Trump: Clinton's foreign policy plan would start WWIII

[Morch]

12 minutes ago, Publicus said:

 

Erdogan got away completely with the shootdown (by a USAF to Turkey F-16A Fighting Falcon vs a Russian Su-24 fighter-bomber, each of 'em of 1970s vintage).

 

US F-16A Fighting Falcon "Viper" of the Turkish Air Force takes off from Incrilik Air Force Base near the Syria border, December 14, 2015.

 

 

After Erdogan kicked Putin in the balls by doing the shootdown, Putin hollered a lot while he sat in the Kremlin soaking swelled nuts in cold water. During his sitdown the sorehead and wincing Putin pulled some tomatoes and carrots to include some fuel resources off the market to Turkey.

 

https://images.search.yahoo.com/search/images;

 

Now that Putin is bouncing and bounding around again he's been happy to shake hands with his old friend Erdogan. Two nuts together in the same sack. Now however Putin knows who's boss in the tangled relationship. Erdogan came off on top in this one.

 

The Turkish economy was looking at a gloomy forecast, and short term losses were already felt. Erdogan is the one who had to make

concessions, had to crawl into Putin's good graces and apologize (sort of, Putin didn't even press him much there). Russian aircraft did not cease to carry out missions in Syria, and there were no further incidents or even complaints from the Turkish side.

 

I don't think there's a single serious commentary on this affair which asserts it as Erdogan's victory. That is, other than yours.

[Morch]

5 hours ago, Publicus said:

 

The people opposed to a no-fly zone in Syria are running off into the hills and dales about it. 

 

HRC is not talking the same stuff her opponents are in respect of her proposed no-fly zone. The proof of this is in HRC in her own words...

 

 

One of the reasons why I have advocated for a no-fly zone is in order to create those safe refuges within Syria, to try to protect people on the ground both from Assad's forces, who are continuing to drop barrel bombs, and from ISIS," Clinton said.

"ISIS doesn't have aircraft. Al-Qaida doesn't have aircraft. So would you shoot down a Syrian military aircraft or a Russian airplane?" Raddatz asked.

Clinton responded by saying, "I do not think it would come to that. We are already de-conflicting air space" with Russian military aircraft.

 

http://www.military.com/daily-news/2015/12/23/clinton-strikes-hawkish-tone-with-support-for-no-fly-zone-syria.html

 

Putin and Trump are the only guys around here talking about systematically and as military policy bombing civilians in their place -- wherver their place may be. Putin is actually doing it and Trump is drooling to get to do it.

 

HRC is not -- not -- talking about US airpower in Syria roaming around some area or zone looking to shoot down Russian military aircraft. 

 

(Also, beyond the point of a no-fly zone, we need to be accurate about Russian airpower capabilities. For instance, in a single engagement of an hour, a day, a week -- or even a month, Russian military power of any kind is formidable. Over the long term and the long haul, however, it is unsustainable in its quality and in its support base of the Russian economy and also in respect of its population.)

 

True, people make too much of HRC's no-fly zones comments. Not quite the sabre-rattling attributed by some. That said, she did not provide much insight as to how these no-fly zones are to be agreed upon or enforced. Nor is it clear how these might come about if the Russians disagree. "I do not think it would come to that" - indeed, but still leaves room for interpretation. Perhaps too much room for some.

 

With regard to the assessment of Russian military capability on a limited scale scenario in Syria (if things escalate further, all bets are off, so kinda pointless) - the US does not have much by way of military leverage. Nor, I think, the will to use it. Putin seems to be of the same opinion, regardless of posturing.

[Publicus]

7 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

There were at least three other international incidents involving shooting down of military aircraft related to this conflict alone. It did not start a war because Russia didn't have to. Turkey was put it its place merely by Russia shutting down trade and making some rumbling noises over gas. Some may wish to check if a similar dynamic would prevail given a hypothetical US-Russian stand-off. I'd rather not go there. Turkey is not a player that can initiate anything like WW, US and Russia are.

 

Turkey as a Nato ally can shoot down one Russian warplane however and not only live to tell about it, but to have Putin back again as an ole but now chastised buddy, chum, mate. 

 

Erdogan got away with it, period. Plain and simple to see, recognise, to know. Putin was not required to patch it up between he and Erdogan. Putin chose to forget if not to forgive. Maybe forgive too, or so it could seem. 

 

Putin would have driven a harder bargain against Ukraine or Georgia. With Erdogan however it was kiss and make up for Putin. He needs Erdogan and the good swift kick Erdogan gave Putin made him realise it all the more.

 

Score one for the Turk. Just remember, Putin in the Kremlin never played chess against anyone he couldn't put in jail. Or have shot. Polonium Putin.

[Publicus]

4 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

<<snip>>

 

With regard to the assessment of Russian military capability on a limited scale scenario in Syria (if things escalate further, all bets are off, so kinda pointless) - the US does not have much by way of military leverage. Nor, I think, the will to use it. Putin seems to be of the same opinion, regardless of posturing.

 

Indeed, neither Moscow nor Washington wants to militarily engage the other, even in one aerial dogfight.

 

Syrian civilians desperately and frantically need a safe haven and a no-fly zone would create that, as only Russian or Syrian government military aircraft would be in the sky, with US warplanes from aircraft carriers and Nato bases which include USAF warplanes, such as at Aviano in Italy.

 

Putin respects only muscle and he knows while Trump's muscle is between his ears HRC means what she says. Lavrov and Kerry are but perpetual frat brothers of rival fraternities but who roam together to all the spots. 

 

Kerry as SecState has prevailed over OB concerning a no-fly zone in Syria. HRC as SecState would have prevailed over OB. As Potus and CinC Hillary Clinton will do what is obviously necessary in humanitarian terms and in military terms wise and decisive.

 

This Russia and US fighting each other in Syria is just nonsense. While Putin is no chessmaster, he does know very well how to avoid getting rooked.  

[Morch]

1 hour ago, Publicus said:

 

Turkey as a Nato ally can shoot down one Russian warplane however and not only live to tell about it, but to have Putin back again as an ole but now chastised buddy, chum, mate. 

 

Erdogan got away with it, period. Plain and simple to see, recognise, to know. Putin was not required to patch it up between he and Erdogan. Putin chose to forget if not to forgive. Maybe forgive too, or so it could seem. 

 

Putin would have driven a harder bargain against Ukraine or Georgia. With Erdogan however it was kiss and make up for Putin. He needs Erdogan and the good swift kick Erdogan gave Putin made him realise it all the more.

 

Score one for the Turk. Just remember, Putin in the Kremlin never played chess against anyone he couldn't put in jail. Or have shot. Polonium Putin.

 

We must be living in parallel realities with regard to this one.

Putin is not the one who crawled tail between his legs to Erdogan.

 

Putin chose to patch things up, once Erdogan was sufficiently humiliated, and Turkey put in its proper place. Putin, for all his real and imagined faults, is not Trump and knows how the game is played. As an aside, Erdogan does seem to have some things in common with Trump, personality-wise.

 

NATO, on the whole, gave a rather weak response. There were no war drums beaten, more like cautions comments. Guess it wasn't neither much of a reason to take the field, nor a great time to do so.

 

But I believe that we are drifting off topic.

 

 

[Morch]

1 hour ago, Publicus said:

 

Indeed, neither Moscow nor Washington wants to militarily engage the other, even in one aerial dogfight.

 

Syrian civilians desperately and frantically need a safe haven and a no-fly zone would create that, as only Russian or Syrian government military aircraft would be in the sky, with US warplanes from aircraft carriers and Nato bases which include USAF warplanes, such as at Aviano in Italy.

 

Putin respects only muscle and he knows while Trump's muscle is between his ears HRC means what she says. Lavrov and Kerry are but perpetual frat brothers of rival fraternities but who roam together to all the spots. 

 

Kerry as SecState has prevailed over OB concerning a no-fly zone in Syria. HRC as SecState would have prevailed over OB. As Potus and CinC Hillary Clinton will do what is obviously necessary in humanitarian terms and in military terms wise and decisive.

 

This Russia and US fighting each other in Syria is just nonsense. While Putin is no chessmaster, he does know very well how to avoid getting rooked.  

 

I seriously doubt HRC (if she wins the elections) will rush to confront the Russians about this. I also doubt Putin will back down that easily, or that he sees HRC as significantly more heavy-weight than Obama.

 

Barring Obama taking unexpected steps, it will be almost three months before a new POTUS will tackle the issue. By that time, the Russian effort in Aleppo may be over. It is conceivable that this will coincide with Mosul being secured and, perhaps, Al-Raqqah taken. Russia will be in a position to accept now-meaningless no-fly zones, the US will get now-meaningless no-fly zones, and that's about it.

[Publicus]

27 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

We must be living in parallel realities with regard to this one.

Putin is not the one who crawled tail between his legs to Erdogan.

 

Putin chose to patch things up, once Erdogan was sufficiently humiliated, and Turkey put in its proper place. Putin, for all his real and imagined faults, is not Trump and knows how the game is played. As an aside, Erdogan does seem to have some things in common with Trump, personality-wise.

 

NATO, on the whole, gave a rather weak response. There were no war drums beaten, more like cautions comments. Guess it wasn't neither much of a reason to take the field, nor a great time to do so.

 

But I believe that we are drifting off topic.

 

 

 

Your sword is accepted as you drift away.

 

Erdogan kicked Putin in the balls. Anything less than Putin kicking back identically is a surrender by Putin. Vlad did not kick Erdogan in the nuts. Putin did not shoot down or blow up anything as is his normal response as an abnormal person and leader.

 

Putin withheld some carrots and tomatoes, threw in a bit of fuel, squeezed Erdogan to a certain extent, then Putin said okay, I got you where you want me, so let's make up.

 

Putin is an Old Testament guy of an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth. So's Erdogan in his own respect. Yet all we got here was a confession by each and a new start to an old relationship. Putin getting down on his knees and doing only five Hail Marys is really weak. 

[Publicus]

12 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

I seriously doubt HRC (if she wins the elections) will rush to confront the Russians about this. I also doubt Putin will back down that easily, or that he sees HRC as significantly more heavy-weight than Obama.

 

Barring Obama taking unexpected steps, it will be almost three months before a new POTUS will tackle the issue. By that time, the Russian effort in Aleppo may be over. It is conceivable that this will coincide with Mosul being secured and, perhaps, Al-Raqqah taken. Russia will be in a position to accept now-meaningless no-fly zones, the US will get now-meaningless no-fly zones, and that's about it.

 

Someone should email the post to the people of Syria so they can take a certain comfort that in only three more months the whole of the ongoing nightmare will almost surely be over.

 

Pretty much finally and at last eh.

 

How convenient.

[minimoi]

2 minutes ago, Publicus said:

 

Your sword is accepted as you drift away.

 

Erdogan kicked Putin in the balls. Anything less than Putin kicking back identically is a surrender by Putin. Vlad did not kick Erdogan in the nuts. Putin did not shoot down or blow up anything as is his normal response as an abnormal person and leader.

 

Putin withheld some carrots and tomatoes, threw in a bit of fuel, squeezed Erdogan to a certain extent, then Putin said okay, I got you where you want me, so let's make up.

 

Putin is an Old Testament guy of an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth. So's Erdogan in his own respect. Yet all we got here was a confession by each and a new start to an old relationship. Putin getting down on his knees and doing only five Hail Marys is really weak. 

Dunno where you read the news, but in this feud Putin was not the one on its knees...

Also NATO would intervene in case of a member being attacked in its borders. If the member attack a country or is attacked outside its border, NATO members are not in position to help if they do not want it.

[Morch]

16 minutes ago, Publicus said:

 

Your sword is accepted as you drift away.

 

Erdogan kicked Putin in the balls. Anything less than Putin kicking back identically is a surrender by Putin. Vlad did not kick Erdogan in the nuts. Putin did not shoot down or blow up anything as is his normal response as an abnormal person and leader.

 

Putin withheld some carrots and tomatoes, threw in a bit of fuel, squeezed Erdogan to a certain extent, then Putin said okay, I got you where you want me, so let's make up.

 

Putin is an Old Testament guy of an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth. So's Erdogan in his own respect. Yet all we got here was a confession by each and a new start to an old relationship. Putin getting down on his knees and doing only five Hail Marys is really weak. 

 

Guess I don't see Putin the way you choose to portray him. Even more so with regard to Erdogan. That you choose to assume a kindergarten mentality on Putin's part is all very well, just no necessarily supported by much.

 

Putin's main objective was Syria, not Turkey. Side stepping into another open conflict was not in Russia's best interests. He chose to win by economic pressure, and it did the trick. If circumstances were different, he would probably would have liked to slap Turkey around, but then again - I think he's more calculating and patient than some give him credit.

 

The party asking to make up was Turkey, not the opposite. Reason being, economic pressure was real, and backup for further hostilities doubtful.

 

As for the "new" relationship between the countries - not putting much stock in it. If there's one thing that can Erdogan can be counted on for is to mess diplomatic relationship. If I count correctly, there's not a single country in the region with which Turkey did not have up and down issues during his reign. And Putin, the way I see him, is more of a pragmatist on this one -- other fish to fry, while keeping an entry in that little black book.

Edited October 27, 2016 by Morch

[Publicus]

3 minutes ago, minimoi said:

Dunno where you read the news, but in this feud Putin was not the one on its knees...

Also NATO would intervene in case of a member being attacked in its borders. If the member attack a country or is attacked outside its border, NATO members are not in position to help if they do not want it.

 

Good to see you've finally read the Nato Charter of 1949.

 

2009 was their 50th anniversary y'know. (Erdogan was there, however, Putin was not invited.)

 

Again, Putin is an Old Testament guy as Erdogan is in his own point of reference. However, rather than the two engaging in any more gouging or pulling, the two did confession together and all's well.

 

Putin and a Potus Hillary Clinton if she wins are not going to shoot at one another. The no-fly zone is to protect civilians against air assault: The only applicable parties in the conflict with airpower are Russia and what remains of the Syrian government.

 

HRC is advocating USA do what it typically does as a matter of policy and practice, whenever it can do so, which is to shelter and protect massed civilian refugees in a war or a conflict by intervening in a realistic and timely humanitarian way. If Putin or Assad think that's bad, then let 'em say so. They won't. (Retain this post thx.) 

[minimoi]

Just now, Publicus said:

 

Good to see you've finally read the Nato Charter of 1949.

 

2009 was their 50th anniversary y'know. (Erdogan was there, however, Putin was not invited.)

 

Again, Putin is an Old Testament guy as Erdogan is in his own point of reference. However, rather than the two engaging in any more gouging or pulling, the two did confession together and all's well.

 

Putin and a Potus Hillary Clinton if she wins are not going to shoot at one another. The no-fly zone is to protect civilians against air assault: The only applicable parties in the conflict with airpower are Russia and what remains of the Syrian government.

 

HRC is advocating USA do what it typically does as a matter of policy and practice, whenever it can do so, which is to shelter and protect massed civilian refugees in a war or a conflict by intervening in a realistic and timely humanitarian way. If Putin or Assad think that's bad, then let 'em say so. They won't. (Retain this post thx.) 

As previously stated : "winter is coming" and Turkey is heavily dependant of Russian energy, and Russian are the main tourists in Turkey, he was the  one losing.

 

"Putin and a Potus Hillary Clinton if she wins are not going to shoot at one another. The no-fly zone is to protect civilians against air assault: The only applicable parties in the conflict with airpower are Russia and what remains of the Syrian government."

USA will never enforce a no fly zone, on this we agree...

[Publicus]

 

Putin the chessmaster.

 

We know....

[Morch]

13 minutes ago, Publicus said:

 

Someone should email the post to the people of Syria so they can take a certain comfort that in only three more months the whole of the ongoing nightmare will almost surely be over.

 

Pretty much finally and at last eh.

 

How convenient.

 

The "people of Syria" is a rather loose term by now.

 

Even if ISIS main strongholds were to fall, it will not necessarily mean the fighting will stop. Many other groups around, even without accounting for ISIS forces ongoing operations (as seen in Iraq). And of course, Assad is not about to forgive and forget anyone who opposed him. Gonna be a bloody mess for quite a while.

 

 

 

[Publicus]

1 minute ago, minimoi said:

As previously stated : "winter is coming" and Turkey is heavily dependant of Russian energy, and Russian are the main tourists in Turkey, he was the  one losing.

 

"Putin and a Potus Hillary Clinton if she wins are not going to shoot at one another. The no-fly zone is to protect civilians against air assault: The only applicable parties in the conflict with airpower are Russia and what remains of the Syrian government."

USA will never enforce a no fly zone, on this we agree...

 

Who agrees plse thx...

[Publicus]

2 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

The "people of Syria" is a rather loose term by now.

 

Even if ISIS main strongholds were to fall, it will not necessarily mean the fighting will stop. Many other groups around, even without accounting for ISIS forces ongoing operations (as seen in Iraq). And of course, Assad is not about to forgive and forget anyone who opposed him. Gonna be a bloody mess for quite a while.

 

 

 

 

That's realistic so in a sense better than what had been claimed in one of your posts thx. Good to see you moving back toward reality in that part of the world, and in this one too.

[Morch]

11 minutes ago, Publicus said:

 

Good to see you've finally read the Nato Charter of 1949.

 

2009 was their 50th anniversary y'know. (Erdogan was there, however, Putin was not invited.)

 

Again, Putin is an Old Testament guy as Erdogan is in his own point of reference. However, rather than the two engaging in any more gouging or pulling, the two did confession together and all's well.

 

Putin and a Potus Hillary Clinton if she wins are not going to shoot at one another. The no-fly zone is to protect civilians against air assault: The only applicable parties in the conflict with airpower are Russia and what remains of the Syrian government.

 

HRC is advocating USA do what it typically does as a matter of policy and practice, whenever it can do so, which is to shelter and protect massed civilian refugees in a war or a conflict by intervening in a realistic and timely humanitarian way. If Putin or Assad think that's bad, then let 'em say so. They won't. (Retain this post thx.) 

 

Agree with your last two paragraphs.

Difference being that IMO, by the time the new POTUS will be able to seal a deal with the Russians, the issue will be less relevant. Could be presented as diplomatic win, for PR purposes, but effectively, it will be done on Russia's schedule.

Edited October 27, 2016 by Morch

[Morch]

3 minutes ago, Publicus said:

 

That's realistic so in a sense better than what had been claimed in one of your posts thx. Good to see you moving back toward reality in that part of the world, and in this one too.

 

I think you've probably misinterpreted my other post, or otherwise, I wasn't clear enough.

The point made was not different.

[Xircal]

7 hours ago, Morch said:

 

Err...no.

 

Turkey shot down a Russian bomber. The Russians reacted by placing restrictions on Turkish exports (yes, including vegetables) & tourism (that is, Russian tourism in Turkey), and putting a huge question mark over supply of Russian gas to Turkey (previously agreed on at very competitive price). The end result was that Turkey, after much bolstering and posturing - caved in, and promised to behave. No further incidents after that.

 

The "comparison" provided is pretty much irrelevant (and inaccurate). The Russians got a very solid hold in Syria, with some serious air defenses which would challenge any Western attempt to ground Russian airplanes. The US does not have the means to decidedly counter the Russian setup, at least not without it getting very messy. Further, the US is very unlikely to risk a wider conflagration with Russia over Syria. Not even as if the US knows what its goals are in this conflict.

 

Shooting down a few is exactly a gamble that a responsible US president will not take without a very good reason, and without any apparent plan B in case it all goes wrong.

 

So you're saying that Russia should be given carte blanche to kill and maim civilians in any way it chooses in Syria?

 

Appeasement didn't work for Chamberlain when Hitler invaded Poland and it won't work for Putin. He needs to be confronted in Syria in order to call a halt to his agression there because if we don't do that he'll annex Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania next and then we really will be looking at WW3. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3876672/Nato-squares-Putin-Russia-beefs-military-Europe-s-border-West-responds-biggest-force-Cold-War.html

 

[Morch]

2 minutes ago, Xircal said:

 

So you're saying that Russia should be given carte blanche to kill and maim civilians in any way it chooses in Syria?

 

Appeasement didn't work for Chamberlain when Hitler invaded Poland and it won't work for Putin. He needs to be confronted in Syria in order to call a halt to his agression there because if we don't do that he'll annex Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania next and then we really will be looking at WW3. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3876672/Nato-squares-Putin-Russia-beefs-military-Europe-s-border-West-responds-biggest-force-Cold-War.html

 

 

Where did you see me saying anything of the sort?

 

I'm merely pointing out that realistically, there's little that can be done about it. There's no immediate leverage, no apparent will to risk a confrontation, and the time tables are problematic as well.

 

Russia getting its way in Syria does not necessarily imply it will take over the world, or that it will be in a position to try something similar elsewhere. Most of what we see in Europe is posturing. Initiating a confrontation in Syria might change that. No one wants to gamble.

 

 

[Publicus]

36 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

I think you've probably misinterpreted my other post, or otherwise, I wasn't clear enough.

The point made was not different.

 

That would be a probable wrong take with all due respect.

 

I've stated the locus of the HRC position and I have supplemented HRC with the predominant take of people who laugh when others assign certain attributes to Vladimir Putin, guts, courage and smarts being but a few of 'em.

 

The Republican party dominated by the American extreme right sector in politics and government share the view of Putin's, er, characteristics and traits as a leader over there (giving a pass to sharper words).

 

One thing you're not is unclear, so no concern there. I sharply disagree with you so I rather, state the realities as HRC presents them in respect of her proposed no-fly zone. And that it is consistent with US policy and practice concerning an exposed mass refugee population that is at the mercy war -- Assad's unrelenting war extended by Putin.

 

So as I state, no misinterpretation and no need to rehash my posts cause there's nothing new against 'em. I'll keep an eye out for anything new however....

[Publicus]

28 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

Where did you see me saying anything of the sort?

 

I'm merely pointing out that realistically, there's little that can be done about it. There's no immediate leverage, no apparent will to risk a confrontation, and the time tables are problematic as well.

 

Russia getting its way in Syria does not necessarily imply it will take over the world, or that it will be in a position to try something similar elsewhere. Most of what we see in Europe is posturing. Initiating a confrontation in Syria might change that. No one wants to gamble.

 

 

 

It's not a gamble. It's a policy decision to include a risk assessment.

 

Bottom line is that Russia and USA will not engage each other in any meaningful or significant way. Nor would they allow a single incident to balloon. The two powers have volumes of agreements over many decades specifically established and mutually observed to prevent or preclude escalation. Our continued existence testifies to their effectiveness and mutually shared acceptance, expectation, predictability.

 

It's one big reason Lavrov and Kerry can be frat boyz together in all of this and more.

[boomerangutang]

Another factor:  If the US, under Clinton, were to impose a no-fly zone, American diplomats would speak with their Russkie counterparts to try and formulate a win-win policy.  Russkies may not fully agree, but that's why there are diplomatic negotiations about many issues, every week, by countries around the world.   

 

The difference is;  Trump is a wild card.  He may or may not discuss int'l things with other world leaders who may be affected.  Trump is a shoot-from-the-hip guy who likes to intimidate others.  One of a thousand examples:  He invited the women who had sex with Bill to sit close to the stage during the debates.   Trump likes to catch people off guard.  He's also getting a reputation among world leaders as a BS artist.  One of many examples:  when he went to talk to Mexico's prez: he said one thing in the morning when they were in Mexico City, ......and then Trump shouted completely different things in AZ, a few hours later.   On many levels, Trump can't be trusted.  He has zero credence and would get no respect from foreign leaders.  Much different with HRC.   Foreign leaders may not like Madam President's stance on issues, but they know she's good on her word.  With Trump, it's a toss-up on a circus carousel of derision.  Most foreign leaders would not want to cooperate with Trump simply because he so often brags about what a great negotiater he is, and how he can compel everyone to do his bidding.

 

Perhaps in America, braggarts are respected, but in the rest of the world, they're derided.  Trump acts like, once he's prez, he will get the advantage in every trade deal and every political deal.  He's used to intimidating people into complying.   His bluster will have the opposite affect on foreign leaders and negotiators.    Plus, he'll be easy to blackmail, because he has soooooo much dirty laundry from the past 45 years.  If the Russkies, working with Wikileaks can find thousands of pages on stuff on HRC, you can bet they can find twenty times that amount, plus incriminating videos, on the Divider.   It's interesting that Russia/Wikileaks has not released anything on Trump.  It's no secret to me, why that is:  Putin want a dumbass like Trump as US Prez.  He's much easier to manipulate than HRC.  Plus Trump doesn't care for NATO, which gives Putin a crack in the door to take back the Balkans and other former Soviet states.

Edited October 27, 2016 by boomerangutang

[gemini81]

On ‎10‎/‎26‎/‎2016 at 0:13 AM, Pimay1 said:

Trump is absolutely right on this one. Even if I was a Clinton supporter I would be against the no fly zone. Shoot down one Russian plane and it would all start.

No fly zones, like in Lybia, allow them to mobilize ground forces (proxy rebels) w/o threat of air attack.

[Xircal]

1 hour ago, Morch said:

 

Where did you see me saying anything of the sort?

 

I'm merely pointing out that realistically, there's little that can be done about it. There's no immediate leverage, no apparent will to risk a confrontation, and the time tables are problematic as well.

 

Russia getting its way in Syria does not necessarily imply it will take over the world, or that it will be in a position to try something similar elsewhere. Most of what we see in Europe is posturing. Initiating a confrontation in Syria might change that. No one wants to gamble.

 

 

 

Well, I disagree with you when you say that little can be done to stop Russian aggression in Syria since you're basing your assumptions on Russia's missile defence measures in the area such as the S-300 and S-400 anti-aircraft missile which although formidable aren't invincible.

 

If you look at the enormous US military budget you'll note that it spends twice as much as the Russians do and a large part of that will be employed to develop countermeasures to missiles like the S-300 and S-400. The F-22 Raptor already incorporates those kind of defence measures and would likely be the aircraft which would be employed initially to clear an area of the S-300 threat so that the B-2 bombers can go about their business unimpeded.

 

The US could also employ the standoff air-to-surface missiles such as the AGM-158 which can be launched from up to 600 miles away. If employed in sufficiently high numbers they would overwhelm Russia's anti-aircraft systems on the ground. The US has 2,000 of these missile systems in its arsenal. The same missile can also be employed in an anti-ship role.

 

France also has an aircraft carrier off the Syrian coast which is being defended by two American destroyers both of which carry a formidable amount of weaponry. There are also likely to be US nuclear subs in the Med which can add to US firepower if needed.

 

I'm sure Putin is aware the odds stacked against him though and will likely back down if it came to a confrontation.

[Morch]

1 hour ago, Xircal said:

 

Well, I disagree with you when you say that little can be done to stop Russian aggression in Syria since you're basing your assumptions on Russia's missile defence measures in the area such as the S-300 and S-400 anti-aircraft missile which although formidable aren't invincible.

 

If you look at the enormous US military budget you'll note that it spends twice as much as the Russians do and a large part of that will be employed to develop countermeasures to missiles like the S-300 and S-400. The F-22 Raptor already incorporates those kind of defence measures and would likely be the aircraft which would be employed initially to clear an area of the S-300 threat so that the B-2 bombers can go about their business unimpeded.

 

The US could also employ the standoff air-to-surface missiles such as the AGM-158 which can be launched from up to 600 miles away. If employed in sufficiently high numbers they would overwhelm Russia's anti-aircraft systems on the ground. The US has 2,000 of these missile systems in its arsenal. The same missile can also be employed in an anti-ship role.

 

France also has an aircraft carrier off the Syrian coast which is being defended by two American destroyers both of which carry a formidable amount of weaponry. There are also likely to be US nuclear subs in the Med which can add to US firepower if needed.

 

I'm sure Putin is aware the odds stacked against him though and will likely back down if it came to a confrontation.

 

All of the above does not amount to all that much unless seen as a credible threat by Russia. If posters on this forum are able to come to the conclusion that there will be no direct military action taken, it can be counted upon that this was factored into Russia decision making. There is no indication that they will role over, play nice or accommodate the US wishes, if it doesn't suit them. Conditions may change, of course, but short term, not very likely.

 

With regard to the operational side (and disregarding other considerations), it is not so much that the Russian setup is impregnable. More a question of cost. I think the US military is quite aware that something of the sort will not be a joyride. Not half as gung ho as some posters seem to be.

 

There will be no confrontation (and certainly not WW3) initiated over Syria. There will be no swift solution, diplomatic or military , for the plight of the Syrians. Campaign trail statements and posturing is all it is.

Edited October 27, 2016 by Morch

[Publicus]

18 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

All of the above does not amount to all that much unless seen as a credible threat by Russia. If posters on this forum are able to come to the conclusion that there will be no direct military action taken, it can be counted upon that this was factored into Russia decision making. There is no indication that they will role over, play nice or accommodate the US wishes, if it doesn't suit them. Conditions may change, of course, but short term, not very likely.

 

With regard to the operational side (and disregarding other considerations), it is not so much that the Russian setup is impregnable. More a question of cost. I think the US military is quite aware that something of the sort will not be a joyride. Not half as gung ho as some posters seem to be.

 

There will be no confrontation (and certainly not WW3) initiated over Syria. There will be no swift solution, diplomatic or military , for the plight of the Syrians. Campaign trail statements and posturing is all it is.

 

More a question of cost. I think the US military is quite aware that something of the sort will not be a joyride. Not half as gung ho as some posters seem to be.

 

I'd stated in a post the cost to Russia of even a low intensity conflict with the USA would be unsustainable to the Russian economy. Your focus on the financial cost concerning the USA while ignoring the other major player is thus noted.

 

Nor is the USA economy and financial system under EU and other sanctions due to Crimea and Ukraine. Putin needs Turkey's carrots and tomatoes etc lest the Russians on the home front get restless (although they're proud to take all the punishment everyone has to give 'em). 

 

All we Americans on the home front would do is to witness it on CNN (live and in color). Putin needs USDs or his rubble will go bust. Putin this year is paying off $700 bn in dollar denominated debts with another $750 bn of same to be paid off next year. Meanwhile his forex reserves continue to self combust. Your constructs against the USA while ignoring Putin's meager resources and capabilities starts to make you sound like a fanboy.

 

Perhaps you're forgetting of just ignoring my point that Putin never played chess against anyone he couldn't put in jail...

 

 

 

Campaign trail statements and posturing is all it is.

 

HRC will if elected implement the no-fly zone she is defining and presenting and for the purposes and ends she is seeking. Or HRC would bargain and negotiate a substitute for it that would accomplish the purpose equally as well. 

 

The no-fly zone youse guyz are carrying on about has nothing to do with anything. Those who doubt or dismiss the resolve of HRC against the foreign enemies of the United States would impose some hard lesson on themselves. 

[Xircal]

37 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

All of the above does not amount to all that much unless seen as a credible threat by Russia. If posters on this forum are able to come to the conclusion that there will be no direct military action taken, it can be counted upon that this was factored into Russia decision making. There is no indication that they will role over, play nice or accommodate the US wishes, if it doesn't suit them. Conditions may change, of course, but short term, not very likely.

 

With regard to the operational side (and disregarding other considerations), it is not so much that the Russian setup is impregnable. More a question of cost. I think the US military is quite aware that something of the sort will not be a joyride. Not half as gung ho as some posters seem to be.

 

There will be no confrontation (and certainly not WW3) initiated over Syria. There will be no swift solution, diplomatic or military , for the plight of the Syrians. Campaign trail statements and posturing is all it is.

 

From a moral standpoint I don't think the US is going to stand idly by for long while the Russians decimate the Syrian population. Probably what's working in Putin's favour at the moment is the US election in 12 days time with the country's attention divided between one candidate who seems to be a sexual predator and Clinton with her own Pandora's box which she'd rather not open.

[heybruce]

Is it just me, or does it seem the Trump supporters have disappeared now that posts have gone into unpleasant details?

[Morch]

11 hours ago, Publicus said:

 

More a question of cost. I think the US military is quite aware that something of the sort will not be a joyride. Not half as gung ho as some posters seem to be.

 

I'd stated in a post the cost to Russia of even a low intensity conflict with the USA would be unsustainable to the Russian economy. Your focus on the financial cost concerning the USA while ignoring the other major player is thus noted.

 

Nor is the USA economy and financial system under EU and other sanctions due to Crimea and Ukraine. Putin needs Turkey's carrots and tomatoes etc lest the Russians on the home front get restless (although they're proud to take all the punishment everyone has to give 'em). 

 

All we Americans on the home front would do is to witness it on CNN (live and in color). Putin needs USDs or his rubble will go bust. Putin this year is paying off $700 bn in dollar denominated debts with another $750 bn of same to be paid off next year. Meanwhile his forex reserves continue to self combust. Your constructs against the USA while ignoring Putin's meager resources and capabilities starts to make you sound like a fanboy.

 

Perhaps you're forgetting of just ignoring my point that Putin never played chess against anyone he couldn't put in jail...

 

 

 

Campaign trail statements and posturing is all it is.

 

HRC will if elected implement the no-fly zone she is defining and presenting and for the purposes and ends she is seeking. Or HRC would bargain and negotiate a substitute for it that would accomplish the purpose equally as well. 

 

The no-fly zone youse guyz are carrying on about has nothing to do with anything. Those who doubt or dismiss the resolve of HRC against the foreign enemies of the United States would impose some hard lesson on themselves. 

 

I did mention "cost", but haven't specified it as economic.

 

While the US may not relish the financial costs of such operations, it is indeed less of an issue. The relevant costs with regard to the US are more to do with potential casualties (both US military and Syrian civilians, in this case), public opinion/perception (domestic and global) and  being further involved in yet another ME conflict.

 

Some of the above are less of an issue as far as Russia goes (casualties, public opinion), owing to them not being measured by the same standards as the US, and not not being (as a country) an open society. With regard to the off mark "Your focus on the financial cost concerning the USA while ignoring the other major player is thus noted." - hardly. I have stated on previous topics that economic strain is a potential key element with regard to the Russian intervention in Syria. It was even briefly mentioned earlier in the current topic, which mainly addresses the US end.

 

HRC, if (hopefully) elected, will (hopefully) manage to drive a deal with the Russians on no fly zones. I doubt that this will be the first item on the agenda of her presidency, or that negotiations with the Russians will conclude swiftly. Three months from now is a rather optimistic estimate, IMO. By the time a deal is agreed upon, Assad (read Syria) could very well be in a position to curtail or cease such airstrikes, without it impeding his goals much.

 

The only fanboy on this topic is yourself. Not fully deriding anyone opposed to the US does not amount to supporting them or even seeing them in a positive light. Asserting that the USA (and furthermore one's supported candidate for POTUS) is neither omnipotent, nor infallible, does not mean one is "against the USA". The latter is pretty much fanboy talk, though.