and Russia can also barter its military technology for most of what its needs from China or agricultural products from a whole range of countries in Asia, Latin America and Africa.

[RN7]

I understand that you are unhappy about the way things are going on a much larger scale than events in Syria. I rather doubt that Syrians and Iraqis are trying to get into the US across the US-Mexican border. They'd have to get into Mexico first. Mexico is unfriendly to Central American migrants attempting to reach the US. It's hard to imagine that significant numbers of Arab refugees could get to Mexico, get off the ships unnoticed, and then make their way across the US border in the same fashion as Mexican migrants do.

Perhaps the unfolding situation in Syria will improve the level of commitment of the American electorate to decisive action. I'm not going to put the mortgage money down on that idea.

No refugees from Iraq and Syria will be heading to America unless America allows them. Its Europe where the problem is. Thousands of refugees are walking through Turkey towards the Balkans or are being smuggled across the Mediterranean every day. Its a disaster on the scale of WW2 and nearly all are Muslim. All sorts of social, economic and political problems will come of this.

[Rainbow Six]

I understand that you are unhappy about the way things are going on a much larger scale than events in Syria. I rather doubt that Syrians and Iraqis are trying to get into the US across the US-Mexican border. They'd have to get into Mexico first. Mexico is unfriendly to Central American migrants attempting to reach the US. Its hard to imagine that significant numbers of Arab refugees could get to Mexico, get off the ships unnoticed, and then make their way across the US border in the same fashion as Mexican migrants do.

Perhaps the unfolding situation in Syria will improve the level of commitment of the American electorate to decisive action. Im not going to put the mortgage money down on that idea.

We're not talking about the US / Mexico border, we're talking about the southern European borders here. Specifically the borders of certain EU member States as most migrants have no desire to stay any length of time in a non EU State.

[Bullet Magnet]

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.

No matter how vile they may be, no matter how vile they demonstrate themselves to be, western nations have a plentiful supply of people who will cry that they (ISIS) are human beings, etc., and scream that the US and other western nations are the "bad guys" for acting against them.

[Raellus]

No matter how vile they may be, no matter how vile they demonstrate themselves to be, western nations have a plentiful supply of people who will cry that they (ISIS) are human beings, etc., and scream that the US and other western nations are the "bad guys" for acting against them.

I don't think that's it. I think that it's this: In order to root these vile scumbags out and make sure they don't come back (from Iraq and, perhaps, Syria) means putting boots on the ground- lots of them. That's what the general public in the West isn't willing to do- put its young men and women on the ground in another hostile, Middle Eastern hell-hole, to fight a nationless state with a seemingly inexhaustible supply of its own young men more than willing to kill Westerners or die trying.

[RN7]

OK so most of our American members hold the view that America doesn't want to send its soldiers into another Middle Eastern quagmire such as Syria.

So we still have the issue of Russia in Syria, and as Russia knows that it is there to stay as long as it wants it can also place whatever it likes in Syria. The more I think about it the more it strikes me that Putin as pulled off a masterstroke here. He can if he wants to help Assad or Iran target the entire Middle East and Europe from Syria. Russia already has Su-34 strike bombers at Latakia Airbase which has a combat range of 1,000 km. Israel, Saudi Arabia and the Gulf States, Turkey and Greece are easily in range. So if Russia decides to place anti-ballistic missiles, a squadron of Tu-22M bombers with a combat range of 2,400 km, or enlarges their naval dock at Tartus to support nuclear submarines, and then decides to bomb anti-Assad forces outside of Syria what can be done about it

[aspqrz]

Well, we could wait until they're foraging in local dumpsters for food when neither Putin nor Assad can afford to either feed them or pay them any more - then offer them economy class airfare to somewhere in Eastern Europe where they can walk across the border home.



Phil

[.45cultist]

I understand that you are unhappy about the way things are going on a much larger scale than events in Syria. I rather doubt that Syrians and Iraqis are trying to get into the US across the US-Mexican border. They'd have to get into Mexico first. Mexico is unfriendly to Central American migrants attempting to reach the US. Its hard to imagine that significant numbers of Arab refugees could get to Mexico, get off the ships unnoticed, and then make their way across the US border in the same fashion as Mexican migrants do.

Perhaps the unfolding situation in Syria will improve the level of commitment of the American electorate to decisive action. Im not going to put the mortgage money down on that idea.

It's been done. Both Middle East and Chinese have been found among the Mexicans scooped up. Those Chinese better off have children here, then return home. When the Hong Kong special status expires, these people have an "out". Most people only see "anchor babies" without remembering in the 1995-7 transition Hong Kong had 50 years to keep it's institutions as a special region. Terrorists have tried to sneak in through Mexico and found out they needed Mexican Spanish lessions.

[swaghauler]

Well, we could wait until they're foraging in local dumpsters for food when neither Putin nor Assad can afford to either feed them or pay them any more - then offer them economy class airfare to somewhere in Eastern Europe where they can walk across the border home.



Phil

The question becomes...how many Eastern European countries would take them Just give them airfare back to Russia and cut out a level of expense (the bribes we'd have to give to the Eastern Europeans to get involved).

[unkated]

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.

Moved in No, same small Russian base and airfield have been there all along since the 1970s. The only recent difference has been an increase in ground troops as security raised from company to battalion sized, since the civil war, and the more recent ground attack air units.

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.

Strategically I don't buy it. The base is not large enough to hold many strategic assets.

If as I suspect Russia has S-400 SAM systems

Have you access to intelligence and satellite resources Again, it is not a large base, and has neither the deployment area, storage area or barracks area for enough weapons to amount to a strategic threat.

And if there are small numbers of the system in place, they or the previous S-300 have been emplaced for a while - say 30 years.

My point is this is not a change, and the Russians have not seized new 10 sq miles of land on which they have been building missile (SAM or SSM) emplacements.

Putin is trying to help his friend in the region who lets him keep the air navy bases. Yes, this friend runs a fairly vicious regime that has used nerve gas on his own people (before the civil war broke out and since) - I'm certainly not defending Assad or Putin.

But I don't believe this is a new strategic development.

Uncle Ted

[Raellus]

So we still have the issue of Russia in Syria, and as Russia knows that it is there to stay as long as it wants it can also place whatever it likes in Syria. The more I think about it the more it strikes me that Putin as pulled off a masterstroke here. He can if he wants to help Assad or Iran target the entire Middle East and Europe from Syria. Russia already has Su-34 strike bombers at Latakia Airbase which has a combat range of 1,000 km. Israel, Saudi Arabia and the Gulf States, Turkey and Greece are easily in range. So if Russia decides to place anti-ballistic missiles, a squadron of Tu-22M bombers with a combat range of 2,400 km, or enlarges their naval dock at Tartus to support nuclear submarines, and then decides to bomb anti-Assad forces outside of Syria what can be done about it

That is possible, but Russia will have to all of that while fighting jihadists/rebels/freedom fighters. That is much easier said than done.

If Russia wants to take its place as greatest of all the "great satans", why try to stop them Let them deal with what Western Coalitions in Iraq and Afghanistan have been dealing with for the last 14 years- a seemingly unstoppable stream of very persistent local and foreign insurgents/jihadis dedicated to their destruction.

Also, any Russian strategic assets based in Syria will be fairly isolated and nearly surrounded by unfriendly parties- Turkey to the north, Israel to the South, NATO's Mediterranean assets to the west. I see that as more of a strategic liability than a strategic asset.

The alternative to Russian involvement in the Syrian Civil War is what More NATO muscle-flexing Ultimatums More sanctions Then what A tussle between NATO and Russian combat aircraft in Syrian airspace The place is a tinderbox under a powder keg. You've got Iranian interests at play there, which the Saudis will no doubt act to counterbalance, you've got NATO, you've got ISIS, you've got Kurdish rebels, you've got Hezbollah, you've got a very nervous, very jumpy Israel watching from next door...

There's no easy solution, especially a military one.

[RN7]

Moved in No, same small Russian base and airfield have been there all along since the 1970s. The only recent difference has been an increase in ground troops as security raised from company to battalion sized, since the civil war, and the more recent ground attack air units.

Russia is estimated to have 34 fixed-wing aircraft based at Latakia. A mixture of types comprising 12 Su-25s, 12 Su-24M2s, four Su-30SMs and six Su-34s. Basically an entire air wing. I don't recall Russia ever basing that many aircraft in Syria or deploying advanced aircraft such as the Su-30SMs and Su-34's to Syria.

Also if Russia has no intention of increasing its military capability in Syria why did it launch 26 Kalibr-Nk naval cruise missiles from warships in the Caspian Sea at targets in Syria before/while they were established an air strike capability at Latakia.

Strategically I don't buy it. The base is not large enough to hold many strategic assets.

Look at the length of Latakia's runway unkated. It is 9,175 feet. Large commercial cargo planes (Boeing-747F) need about 9,000 feet to safely land or take off fully loaded. Big military cargo planes like the C-5 and An-124 can probably do it a bit shorter, but not that much when loaded up. Latakia is precisely the right length for the Russian An-124 to use. Yes it is very strategic for the Russians.

Have you access to intelligence and satellite resources Again, it is not a large base, and has neither the deployment area, storage area or barracks area for enough weapons to amount to a strategic threat.

And if there are small numbers of the system in place, they or the previous S-300 have been emplaced for a while - say 30 years.

No do you unkated. But it would make perfect sense for Russia to do so and it would not exactly be hard for them to do so.either. An-124s can transport tanks, helicopter gunships or a S-400 battery with ease. And the Russians when sending their An-124 cargo planes to Latakia would be mindful of exactly when the US ISR satellite in orbit is passing overhead, and will be unloading their cargo well before they are seen.

My point is this is not a change, and the Russians have not seized new 10 sq miles of land on which they have been building missile (SAM or SSM) emplacements.

I don't think the Russians are interested in expanding their base just increasing their capabilities. Does anyone know for certain that some of the S-300 batteries have not been upgraded with S-400 systems