Russian boots on the ground in Syria. Another Afghanistan?

Count Dooku

Gatling wrote: »

Can you confirm that image is actually taken in syria at all

0:17

Count Dooku

Gatling wrote: »

Are the rate of deaths 30+ in 2 nights if that average keeps for the next 4 months according to russia may carry out airstrikes that will leave hundreds dead civilians wise .

I don't remember much cry when Ukrainian army was killing dozen civilians everyday in Donbass

Gatling

Peist2007 wrote: »

Lol. So even if there are no reports it will be due to the pesky Russians hiding the real figures. Such a schoolyard argument and entirely predictable. Go watch Fox News or something and take a break.

????????

Eugene Norman

Streetwalker wrote: »

The propaganda this last 48hrs is unlike anything I've seen or heard since the weapons of mass destruction scam as a pretence for war in Iraq. It's coming over very amateurish from all the main networks.

Yes. Even the supposedly "liberal" media.

Thank god for the Internet.

Eugene Norman

IrishTrajan wrote: »

You should check Sputnik News or RT more often then. If you think the West's media is bad for propaganda, you should see theirs.

Aren't we supposed to be free? Isn't Russia a pseudo democracy?

Eugene Norman

Jelle1880 wrote: »

Nobody here is saying the US never killed innocents or has been indiscriminate in bombing, but in this fight there is nothing to indicate that.

There's no use in talking about incidents from decades ago, we could throw names of wars around for ages.

The US has caused the entire collapse of Syria by supporting "moderate" Sunni rebels in the absurd Arab Spring, which is really a proxy war against Iran. They support the Sunni sectarians because Assad is a "bad dictator" who is historically aligned with Iran. Those terrorists -- supported by American bombing of the secular state's army's – are sectarian mobsters who intend to create an Islamic state killing the Shia, alawaite, and Christian minorities; all of whom side with Assad.

Some of those terrorists became too radical to ignore, in particular the offshoot of the us backed rebels calling itself ISIS. Then the US had to about turn and pretend to be fighting it's Sunni proxies – and making absurd distinctions between good Sunni sectarians and bad Sunni sectarians – but on the side green lighted Turkey to bomb the Kurds allowing ISIS gains, and ignored the Saudi Arabians logistical support for ISIS. Saudi Arabia is involved in an air war against Shia in Yemen, helped by the US. Even though the US is all about freedom and democracy against fascist Islam its ally is going to crucify a blogger tomorrow. Don't expect to see that on Fox News.

In to this comes Russia. Fighting for the secular Syrian state against all the US backed Sunni rebels, the FSA as well as ISIS and boy does it get some grief from the Fox News viewers.

All of this means the US is far more responsible for the deaths in the Middle East than Russia.

Gatling

Proxy war with Iran who they brought back into the international fold

Junkyard Tom

Gatling wrote: »

Proxy war with Iran who they brought back into the international fold

Washington is attempting to bring Iran back into its sphere of influence (a large majority of the world is non-aligned and has no issue with Iran) because they won't be able to unilaterally strangle countries in the not-too-distant future due to economic power shifting to the east.

karma_

Gatling wrote: »

Are the rate of deaths 30+ in 2 nights if that average keeps for the next 4 months according to russia may carry out airstrikes that will leave hundreds dead civilians wise .

30 Russian planes currently in syria (we won't see hundreds lost )

Russian soldier killed we won't ever find out all military deaths are now top secret thanks to new Russian law's.

So it's all entirely possible remember what happened in Afghanistan they lost thousands of men there and hundreds of aircraft

I for one think it is excellent that our media have now started to report on civilian deaths and counts, hopefully it will catch on in all conflicts from now on as it's been somewhat neglected of late.

Gatling

karma_ wrote: »

I for one think it is excellent that our media have now started to report on civilian deaths and counts, hopefully it will catch on in all conflicts from now on as it's been somewhat neglected of late.

Odd we had daily reports through Iraq and Afghanistan so it's hardly new it's just most people's interaction with news is either sky or BBC for most part while deaths weren't daily breaking news after 10 years it was still regularly mentioned about deaths from with military actions or terrorist related deaths ,

Unless you were actively watching and following various conflicts around the world for most there more interested in what's been the latest gossip on Facebook sad as it may seem

JacquesSon

When it's currently stalemated, with no apetite for ground troops in Western countries, Russian intervention is actually a god-send.

Russia has only propaganda capability in Syria. Russian military effectiveness is still based on the Soviet doctrine of numerical superiority. When they don't have many planes, they don't have much impact.

JacquesSon

There is a Russian movie called 9th company, it's Russia's Platoon.

Russians being killed in Syria won't go down well no matter the media censorship.

Jelle1880

Eugene Norman wrote: »

The US has caused the entire collapse of Syria by supporting "moderate" Sunni rebels in the absurd Arab Spring, which is really a proxy war against Iran. They support the Sunni sectarians because Assad is a "bad dictator" who is historically aligned with Iran. Those terrorists -- supported by American bombing of the secular state's army's – are sectarian mobsters who intend to create an Islamic state killing the Shia, alawaite, and Christian minorities; all of whom side with Assad.

Some of those terrorists became too radical to ignore, in particular the offshoot of the us backed rebels calling itself ISIS. Then the US had to about turn and pretend to be fighting it's Sunni proxies – and making absurd distinctions between good Sunni sectarians and bad Sunni sectarians – but on the side green lighted Turkey to bomb the Kurds allowing ISIS gains, and ignored the Saudi Arabians logistical support for ISIS. Saudi Arabia is involved in an air war against Shia in Yemen, helped by the US. Even though the US is all about freedom and democracy against fascist Islam its ally is going to crucify a blogger tomorrow. Don't expect to see that on Fox News.

In to this comes Russia. Fighting for the secular Syrian state against all the US backed Sunni rebels, the FSA as well as ISIS and boy does it get some grief from the Fox News viewers.

All of this means the US is far more responsible for the deaths in the Middle East than Russia.

ISIS has been around since the late 90's, under a different name but basically the same group.

So no, the backing of the rebels by the US has not created them. There is a point to be made that they became stronger and bigger after the Iraq invasion, but that's not what you claimed.

Your Fox comment is not necessary, unless you really believe it's all some big USA conspiracy against poor Vlad.

Hell, you even make it sound as if Russia is fighting the good fight against Muslims extremists.

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/richardspencer/100204288/was-syria-ever-the-secular-non-sectarian-state-we-are-led-to-believe-it-was/

Moreover, the regime, while claiming to be "secular", played a strange game of footsie with radical Islamists, not only allowing al-Qaeda to operate from and through the country in its highly sectarian attacks in neighbouring Iraq, but also allowing and encouraging some Islamist groups that it thought could be a counterweight to its great historical enemy, the Muslim Brotherhood.

So much for the bastion of secularism that you think Syria was.

Streetwalker

IrishTrajan wrote: »

You should check Sputnik News or RT more often then. If you think the West's media is bad for propaganda, you should see theirs.

They are on a par. Sky are in every way as bad as RT

Gatling

Streetwalker wrote: »

They are on a par. Sky are in every way as bad as RT

No seriously No

RT vlads personal information channel

smurgen

Gatling wrote: »

No seriously No

RT vlads personal information channel

Fox and RT are definitely on a par.

Count Dooku

smurgen wrote: »

Fox and RT are definitely on a par.

Fox is still living in Cold War

President Obama, addressing Soviet intervention in Syria at a White House press conference, said Tuesday Iran and Syria President Bashar Assad represented Russia's entire coalition "and the rest of the world makes up ours."

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/10/02/president-addresses-russian-intervention-in-syria-at-wh-press-conference/

JacquesSon

If you were a Russian speaking Iranian with a Western passport you could make a lot of money now.





...or be an extra in a Bond movie.

smurgen

Good to keep track of fox speak.our side =rebels .The other side =terrorists.

Jelle1880

smurgen wrote: »

Good to keep track of fox speak.our side =rebels .The other side =terrorists.

That's not Fox speak, that is what every country does.

IrishTrajan

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

Washington is attempting to bring Iran back into its sphere of influence (a large majority of the world is non-aligned and has no issue with Iran) because they won't be able to unilaterally strangle countries in the not-too-distant future due to economic power shifting to the east.

Washington is actually set to be able to increase its ability to strangle countries in the future. When Europe or Asia suffers economic collapse, the Americans keep on ticking. When America suffers an economic collapse, they take the rest of us with them. America's economy is inextricably linked to the world markets, but in a negative way for us. America's energy is diversifying and the Shale boom is easily going to last another couple decades.

China's currency is currently taking a battering (bringing Russian, and other regional currencies) on a backward trend with it, as they try to liberalize it enough for the IMF to accept it as a reserve currency.

This whole "east is rising, west is dying" malarky is overhyped and overstated. China, India and Russia all have major problems ahead of them. The West has a rough future, but it is in a significantly better condition to be able to weather the storm.

Dohnjoe

Eugene Norman wrote: »

The US has caused the entire collapse of Syria by supporting "moderate" Sunni rebels in the absurd Arab Spring, which is really a proxy war against Iran.

Hold on a second, so the US is doing all this as part of a war effort against the country it's just hammered out a deal with

Can you elaborate on this?

IrishTrajan

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Hold on a second, so the US is doing all this as part of a war effort against the country it's just hammered out a deal with

Can you elaborate on this?

They are, though. Iran's staunchest ally in the region has been Syria. It acted as a mutually beneficial agreement against Saddam initially, and is now a strong axis on which Iran hinges its regional policy. For the Assads, they have the backing of the major Shia power should the Sunnis rise against them (like has happened recently), and for Iran, they have a friendly power sitting right on Israel's border with a relatively stable logistics chain to keep Hezbollah funded. Turkey and Saudi Arabia have targeted Syria because they know it is possible to break Iran's ambitions there. Sunnis make up a majority in Syria, with the right push, they could force Iran out, or bleed them white.

This allows the US greater leverage in negotiations with Tehran over its nuclear ambitions. Iran's economy is strained from sanctions, and it is having to devote ever greater numbers of men and material to Assad, just to keep him in play.

The US is bringing Iran to the table over its nuclear project, and if Iran agrees, you can probably expect sanctions to be lifted and for the US to wind down its involvement/rhetoric against Assad and let the Saudis/Turks duke it out with Iran.

JacquesSon

Ireland could similarly insert itself into a civil war in a small country, a very small country. (If we had a dicatator like Putin and a Dáil filled with numbskulls whose seats were paid for in election fund donations.)

Irish troops could pose for photos and the goverment could claim an extraordinary impact.

Thankfully they don't. You never hear about what the Irish military does because they don't make mistakes.

IrishTrajan

JacquesSon wrote: »

Ireland could similarly insert itself into a civil war in a small country, a very small country. (If we had a dicatator like Putin and a Dáil filled with numbskulls whose seats were paid for in election fund donations.)

Irish troops could pose for photos and the goverment could claim an extraordinary impact.

Thankfully they don't. You never hear about what the Irish military does because they don't make mistakes.

You never hear about the Irish military because they're trying to figure out how to fix a $10,000 radio with chewing gum and tinfoil. The Irish military simply isn't given the resources to function. I like the military, and it needs more funds devoted to it, but let's not get carried away with patting ourselves on the back.

JacquesSon

IrishTrajan wrote: »

but let's not get carried away with patting ourselves on the back.

Ourselves? .. you can be sure there's no pat on your back.

Jelle1880

IrishTrajan wrote: »

You never hear about the Irish military because they're trying to figure out how to fix a $10,000 radio with chewing gum and tinfoil. The Irish military simply isn't given the resources to function. I like the military, and it needs more funds devoted to it, but let's not get carried away with patting ourselves on the back.

I'm from Belgium so our military situation is somewhat similar to Ireland, and I don't see why more funds should be made available.

The chance of either country being attacked is slim to none (especially given that both have the UK right next to them).

What Ireland could do (correct me if they already do this) is focus on humanitarian stuff, like Belgium. Clearing mines, building hospitals,... That sort of stuff.

glued

IrishTrajan wrote: »

They are, though. Iran's staunchest ally in the region has been Syria. It acted as a mutually beneficial agreement against Saddam initially, and is now a strong axis on which Iran hinges its regional policy. For the Assads, they have the backing of the major Shia power should the Sunnis rise against them (like has happened recently), and for Iran, they have a friendly power sitting right on Israel's border with a relatively stable logistics chain to keep Hezbollah funded. Turkey and Saudi Arabia have targeted Syria because they know it is possible to break Iran's ambitions there. Sunnis make up a majority in Syria, with the right push, they could force Iran out, or bleed them white.

This allows the US greater leverage in negotiations with Tehran over its nuclear ambitions. Iran's economy is strained from sanctions, and it is having to devote ever greater numbers of men and material to Assad, just to keep him in play.

The US is bringing Iran to the table over its nuclear project, and if Iran agrees, you can probably expect sanctions to be lifted and for the US to wind down its involvement/rhetoric against Assad and let the Saudis/Turks duke it out with Iran.

Obama is under far too much pressure internally to be the dominant influence in Syria. He can't back out at this point. You're over simplifying American foreign policy in the region. There is a growing concern over Russia's influence in Syria and also over Saudi Arabia's pining desire to have a Sunni governments Yemen and Syria.

The CIA and the US Miltary would be a complete laughing stock if they pulled out of Syria now and there is no way Obama would survive the backlash.

Iran are also not going to agree to anything on their nuclear plans without the Russians. America isn't going to back down in the region over Iran. They've invested to much at this point to walk away.

Peist2007

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/oct/03/msf-hospital-us-condemned-over-horrific-bombing-in-afghanistan

Brings this week's hypocrisy to a new level.

I especially liked this which i assume was written with a straight face:

"At the time of the bombing, 105 patients and their carers, and more than 80 MSF international and national staff were in the hospital. At least 37 staff members were wounded in the incident, it said. None of the international doctors volunteering at the facility were hurt.

The US, which has been involved in airstrikes in the country in an attempt to repel Taliban fighters, said a strike on Kunduz may have caused “collateral damage”."

Oh, and:

"Human Rights Watch said it had “grave concerns about whether US forces took sufficient precautions to identify and avoid striking the facility”.

Captain Chaos

Jelle1880 wrote: »

I'm from Belgium so our military situation is somewhat similar to Ireland, and I don't see why more funds should be made available.

The chance of either country being attacked is slim to none (especially given that both have the UK right next to them).

What Ireland could do (correct me if they already do this) is focus on humanitarian stuff, like Belgium. Clearing mines, building hospitals,... That sort of stuff.

Belgium has used it's F-16s to bomb targets in Lybia. They flew very few missions but it's way more than anything the Irish military can do. We don't even have a proper air force.

IrishTrajan

Jelle1880 wrote: »

I'm from Belgium so our military situation is somewhat similar to Ireland, and I don't see why more funds should be made available.

It's not similar. We spend less than 0.5% you guys spend closer to 1.2%.

There's also a huge discrepancy in abilities. We're only now talking about getting primary radar for the military so we can see who flies about in our airspace.

Jelle1880 wrote: »

The chance of either country being attacked is slim to none (especially given that both have the UK right next to them).

Funnily enough, it's our proximity to the UK that worries me the most. I'm all for Ireland and the UK deepening our relations (I've been quite open about my willingness to see a bilateral alliance), but we've all seen what the British are capable of during the Troubles.

Jelle1880 wrote: »

What Ireland could do (correct me if they already do this) is focus on humanitarian stuff, like Belgium. Clearing mines, building hospitals,... That sort of stuff.

The point isn't that I disagree that the military is humanitarian-orientated.. My point is that the military, our military, isn't given the resources to function properly. The army has to quibble over every bloody penny to make sure the budget stretches.

IrishTrajan

glued wrote: »

Obama is under far too much pressure internally to be the dominant influence in Syria. He can't back out at this point. You're over simplifying American foreign policy in the region. There is a growing concern over Russia's influence in Syria and also over Saudi Arabia's pining desire to have a Sunni governments Yemen and Syria.

The US doesn't want or need to be the dominant force in Syria. It just needs to balance between regional powers. Of course there's concern over Russia's policy. This is the first time they've projected power outside of their periphery in decades. Even if the forces devoted aren't tremendously large, it's still a significant milestone.

glued wrote: »

The CIA and the US Miltary would be a complete laughing stock if they pulled out of Syria now and there is no way Obama would survive the backlash.

Who exactly would laugh at them? The US has been operating with quite a light foot-print since the beginning. If the US achieves its goal of forcing Iran into a nuclear agreement, they'll have succeeded in their main objective. I'm quite sure Russia, Iran, Turkey and the Saudis will be too busy trying to rip each other's throats out to laugh at the Americans.

glued wrote: »

Iran are also not going to agree to anything on their nuclear plans without the Russians. America isn't going to back down in the region over Iran. They've invested to much at this point to walk away.

If America is worried about a nuclear Iran, Russia is even more so. Iran and Russia are both competing for influence in the peripheries (Azerbaijan, Syria, Iraq, other countries around the Caspian Sea, and quite likely; India).

The US goal isn't to emasculate everyone in the region. The US' goal is to make sure Iran doesn't get a nuclear weapon, and to make sure no single power dominates the entire region. Hell, India and China won't even settle for allowing one country to dominate the entire region.

Peist2007

Peist2007 wrote: »

I cannot remember a week on television where we have been exposed to such propaganda. Its there all of the time, obviously, but has been extremely blatant and stark this week. A pure sign that the Russians have gained the upper hand.

Sky News say the shocking indiscriminate bombing of a hospital that has been there since the 1980s was a "mistake". The concern for civilian casualties swings in less than 24 hours.

Can people not see the insane levels of propoganda we are now being subjected to? Saying we are being completely filled with crap does not mean one automatically thinks Russia Today speaks the truth.

Precision bombing - "very clever actually" :rolleyes:

Peist2007

Gatling wrote: »

No seriously No

RT vlads personal information channel

Agreed.

What would you call Sky News?

Jelle1880

Peist2007 wrote: »

Sky News say the shocking indiscriminate bombing of a hospital that has been there since the 1980s was a "mistake". The concern for civilian casualties swings in less than 24 hours.

Can people not see the insane levels of propoganda we are now being subjected to? Saying we are being completely filled with crap does not mean one automatically thinks Russia Today speaks the truth.

Precision bombing - "very clever actually" :rolleyes:

Sky News are saying what the US military said happened (since this is the only 'official' mention of it), they are not saying it is fact.
You can hardly expect them to make up their own stories, right ? If more investigating has happened and we know exactly what happened (as far as the military will work with the media) I'm sure they will report as such.

While channels like Sky, CNN,... have an obvious bias aimed at drumming up attention with big flashing headlines, I don't believe there is a deliberate agenda behind it where as with RT this is clearly the case.

IrishTrajan wrote: »

It's not similar. We spend less than 0.5% you guys spend closer to 1.2%.

There's also a huge discrepancy in abilities. We're only now talking about getting primary radar for the military so we can see who flies about in our airspace.



Funnily enough, it's our proximity to the UK that worries me the most. I'm all for Ireland and the UK deepening our relations (I've been quite open about my willingness to see a bilateral alliance), but we've all seen what the British are capable of during the Troubles.



The point isn't that I disagree that the military is humanitarian-orientated.. My point is that the military, our military, isn't given the resources to function properly. The army has to quibble over every bloody penny to make sure the budget stretches.

Fair enough, I had no idea your army was that under-equipped...

Jelle1880

I knew a comment like that would come.

Do you have any proof that Sky is deliberately lying about what happened ? Because without it you're just spouting tinfoil hat, 'wake up sheeple! conspiracy stuff...

Would you be happier if they would just make up their own stories about what happened ? Some news station that would be...

http://news.sky.com/story/1563203/medics-rang-washington-as-us-bombed-hospital

This is how they report it on their website, how exactly is this bad reporting ? It's simply stating what happened according to the parties involved.

karma_

Jelle1880 wrote: »

I knew a comment like that would come.

Do you have any proof that Sky is deliberately lying about what happened ? Because without it you're just spouting tinfoil hat, 'wake up sheeple! conspiracy stuff...

Would you be happier if they would just make up their own stories about what happened ? Some news station that would be...

http://news.sky.com/story/1563203/medics-rang-washington-as-us-bombed-hospital

This is how they report it on their website, how exactly is this bad reporting ? It's simply stating what happened according to the parties involved.

There is no free and objective press these days, sure there are a couple of exceptions but by and large it's completely been appropriated. To claim otherwise is foolhardy in the extreme.

gobsh!te

I think RT do a great job exposing some of the rubbish that's in the Western media.

They actually do news reports on the bullsh!t from CNN, the BCC, Sky, Fox and so on.

This report is really comical.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Kwd-8lJUhI

Gatling

gobsh!te wrote: »

I think RT do a great job exposing some of the rubbish that's in the Western media.

They actually do news reports on the bullsh!t from CNN, the BCC, Sky, Fox and so on.

This report is really comical.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Kwd-8lJUhI

All the while forgetting all about the own brand of Putin says be

smurgen

IrishTrajan wrote: »

75% of US sorties came back without having carried out strikes. During the invasion of Iraq, the US bombed everything. Now, it's relying on precision strikes and trying to minimize civilian losses. Russia's dumb bombs are in no way comparable to the current stock of US smart-bombs and JDAMs.

The fact that the US has carried out 2500 airstrikes without incurring massive civilian losses, yet the Russians couldn't avoid that with less than 10, should really speak volumes about the priorities of each group.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/oct/03/kunduz-charity-hospital-bombing-violates-international-law ahemmmmm.seems like MSF recently recirculated the coordinates of their hospital to all people in hat area.seems like the American was machine is just as prone to error as the Russians if you ask me.

Gatling

Sounds like this hospital wasn't bombed at all not by jets dropping smart bombs .

It's seems a c130 was loitering in the area engaging Taliban fighters it's fairly possible that a fire was triggered by either an explosion near by ,
At least from an investigation Stand point it makes things a lot easier due to the firecontrol and gun cameras on board
The C130 spectre is probably the most sophisticated and advanced and powerful close air support aircraft bar none

donaghs

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Hold on a second, so the US is doing all this as part of a war effort against the country it's just hammered out a deal with

Can you elaborate on this?

That deal was about Nuclear tech, but it may help defuse other tensions.

Since the fall of the Shah, the U.S. has been trying to contain Iran.

Henry Kissinger is no longer in government, but sums up the U.S. anti-Iran camp quite well in this article:
http://www.npr.org/2014/09/06/346114326/henry-kissingers-thoughts-on-the-islamic-state-ukraine-and-world-order

Basically says ISIS are small and containable, but Iran are building an empire from the new Shia Iraq, Assads Syria and Hezbollah Lebanon, etc. You could throw in their influence in Afganistan and Yemen - and their links with Russia.

Personally I see ISIS as the bigger issue, and find it hard see the U.S. Regional ally Saudi as being any better a place than Iran.

Dannyboy83

JacquesSon wrote: »

Ireland could similarly insert itself into a civil war in a small country, a very small country. (If we had a dicatator like Putin and a Dáil filled with numbskulls whose seats were paid for in election fund donations.)

I doubt it tbh - Putin just raided private pensions for the 3rd year running...

http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/09/30/russia-economy-pensions-idUSL5N1201EU20150930
"We have ended up in Zugzwang," Vedomosti cited former finance minister Alexei Kudrin as saying, borrowing a term from chess: "When every move worsens the situation". ($1 = 65.8318 roubles)

Russian people will tolerate it, but not indefinitely.

All eyes are on Syria currently...the more interesting story for Europeans is what is happening in Russia:

Central Russia and Moscow with the largest Muslim populations in Europe are on high alert due to rising tensions(another terrorist attack in West China just recently and both Kadryov and the Orthodox church are lashing out against the establishment in unusually 'direct' language)
And in East Russia, China just negotiated another large tranche of Siberia for 'rent'.
Political Dissent is being effectively suppressed in Western Russia, but over 80% of Russian regions are now facing bankruptcy...

Saudi still planning to run their Euro pipeline through Syria - Putin is desperate - and I'm guessing will begin a crackdown on his own population in Western Russia, as the economy disintegrates.
He has regressed from 'Wealth Creator' back to 'Stabilizer'.

It's the same old story, Russian strongman has overplayed his hand.
Russia never gets taken down by external forces.
It always implodes.


If Oil stays down, the Russian Federation will not see 2020.
(As usual, Irish charities will ask us to aid their sick and elderly, since they spent all their money on weapons.)


Anyone interested in a clearer picture of internal political and social Russian forces, I recommend the following book written by Russian academics.

http://www.amazon.com/Putins-Russia-Rose-Maintained-Might-ebook/dp/B00XM0WP6W/ref=sr_1_3/178-7354410-7005046?ie=UTF8&qid=1443904492&sr=8-3&keywords=russia+how+it

Manach

Russia indeed goes through various ups/downs in fortune (my reading of historians like Hopkins & Hoprick). But their foriegn policy has always been expanionist in that region and has been a constant between Tsars, Communists, Authoritorians. Given the short termism of Western powers in the region, the Russians moves are mirrors of those done during the Great Game period of Kipling. Thus the internal players that make up the Kremlin will likely continue to support in this through institutional inertia.

Junkyard Tom

IrishTrajan wrote: »

Washington is actually set to be able to increase its ability to strangle countries in the future.

That's a ridiculous counter-factual assessment.

The creation of the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB) reflects the greater economic importance of Emerging Markets (EMs) in general and China in particular. The AIIB, together with other China-led initiatives, such as the New Development Bank (NDB) and Contingent Reserve Arrangement (CRA), has a combined capital base of $250 billion. This represents significant financial firepower roughly on par with the World Bank.

ec.europa.eu/epsc/publications/notes/sn1_en.htm

The US is running around making 'friends' with its sworn enemies Iran and Cuba because it knows it will have no choice but to 'lose' them in the future.

The Indians, Chinese and other non-aligned countries dwarf 'The West' when it comes to population size and potential growth and development opportunities - that's probably why the US's most reliable allies jumped on board the AIIB despite Washington's opposition to to it.

As I have said the US's ability to unilaterally strangle an economy is soon to be a thing of the past particularly when it comes to countries far from its borders like Iran.

Eugene Norman

Jelle1880 wrote: »

I knew a comment like that would come.

Do you have any proof that Sky is deliberately lying about what happened ? Because without it you're just spouting tinfoil hat, 'wake up sheeple! conspiracy stuff...

Would you be happier if they would just make up their own stories about what happened ? Some news station that would be...

http://news.sky.com/story/1563203/medics-rang-washington-as-us-bombed-hospital

This is how they report it on their website, how exactly is this bad reporting ? It's simply stating what happened according to the parties involved.

Sky is a propoganda channel. So is Fox News. So is the BBC. So is RT.

If Russia has bombed this hospital it would be considered deliberate and a terrorist act.

( a few posts ago someone suggested that the US wasn't bombing civilians because of their stunning intelligence work. We should probably review that idea in the light of present events)

Eugene Norman

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

That's a ridiculous counter-factual assessment.



The US is running around making 'friends' with its sworn enemies Iran and Cuba because it knows it will have no choice but to 'lose' them in the future.

The Indians, Chinese and other non-aligned countries dwarf 'The West' when it comes to population size and potential growth and development opportunities - that probably why the US's most reliable allies jumped on board the AIIB despite Washington's opposition to to it.

As I have said the US's ability to unilaterally strangle an economy is soon to be a thing of the past.

It's about time Europe divorced itself from the US-Zionist embrace and joined forces with China/Russia.

Eugene Norman

Dannyboy83 wrote: »

I doubt it tbh - Putin just raided private pensions for the 3rd year running...


Russian people will tolerate it, but not indefinitely.

All eyes are on Syria currently...the more interesting story for Europeans is what is happening in Russia:

Central Russia and Moscow with the largest Muslim populations in Europe are on high alert due to rising tensions(another terrorist attack in West China just recently and both Kadryov and the Orthodox church are lashing out against the establishment in unusually 'direct' language)
And in East Russia, China just negotiated another large tranche of Siberia for 'rent'.
Political Dissent is being effectively suppressed in Western Russia, but over 80% of Russian regions are now facing bankruptcy...

Saudi still planning to run their Euro pipeline through Syria - Putin is desperate - and I'm guessing will begin a crackdown on his own population in Western Russia, as the economy disintegrates.
He has regressed from 'Wealth Creator' back to 'Stabilizer'.

It's the same old story, Russian strongman has overplayed his hand.
Russia never gets taken down by external forces.
It always implodes.


If Oil stays down, the Russian Federation will not see 2020.
(As usual, Irish charities will ask us to aid their sick and elderly, since they spent all their money on weapons.)


Anyone interested in a clearer picture of internal political and social Russian forces, I recommend the following book written by Russian academics.

Quick jump to the world bank and I see.

he World Bank predicts that Russia's economy would shrink by 2.7 percent in 2015, but return to growth of 0.7 percent in 2016.

Moscow is building a mosque. The orthodox and Islamic faiths have co-existed for centuries and although the US/Saudi backed fundamentalists whabbabis are trying to get a foothold it isn't working. Ireland if you recall also raised its pension scheme and had much worse GDP contractions. I don't really see Russia falling apart, it tends to be neo con wishful thinking.

Eugene Norman

Jelle1880 wrote: »

ISIS has been around since the late 90's, under a different name but basically the same group.

So no, the backing of the rebels by the US has not created them. There is a point to be made that they became stronger and bigger after the Iraq invasion, but that's not what you claimed.

Your Fox comment is not necessary, unless you really believe it's all some big USA conspiracy against poor Vlad.

Hell, you even make it sound as if Russia is fighting the good fight against Muslims extremists.

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/richardspencer/100204288/was-syria-ever-the-secular-non-sectarian-state-we-are-led-to-believe-it-was/



So much for the bastion of secularism that you think Syria was.

Sure the Syrians supported Sunni radicals just like Iraq caused 9/11. Also reported by the telegraph( amongst the rest of the free western press).

America supports Sunni radicals for sure – unlike Syria ( while still being a secular state itself). I said these Sunni radicals were caused, in their present extreme form by American involvement in taking down Assad, it's no fly zones and it's military support of the supposed moderates. I know Isis existed. I'm claiming that there is no difference between the FSA and ISIS except ISIS went too far. And that the US armed both. To believe that I obviously think that ISIS existed prior.

The us wants a sectarian Islamist state in the region, or a failed state, and it isn't supporting an alliance of secularists, Christians, Alawites , Shia and Sunni but Sunni sectarians only. This statement is trivially true. If you are Christian, alawite or Shia you are staying in Assads controlled area hoping the American supported genocidalist sectarians don't win or you are toast.

Eugene Norman

smurgen wrote: »

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/oct/03/kunduz-charity-hospital-bombing-violates-international-law ahemmmmm.seems like MSF recently recirculated the coordinates of their hospital to all people in hat area.seems like the American was machine is just as prone to error as the Russians if you ask me.

No it's precision strikes. Irishtrajan heard that in sky so it must be true.