Russian airstrikes in Syria

[Grand Britannia]

You do not think that America has at least some allies in the Free Syrian Army? You think that Russia is only helping because of their and Syria's good bond and have no other foreign interests?

FSA are not a legitimate ruling entity, essentially the US is just helping terrorists. Pretty much, there might be some "other interests" such as to be a thorn in the side of the US, which is always a good thing to be honest. Fuck America.

3edgy5me

[Unabashed Skeptofascist]

Sure, but at least the Russians actually have permission to be in Syria from the legitimate government. The Americans don't, so if anything - they're the real imperialists.

Ah, great, so apparently now we need an approval from a megalomaniacal, ruthless, civilian-massacring dictatorship that should be held responsible for the whole mess so that we wouldn't be imperialist scum when we killed their people!

[Kraylandia]

FSA are not a legitimate ruling entity, essentially the US is just helping terrorists. Pretty much, there might be some "other interests" such as to be a thorn in the side of the US, which is always a good thing to be honest. Fuck America.

3edgy5me

Nice, thanks for contributing to the discussion.

[Kraylandia]

Sure, but at least the Russians actually have permission to be in Syria from the legitimate government. The Americans don't, so if anything - they're the real imperialists.

Ah, great, so apparently now we need an approval from a megalomaniacal, ruthless, civilian-massacring dictatorship that should be held responsible for the whole mess so that we wouldn't be imperialist scum when we killed their people!

Assad said he would gladly give the yanks permission to airstrike his country, as long as they work with the Syrian Army - which they have refused to do so. Call him what you like, but he's still the elected leader and popular among his people.

[Unabashed Skeptofascist]

Utter idiocy.

Russia's interest is having close allies in the area, and they are quite willing to support Assad as a means to that end. As soon as ISIS and Al-Qaeda aligned rebels are eliminated, Assad's usefulness will expire.

So far, it looks like Russia has been able to form a coalition linking the Levant (supporting Hezbollah, the Lebanese government, and Assad) with the Middle East (Kurds, Iran). This has always been a key strategic goal of Russia, so to have a direct access to the Mediterranean and the Indian Ocean, especially in the light of an expansive strategy of the US allies in the Black Sea (that's why annexing Crimea was so important for Russia), in the Caucasus (see: Georgia) controlling the Straits, and the aggressive politics of the Saudi bloc in the Middle East-Levant-North Africa region (see: ISIS, Al-Qaida, Talibans). Russia is playing a game that's far more important for them than supporting or not supporting Assad.

Yes, as I said--by preserving Assad's murderous regime. I'm aware that Russia is not merely doing it "for evulzz" or "hurr durr support Assad only". Why is it wrong for US for allying with dictators and nonchalantly massacre civilians in other countries to preserve their own interest, but not for Russia?

Ah, great, so apparently now we need an approval from a megalomaniacal, ruthless, civilian-massacring dictatorship that should be held responsible for the whole mess so that we wouldn't be imperialist scum when we killed their people!

Assad said he would gladly give the yanks permission to airstrike his country, as long as they work with the Syrian Army - which they have refused to do so. Call him what you like, but he's still the elected leader and popular among his people.

The "Assad is popular and elected" notion is echoed mostly by his fawning courtiers, apologists and sympathizers, first I'd like to see a source that a majority of Syrians still supported him as of today. Either way, doesn't matter. He might be popular a few years ago, and until today there might be still a lot of Syrians who supported him, but that hardly justifies his brutality of his own people.

[Saint-Thor]

Utter idiocy.

Russia's interest is having close allies in the area, and they are quite willing to support Assad as a means to that end. As soon as ISIS and Al-Qaeda aligned rebels are eliminated, Assad's usefulness will expire.

So far, it looks like Russia has been able to form a coalition linking the Levant (supporting Hezbollah, the Lebanese government, and Assad) with the Middle East (Kurds, Iran). This has always been a key strategic goal of Russia, so to have a direct access to the Mediterranean and the Indian Ocean, especially in the light of an expansive strategy of the US allies in the Black Sea (that's why annexing Crimea was so important for Russia), in the Caucasus (see: Georgia) controlling the Straits, and the aggressive politics of the Saudi bloc in the Middle East-Levant-North Africa region (see: ISIS, Al-Qaida, Talibans). Russia is playing a game that's far more important for them than supporting or not supporting Assad.

Yes, as I said--by preserving Assad's murderous regime. I'm aware that Russia is not merely doing it "for evulzz" or "hurr durr support Assad only". Why is it wrong for US for allying with dictators and nonchalantly massacre civilians in other countries to preserve their own interest, but not for Russia?

Because they are being incredibly hypocritical when they try to lecture some countries on human rights, impose sanctions or sell the idea of a war to their people. Acting like paladins on a crusade to rid the world of terrorists and dictators. While Russia is not supposed to be the "bastion" of JUSTICE (with a deep voice), democracy and human rights. I guess that allying dictators is the kind of things we could expect from a country like Russia. However anyone who knows a bit how the world of international relations work can understand that the US are a major power with down to earth interests. They should just cut the crap about democracy and all that.

[Neu Leonstein]

They should just cut the crap about democracy and all that.

The point is, I think, that the stuff that was done during the Cold War was bad - but that people in the US understand it to have been bad. A "necessary" evil, at least. And with the Cold War over, I do think the US administrations have shown a far greater commitment towards promoting liberal and democratic governments in the world. This has not always been done very well, and the central theme of all the Presidents since 1990 has been when to intervene (Somalia, Gulf Wars I and II, Afghanistan, Kosovo) and when not to (Rwanda, Yugoslavia). I would say these decisions have often been made poorly and I suspect you'd agree with that sentiment. But again, the US has, I think, a genuine commitment towards the promotion of democracy and human rights. When they failed to act in line with this, it is seen as a failure. Not just by foreigners, but by the majority of Americans and in many cases by the leaders themselves (just ask Bill Clinton about Rwanda or Srebrenica). The "crap about democracy and all that" is the standard by which we measure the success of US foreign policy. You even did it in your very post.

And as someone who quite likes liberal democracy as a system of governance and thinks that it confers opportunities that ought to be open to every human being, having a champion for those ideals is something that is worth having. What does Putin's or Russia's foreign policy stand for? Is it something you think you would prefer? And whatever it is, it does involve direct military support for a guy who barrel bombs his own cities and gases the people he is supposed to be leading. Even by "US in the Cold War" standards, that is not exactly business as usual...

[Uxupox]

Ah, great, so apparently now we need an approval from a megalomaniacal, ruthless, civilian-massacring dictatorship that should be held responsible for the whole mess so that we wouldn't be imperialist scum when we killed their people!

Assad said he would gladly give the yanks permission to airstrike his country, as long as they work with the Syrian Army - which they have refused to do so. Call him what you like, but he's still the elected leader and popular among his people.

"Elected". The election of a mass murder in the midst of a country in civil war in which the pro-government forces only controls 18% of the land has so much legitimacy as the ISIS claims of all of the middle east as in none.

[Communes of Europe]

FSA are not a legitimate ruling entity, essentially the US is just helping terrorists. Pretty much, there might be some "other interests" such as to be a thorn in the side of the US, which is always a good thing to be honest. Fuck America.

3edgy5me

Isn't it "2edgy4me"?

[Kraylandia]

3edgy5me

Isn't it "2edgy4me"?

Yes, but a certain kind of individual likes to change things around in a bid to appear smart. It's just idiotic, they contributed nothing to the discussion.

[The balkens]

Isn't it "2edgy4me"?

Yes, but a certain kind of individual likes to change things around in a bid to appear smart. It's just idiotic, they contributed nothing to the discussion.

And what did you contribute to this fine and spirited debate?

[Kraylandia]

Yes, but a certain kind of individual likes to change things around in a bid to appear smart. It's just idiotic, they contributed nothing to the discussion.

And what did you contribute to this fine and spirited debate?

Perhaps you should learn to read, chap.

[Socialist Czechia]

You know, Westerners should either follow 'principles at any cost' policy, or be quiet completely about 'principles'.

I mean, how British or French even dare to condemn someone to be ruthless dictator, while being friendly to Saudi king? Or Erdogan?
And how many of them endorsed Pinochet when he purged like thousands of people, including women and children?

Fight them all for being totalitarian a**holes, or respect them all and their rights to be totalitarian a**holes

[Rio Cana]

Utter idiocy.

Russia's interest is having close allies in the area, and they are quite willing to support Assad as a means to that end. As soon as ISIS and Al-Qaeda aligned rebels are eliminated, Assad's usefulness will expire.

So far, it looks like Russia has been able to form a coalition linking the Levant (supporting Hezbollah, the Lebanese government, and Assad) with the Middle East (Kurds, Iran). This has always been a key strategic goal of Russia, so to have a direct access to the Mediterranean and the Indian Ocean, especially in the light of an expansive strategy of the US allies in the Black Sea (that's why annexing Crimea was so important for Russia), in the Caucasus (see: Georgia) controlling the Straits, and the aggressive politics of the Saudi bloc in the Middle East-Levant-North Africa region (see: ISIS, Al-Qaida, Talibans). Russia is playing a game that's far more important for them than supporting or not supporting Assad.

Yes, as I said--by preserving Assad's murderous regime. I'm aware that Russia is not merely doing it "for evulzz" or "hurr durr support Assad only". Why is it wrong for US for allying with dictators and nonchalantly massacre civilians in other countries to preserve their own interest, but not for Russia?

Assad said he would gladly give the yanks permission to airstrike his country, as long as they work with the Syrian Army - which they have refused to do so. Call him what you like, but he's still the elected leader and popular among his people.

The "Assad is popular and elected" notion is echoed mostly by his fawning courtiers, apologists and sympathizers, first I'd like to see a source that a majority of Syrians still supported him as of today. Either way, doesn't matter. He might be popular a few years ago, and until today there might be still a lot of Syrians who supported him, but that hardly justifies his brutality of his own people.

To be fair, Civil Wars are usually brutal. They are the worse types of wars since it can tear a nation apart. Citizen vs. Citizen over politics which are controlled by an elite group. An example would be Colombia's 1000 day civil war (1899). they have had nine. Losses were 100.000. Most were civilians. Some troops included kids. Parts of Colombia was devastated.

With the advance of the war, it became more oppressive and cruel. The population was even driven to take part in each side in more fanatical ways, in spite of the efforts of each party to gain victories (which soon were revealed to be illusionary).

It was a liberal vs. Conservative war. Funny thing is that in the 1950's both the Conservatives and Liberals started another civil war. It had to do with a liberal politician being eliminated. They signed an agreement to end the conflict after 10 years . However, this Conservative vs. Liberal political elite war gave rise to left wing groups which worried both the conservative and liberal elites who then decided to work together to crush these left wing groups. Just a few weeks ago they finally signed a an agreement with these left wing groups after 50 years. This leftish group is going to become a legal political party.

[Gauthier]

And what did you contribute to this fine and spirited debate?

Perhaps you should learn to read, chap.

And it reads like you jumped on the Fuck America and the West For Hipness bandwagon.

[Shofercia]

Scary... Erdogan shoots down one Russian plane, Russia start supporting Kurds in Turkey. The more planes shot down, the bigger the support. Erdogan needs to chill.

Erdogan won't chill if Russia keeps violating Turkey's airspace. No government would chill in that situation.

Not chill in the sense that he shouldn't try to negotiate his way out; chill in the sense of not threatening to shoot Russian planes down. US and Russia violate each other's airspace several times a year, and I don't hear threats of them demanding that planes be shot down or else...

Scary... Erdogan shoots down one Russian plane, Russia start supporting Kurds in Turkey. The more planes shot down, the bigger the support. Erdogan needs to chill.

One dictator is menacing another by flying planes over his airspace, the second dictator retaliates by shooting them down, the first dictator, angry, then support a local rebel group against the first dictator, and will continue to fly planes over first dictator's airspace to prop up the regime of a third dictator in his fight against yet another rebel group.

In the end of all this, we can expect several Oscar winning films about how sad it makes some white dude that a bunch of faceless Arabs are suffering.

It's slightly more complicated than that. Dictator E wants to take down Rebels K in neighboring country, with whom President P secured an alliance. In order to get Dictator E to stop, President P flies his planes over Dictator's E's air defense units, showing what could happen if war was to ignite. Should Dictator E actually hit a plane, President P's special forces will train Rebels K, not just in Iraq and Syria, but also in country of Dictator E. Then Hollywood will make a movie about how this is oppressive to white liberals.

Scary... Erdogan shoots down one Russian plane, Russia start supporting Kurds in Turkey. The more planes shot down, the bigger the support. Erdogan needs to chill.

No Russian aircraft have been shot down, unless you think old aircraft delivered when the Soviet Union existed count as "Russian".

At least not by Turkey, I know that. I'm saying what I think will happen if Russian aircraft is shot down.

It's good that you've made the leap to realize that China will do what's best for China; what I don't understand is why you fail to realize that acting in concert with Russia would be best for China. The alliance is based on three factors; first, no criss crossing conflicts, i.e. China and Russia have nothing to fight about. Second, the countries share a similar multipolar worldview. Third, they're both opposed to having the will of other countries bestowed on them, and have local projects that they both want completed. As far as aversion to authoritarian government, please save that for the PR gang. 

You admit that stability in the Middle East and Central Asia benefits China, and yet you fail to see how that'll strengthen the Russo-Chinese alliance. That's your problem. Vetoing with Russia isn't the say as not condemning; it's flat out supporting. Not condemning would be abstaining. Vetoing with = supporting. And China already did something substantial to aid Russia; who do you think led the charge to ensure that Russia wasn't isolated with sanctions? That's right, the BICS, and I think the C there stands for China. And yes, China won't support Russia if Russia gets quagmired in Syria, since it's extremely challenging to support things that don't exist, or won't exist. 

I'm saying that as soon as China and Russia's interests do not align, Russia will no longer have Chinese support for its agenda. I think we are agreed on that. Your argument seems to boil down to "this won't happen", to which I would reply that this is entirely conditional on just how destabilising Putin intends to be in the world. Trying to maintain a sphere of influence, whether in Eastern Europe or in the Middle East, when all you have to offer is support for authoritarian governments (and this is not about PR or preferences, but about the lack of stability and sustainability of authoritarian governments that lose support of the populace) is not going to be in the Chinese interest once it reaches a certain threshold. Russia's decline in terms of geopolitical importance cannot be halted or even reversed over the next century without pushing this threshold. That's why I think the Chinese will assess things on a case-by-case basis.

Even if true, how soon do you see Russian and Chinese interests not aligning? Where do you see Russian and Chinese interests not aligning? I'm saying that China will support Russia as long as their interests are not conflicting. You're saying not aligning. My claim is that Chinese will tolerate and support Russia, as long as Russia doesn't go against Chinese interests, irrespective if they align or not.

Russia's decline in terms of geopolitical importance has already been reversed. The only important organization that Russia's not in, is NATO. Similarly, the countries that aren't in NATO and are powerful, are either in the SCO, ASEAN, or BRICS. Furthermore, from the Chinese perspective, Putin is a major stabilizing force.

Furthermore, the SCO, where both Russia and China have equal say, is a long term venture. There's nothing short term about it. And in the SCO, the duo consider each other equal partners. Welcome to reality, bro. As for the military being broken, you do realize that Russia spends less than 5 percent, right? http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/MS.MIL.XPND.GD.ZS That seems sustainable to me.

It's not, and I tell you why.

1) That is a very high number. It's a full percentage point more than the US, and the US spends a lot on its military. It is way more than any OECD average would indicate - it's almost as much as Israel, and you cannot possibly convince me that Russia's defense situation is even remotely comparable to Israel's.

Countries that have nukes spend more than countries that don't, so using the OECD average to criticize Russia simply shows your incompetence when assessing military budgets. Heck, SNP's sole argument against nukes was how expensive they were to maintain.

2) Russia's GDP is not going to grow at the same rate it used to. Even abstracting from everything else (productivity, degradation of the capital stock etc), its population is barely stable, while that of China or the US is growing at a faster pace. To keep relative parity, Russia would have to expand spending significantly over time as a share of its economy.

Russian demographics have been improving over the past 15 years. That's not "barely stable". That's "constant improvement". And when the military budget crosses the five percent threshold, (minus nuke related expenditure,) then you can talk.

3) The really relevant metric here is not spending as a share of GDP, but spending as a share of its fiscal potential. And that's where your claim that Putin thinks long-term is blown out of the water. In 2005 Russia's budget could be balanced at $20 per barrel, in 2013 it could be balanced at $102 per barrel. Almost a third of people are employed by the state sector - there was an increase by more than 3.5 million in state sector employees between 2004 and today to levels exceeding that seen in the USSR at times. That's not a long-term plan, that's Venezuela light. The Russian economy is dependent on two things: access to government spending for public sector projects, wealth and public sector employment, and access to foreign credit for its banking sector. We've seen over the past year or two how things are going with the latter (a huge proportion of Russia's foreign exchange reserves had to be spent on bailing out banks directly and via propping up the currency; not to mention the crazy stuff the Russian central bank had to do), and I struggle to see how the Russian economy is going to grow all that fast over the coming couple of years as a result. Which doesn't help the fiscal situation either.

The problem with measuring fiscal potential is that said potential depends on how much of its natural resources the government is willing to sell. Furthermore, you claim that Russia's economy is dependent on access to foreign credit. And that's where the facts bite you in the ass. It's well know that Russia is an export oriented country, meaning the Russia exports more than Russia imports. Forbes wrote: http://www.forbes.com/sites/markadomani ... ollapsing/

Exports fell by 31.4%, from about 39.5 billion US dollars to about 27.5 billion. That’s really bad, obviously, but considering what happened to the price of oil it probably could have been even worse. The really scary numbers, however, come from imports. They absolutely fell off of a cliff, declining by a whopping 40.8%. No, that wasn’t a typo. Russian imports through the first month of the year were more than forty percent lower than they were in 2014. Rosstat’s imports aren’t broken up into very many sub-sectors, but the proportionately biggest drop was in ”cars, equipment, and transportation” where the percentage decrease (55.2%) was even worse than the overall figure. Seeing a number like that, you understand why GM decided to simply shut down its Russian operations.

So it really sucks for GM. It sucks for Toyota. But what it means is that Russia can always run a positive export-import balance. If that's the case, how the fuck does Russia's economy depend on foreign credit? Russia's debt stands at 18% of the GDP according to trading economics. Russia's external debt is at $600 billion. And yet Russia is dependent on that? Denmark's $593 billion, and Denmark's much smaller than Russia.

And this is not starting to talk about what you find when you look at international capital flows... especially the grotesque amounts of money that certain people seem to be shipping out of Russia. You can't mean to compare that to the way China runs things (except the shipping out money part!). And even the US, for all its issues, is in a better position to maintain growth in military spending that far surpasses anything Russia can hope to muster. That's the scary thing about all this - at the moment it looks like Putin is valuing international clout over economic stability and sustainability. Regardless of whether you think that's actually the right thing to do by the Russian people, it is a strategy that if pursued over a longer period of time requires an ever increasing focus on using resources for the military. And even then it will eventually have to stop. Maybe there'll be a different government then. But if the focus remains on maintaining spheres of influence and going on international adventures, that's just plain dangerous.

You love to talk about the economy, but thus far all you've shown me is your projections. If Putin will continue on this path, if Putin will do XYZ, if Russia's budget will rise, if, whatever. Even when the Sun and Moon collide...

I've shown you past statistics, history, etc. Putin's smart, and if something's amiss, he will scale back; he didn't take half of Ukraine, did he? So if he sees the current cycle of events as negative over a long term trends, he'll make adjustments, like he did in the past.

And yes, the Chinese leadership thinks in terms of decades, ready for a newsflash? So does the Russian leadership. 

As I said, if the Russian leadership is thinking decades ahead, they are doing a really poor job. Assuming the Chinese are not, they can see where this is going, and I wouldn't count on them going hitching their wagon to that particular train.

That's just like your opinion, man. An opinion of someone who compared the military budgets of non-nuclear and nuclear countries, and thought that was a fair comparison.

[Shofercia]

Russia just handed ISIS a 'big win' in Syria's largest city

This is either Rick Perry grade Oops, or the Russians think they can get Western sympathy for the Assad regime by letting the IS wipe out the rebels.

The more land the enemy secures the more there forces will thin out. Which means the Syrian military, supposedly, will thus be able to easily break through the enemies line of defenses.

I still think the question is, who is still supplying ISIS. Looking at the map below, the territory ISIS controls is landlocked. Waging a war costs money and much supplies. There resistance at this point should be starting to crack if new supplies were not being brought in.

Map - http://static3.businessinsider.com/imag ... -oct_7.png

Wait, you mean to tell me that the Russians will employ the counterattack tactic that the Russians always employed? I'm shocked! Sarcastically shocked!

Russia has sent in the Spetsnaz, along with a support force of 75,000 infantry.

I knew it was over 9,000 infantry!

afghanistan

poland, finland. the west.

Poland was partitioned four times. Really not the best example, Balk.

[The balkens]

And still exists today. Albeit with a reasonable hatred of the USSR and its main successor state.

[Shofercia]

And still exists today. Albeit with a reasonable hatred of the USSR and its main successor state.

And threatens Russia with Polandball...

[The balkens]

Polan can into Nato and soviet deep battle.

[Shofercia]

Polan can into Nato and soviet deep battle.

Poland cannot into any deep battle.

[The balkens]

Polan can into Nato and soviet deep battle.

Poland cannot into any deep battle.

Polan was part of warsaw pact.

Polan knew how soviet deep battle worked, Polan valuble nato ally.

[Socialist Czechia]

Polan can into Nato and soviet deep battle.

Poland cannot into any deep battle.

Poland will dissapear again, as it's continual habit.

But they can thank God for Putin, really. With Putin and resurgent Russia, they have still common enemy with Krauts and Balts, so nations around won't tear them apart. Yet.

[The balkens]

Poland cannot into any deep battle.

Poland will dissapear again, as it's continual habit.

But they can thank God for Putin, really. With Putin and resurgent Russia, they have still common enemy with Krauts and Balts, so nations around won't tear them apart. Yet.

you say that, but if Poland suddenly disappears, Russia will have all of NATO to answer to and proceed to get its krokodil needle shoved down its throat.

Its why Russia isnt stupid enough to invade the Baltics or eastern Europe.

[Socialist Czechia]

Poland will dissapear again, as it's continual habit.

But they can thank God for Putin, really. With Putin and resurgent Russia, they have still common enemy with Krauts and Balts, so nations around won't tear them apart. Yet.

you say that, but if Poland suddenly disappears, Russia will have all of NATO to answer to and proceed to get its krokodil needle shoved down its throat.

Its why Russia isnt stupid enough to invade the Baltics or eastern Europe.

Well, when EU and NATO will collapse, and there wouldn't be Russia but Second Russian Empire with puppet Tsar...
But that's like, future history hypothesis

One thing is sure, nothing is forever. I know people wants NATO and EU to exist for millenias until humanity will dissapear into cosmic void, but come on.