|
the saudis dumped the oil price, destroying russia's economy
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2016 22:37
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 3, 2024 12:41 |
|
|
Saudi-backed mujaheddin in Afghanistan and the oil glut in the 80's had a lot to do with hastening the end of the Soviet Union, which we know Putin views that as the great tragedy of the 20th Century. Then there's arguable Saudi fingerprints in Chechnya, Saudi's "nice Olympics you have there, it sure would be a shame if something happened to them" threat a few years ago, plus today's oil glut. Maybe I was overstating the case in saying it's worse than Iran since Saudi also funded Saddam when he was gassing Iran in the 80's, but it's up there.
Dr Kool-AIDS fucked around with this message at 22:46 on Feb 11, 2016 |
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2016 22:39
|
|
|
Sinteres posted:Saudi-backed mujaheddin in Afghanistan and the oil glut in the 80's had a lot to do with hastening the end of the Soviet Union. Then there's arguable Saudi fingerprints in Chechnya, Saudi's "nice Olympics you have there, it sure would be a shame if something happened to them" threat a few years ago, plus today's oil glut. Maybe I was overstating the case in saying it's worse than Iran since Saudi also funded Saddam when he was gassing Iran in the 80's, but it's up there. And Iran also is hurt by the price of oil. I mean, I gotta think the Saudis are funding the likes of MEK inside Iran, the Taliban who weren't really pals with Iran and probably other groups. I suspect Saudi lobbying (along with that of Israel) helped keep sanctions on Iran for so long. But those are good points about Russia. Could the Saudis be trying to extract something here? Like "take care of this or we'll do it ourselves" sorta deal. Cause this is a pretty serious threat if the quotes are real.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2016 22:46
|
|
|
Count Roland posted:Could the Saudis be trying to extract something here? Like "take care of this or we'll do it ourselves" sorta deal. Cause this is a pretty serious threat if the quotes are real. It could be related to the rebels anti-air situation. KSA has been pushing for developing their capabilities for a while, but have abided by the US refusal. Now it's become an even larger issue with Russian airstrikes pushing the regime forward. If it's not stopped, Aleppo could soon be under siege, which would likely be even more horrific than last time. If nobody acts it's going to get very ugly for the opposition, and KSA has their own reasons for why that is unacceptable. Whatever the case it's pretty drat clear they aren't intending to sit idly by without an opposite response to Russian intervention.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2016 22:52
|
|
|
Count Roland posted:Could the Saudis be trying to extract something here? Like "take care of this or we'll do it ourselves" sorta deal. Cause this is a pretty serious threat if the quotes are real. I still think this is a message to the US that we'd better lead (in the direction they're demanding) or they and Turkey will gently caress everything up, risking the possibility that we'll get dragged in anyway in a dramatically escalated situation. Beyond that, they're panicking because a Syria and Iraq owing major debts to Iran would be a real threat to them if they ever managed to win their civil wars. Saudi Arabia may not be able to topple Assad themselves, but they can do (and have done) a lot to prolong the fighting. Plus Saudi has a reputation to uphold as the putative leaders of the Sunni Arab world, so they have to at least pretend to care about protecting their own aside from strict geopolitical interests.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2016 22:54
|
|
|
Eurasia...just shaking my head.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2016 22:59
|
|
|
Volkerball posted:welp, strap in I still don't buy it. They're up to their tits over in Yemen and that mess doesn't show any sign of winding down, and moving in would mean crossing a shitload of stuff through Jordan for the duration. I just can't imagine the Jordanians being happy about that considering all of the other poo poo that they've put up with.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2016 23:00
|
|
|
How are they going to get their poo poo to Syria?
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2016 23:19
|
|
|
Dilkington posted:How are they going to get their poo poo to Syria? Maybe they're going to launch a ground assault against the SAA from Jordan and towards Damascus. That would be epic, but a bit more challenging than taking back that Saudi village near the border with Yemen.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2016 23:55
|
|
|
Unless Jordan has a long line of luxury hotels at which the officers can stop when they're tired and beat their slaves, I don't think they'll get very far.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2016 00:11
|
|
|
How are Saudi-Kurdish relations? Could they team up with Turkey and march South against the Kurds/Regime? Mind you, I also believe that this is a desperate bluff and there is no way in hell they follow through. At most I can see them sending AA equipment to the rebels. Freezer fucked around with this message at 00:36 on Feb 12, 2016 |
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2016 00:18
|
|
|
Sinteres posted:Unless Jordan has a long line of luxury hotels at which the officers can stop when they're tired and beat their slaves, I don't think they'll get very far. They'll also need pedicures, manicures, and a stop at the perfume/cologne shop.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2016 00:32
|
|
|
Freezer posted:
Why haven't they been sending the rebels good AA already? The need for weapons the rebels can use to shoot down high flying aircraft they cant reach is far from a new problem. Where they really that worried that it would end up in the wrong hands?
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2016 00:34
|
|
|
Do Syria and Russia have a codified alliance?
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2016 00:35
|
|
|
Rukeli posted:Maybe they're going to launch a ground assault against the SAA from Jordan and towards Damascus. That would be epic, but a bit more challenging than taking back that Saudi village near the border with Yemen. That's a bit above and beyond what they are prepared to do imo. If it does happen, there's only a few ways they could go about it, and they all seem like a logistical nightmare. They could use southern Syria as a staging area through negotiations with the southern front or whoever they have the most influence with in that region. That would probably be the most realistic way to go about it, but there's not much ISIS there to claim to be fighting, and they'd probably have to get Jordan on board. They could also attempt to carve out an enclave in the northeast by fighting ISIS. ISIS is in weak shape, and they could probably pull it off, but there isn't anything in the northeast. It would likely be a hard place to base a fighting force out of. Not to mention that the YPG are currently in the middle of fighting Saudi proxies, so I doubt they are up for the Saudi army walking through their land. The ideal scenario for Saudi goals in my opinion would be to somehow get into Idlib. Then they could essentially prevent the regime from attempting to retake it, ensuring a Sunni enclave for the foreseeable future. From there, they could provide a safe zone for fighters to rearm and get out from underneath Russian and Syrian bombings, which would allow forces to regroup. That would increase the oppositions staying power substantially, and Russia probably can't stay in Syria forever. But of course, getting into Idlib would be an extremely aggressive move, and it would be very hard for them to defend their intervention by saying "Nuh uh, we're fighting ISIS." It would also be the hardest place for them to maintain a presence. One key dynamic to keep an eye on is refugees. Don't think Europe didn't notice the tens of thousands of people fleeing Aleppo in the face of the regime advance. There are millions upon millions of people within Syria who are still internally displaced, and there hasn't been much destruction on the regime side of the line, so there's little doubt as to where the vast majority of those people are currently living. Current estimates of total refugees are above 6 million, and many countries are at the breaking point. That number could increase to 8 million as a conservative figure in a very short amount of time, and it could just as easily exceed 10 million. A Saudi controlled region within Syria would do a lot to prevent that from happening if it served as a safe area. KSA is likely going to expect that the west has their back before beginning an operation like this, which makes me think they might already have that assurance since they are speaking so definitively about it. And the only thing I'm coming up with is that if your primary fear is a major influx of refugees at your border, you might start to see some merit to the idea of a Saudi intervention. If Western governments are thinking that way, we might begin to notice very shortly. I think at that point, you have to stop putting on diplomatic shows with Russia and acting as if the instigators of the problem are part of the solution, because the pretense of "fighting ISIS" isn't going to hold up to much scrutiny for an act like Saudi intervention. The narrative might begin to shift to "Assad and Russian airstrikes are driving millions of people out of Syria, and if we don't establish a bulwark against it, that will destabilize Europe." That would be a more concrete reason that also doesn't initiate conflict against the SAA or Russia. It's hard to draw conclusions from US policy since it's so schizophrenic, but Kerry did say that Assad and Russia are only interested in a military solution, which is a departure from his normal lines. But idk, we'll see. Very strange times. Volkerball fucked around with this message at 00:40 on Feb 12, 2016 |
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2016 00:35
|
|
|
Ikasuhito posted:Why haven't they been sending the rebels good AA already? The need for weapons the rebels can use to shoot down high flying aircraft they cant reach is far from a new problem. Where they really that worried that it would end up in the wrong hands? The Obama administration is very worried about that, and they told KSA not to. I'm not exactly sure why KSA listened, but there you go.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2016 00:38
|
|
|
Ikasuhito posted:Why haven't they been sending the rebels good AA already? The need for weapons the rebels can use to shoot down high flying aircraft they cant reach is far from a new problem. Where they really that worried that it would end up in the wrong hands? Because man-portable AA that can nail jets flying thousands of feet in the air in the hands of non-state actors is what keeps Obama up at night.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2016 00:39
|
|
|
Zeroisanumber posted:Because man-portable AA that can nail jets flying thousands of feet in the air in the hands of non-state actors is what keeps Obama up at night. Unless they're little green men of course.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2016 00:41
|
|
|
If I were Saudi Arabia I would be deploying teams of covert ops embedded with rebel groups and deliberately shooting down Russian jets and choppers with MANPADs. I dunno why they aren't doing this, seems like it would stop the MANPADs from getting into the hands of ISIS or Nusra while also putting the hurt on that Russian airpower.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2016 00:43
|
|
|
Sergg posted:If I were Saudi Arabia I would be deploying teams of covert ops embedded with rebel groups and deliberately shooting down Russian jets and choppers with MANPADs. I dunno why they aren't doing this, seems like it would stop the MANPADs from getting into the hands of ISIS or Nusra while also putting the hurt on that Russian airpower. It's massively provocative and could lead to war with Russia if you're caught doing it.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2016 00:45
|
|
|
Sergg posted:If I were Saudi Arabia I would be deploying teams of covert ops embedded with rebel groups and deliberately shooting down Russian jets and choppers with MANPADs. I dunno why they aren't doing this, seems like it would stop the MANPADs from getting into the hands of ISIS or Nusra while also putting the hurt on that Russian airpower. If they got found out, that would be very, very bad.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2016 00:45
|
|
|
Coldwar timewarp posted:Do Syria and Russia have a codified alliance? They've had a formal non-aggression pact since 1950. The USSR was an instigator of the coup that put Hafez Assad (Bashar's father) in 1970. So yes, they have a very close relationship and have had one for a very long time.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2016 00:46
|
|
|
Volkerball posted:The Obama administration is very worried about that, and they told KSA not to. I'm not exactly sure why KSA listened, but there you go. Thats what I mean. I can see why the west would want nothing to do with it, I just sort of pegged the Saudis for the kind of guys who would 'misplace' some AA and have it end up in rebels hands if they were not aloud to do it through more legitimate means
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2016 00:47
|
|
|
There's no way in hell a Saudi intervention wouldn't create millions more refugees.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2016 00:50
|
|
|
Squalid posted:There's no way in hell a Saudi intervention wouldn't create millions more refugees. We have no idea what a Saudi intervention would even look like. We can only speculate as to what their goals and methods would be. If the goal was just to create a safe zone for refugees, they wouldn't be adding much if anything to the fighting.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2016 00:54
|
|
|
Deteriorata posted:They've had a formal non-aggression pact since 1950. The USSR was an instigator of the coup that put Hafez Assad (Bashar's father) in 1970. Ok, so, no alliance. I was more wondering what international rules they might use to justify striking back at the Saudi's directly, if they moved in. Obviously the UNSC would be gridlocked and the US would use a veto(begrudgingly perhaps). I just don't see a viable way they can intervene more that won't drag Iran in more, and they can throw more men into the problem than the Saudi's. Would the Saudi's be able to form their own militias by recruiting from the Sunni world like Iran has from the Shia world?
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2016 01:01
|
|
|
BBC is reporting that there was an agreement to a nationwide ceasefire in Syria (minus ISIS etc, obviously). Fingers crossed, I guess. Interesting timing with that Saudi announcement.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2016 01:13
|
|
|
Mystery Goomba posted:BBC is reporting that there was an agreement to a nationwide ceasefire in Syria (minus ISIS etc, obviously). Fingers crossed, I guess. Deal from strength or get crushed every time.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2016 01:19
|
|
|
Pardon me, the correct term is "cessation of hostilities," not "ceasefire." https://twitter.com/margbrennan/status/697937823643660288
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2016 01:27
|
|
|
Given how conveniently Russia applies the label of ISIS and Nusra Front to rebel groups whenever they feel like it (which is obviously helped by the extent to which Nusra actually is involved with much of the rebel activity), I wouldn't hold my breath just yet. Especially if they get the feeling that they're being sandbagged while their opposition prepares for interventions of their own. That said, if some framework for peace actually is magically going to come from this, that will obviously be a good thing. It'll be sad to see how everyone finds a way to agree to gently caress the Kurds though.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2016 01:33
|
|
|
Volkerball posted:We have no idea what a Saudi intervention would even look like. We can only speculate as to what their goals and methods would be. If the goal was just to create a safe zone for refugees, they wouldn't be adding much if anything to the fighting. Yea I'm sure that's the only plan, said absolutely no one. I'm sure they are very worried about the refugee crisis, haven taken in a whole zero of them.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2016 01:40
|
|
|
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-mideast-crisis-syria-agreement-idUSKCN0VK2NTquote:"We did not get a deal on the immediate end of Russian bombings, but we have a commitment to a process that if it works would change the situation," a Western diplomatic source said. Hostiles will cease when the rebels are dead comrade.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2016 01:43
|
|
|
Coldwar timewarp posted:Ok, so, no alliance. I was more wondering what international rules they might use to justify striking back at the Saudi's directly, if they moved in. Obviously the UNSC would be gridlocked and the US would use a veto(begrudgingly perhaps). I just don't see a viable way they can intervene more that won't drag Iran in more, and they can throw more men into the problem than the Saudi's. Would the Saudi's be able to form their own militias by recruiting from the Sunni world like Iran has from the Shia world? Since when has Russia needed any international rules? Like most other countries, it honors international law when it's convenient, it ignores international law when it isn't. Russia didn't need any international laws or treaties to invade Ukraine, for example.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2016 01:53
|
|
|
Mystery Goomba posted:BBC is reporting that there was an agreement to a nationwide ceasefire in Syria (minus ISIS etc, obviously). Fingers crossed, I guess. quote:World powers meeting on Syria have agreed to seek a nationwide "cessation of hostilities" within a week, US Secretary of State John Kerry has said. Just a poorly worded way of announcing that the talks were going to resume minus the opposition and the regime. TROIKA CURES GREEK posted:Yea I'm sure that's the only plan, said absolutely no one. I'm sure they are very worried about the refugee crisis, haven taken in a whole zero of them. Of course it wouldn't be the only plan. Their angle would obviously be to use their presence in whatever way possible that would benefit the rebels short of direct confrontation with Assad and Russia. But if they are dependent on having the west on board, that it was one to frame it that might have some legs. And for the record, KSA has taken in upwards of 100,000 Syrians if memory serves. They just don't have a designated refugee status.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2016 01:53
|
|
|
Zeroisanumber posted:It's massively provocative and could lead to war with Russia if you're caught doing it. I doubt Russia or any country in the planet is crazy to declare war on Saudi Arabia no matter how much poo poo they pull. The repercussions on declaring open hostilities to the formal custodian of the two mosques would be immense.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2016 01:56
|
|
|
Deteriorata posted:Since when has Russia needed any international rules? Like most other countries, it honors international law when it's convenient, it ignores international law when it isn't. Beyond that, treaties aren't really part of international law anyway. War outside of Security Council action is supposed to be a thing of the past, after all. NATO only has as much validity as its members give it, and while NATO's longevity and power has granted it an aura of legitimacy, it's well understood that US military protection extends beyond its treaty allies, most obviously to Israel. Alliances only matter to the extent that allies have the ability and willingness to support them, so if Russia says they're backing the country that hosts their most important military assets outside of their near abroad, it's probably worth considering that an alliance. Savy Saracen salad posted:I doubt Russia or any country in the planet is crazy to declare war on Saudi Arabia no matter how much poo poo they pull. The repercussions on declaring open hostilities to the formal custodian of the two mosques would be immense. Saudi Arabia's been fighting an undeclared war with Russia on various fronts for decades, so it's maybe not as unthinkable as it otherwise would be. I still don't think they're lobbing missiles at Riyadh any time soon (more because of US protection than fear of offending Muslims), but they could certainly assist Iran in frustrating Saudi interests throughout the region if sufficiently provoked. You think maybe the Houthis would welcome some anti-aircraft weaponry if the Saudis started providing the same to anti-Russian rebels elsewhere? Dr Kool-AIDS fucked around with this message at 02:22 on Feb 12, 2016 |
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2016 02:19
|
|
|
Mystery Goomba posted:Pardon me, the correct term is "cessation of hostilities," not "ceasefire." One week to "stop" hostilities. It's Debaltseve all over again; is John Kerry incapable of learning? Russia and Assad will just keep doing what they were doing, including claiming that whatever they strike is ISIS.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2016 02:22
|
|
|
OddObserver posted:One week to "stop" hostilities. It's Debaltseve all over again; is John Kerry incapable of learning? Russia and Assad will just keep doing what they were doing, including claiming that whatever they strike is ISIS. What else is he supposed to do? The US can't even get its own allies to compromise on what they consider vital interests in the name of peace, so good luck managing Russia now that they're riled up. The limit of Russia's action in Syria is going to be when Putin decides further gains are no longer worth the cost, and while diplomatic pressure can add to that cost, Kerry fundamentally isn't in a position to give Russia orders.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2016 02:25
|
|
|
TROIKA CURES GREEK posted:Yea I'm sure that's the only plan, said absolutely no one. I'm sure they are very worried about the refugee crisis, haven taken in a whole zero of them. To add to what Volkerball already said Saudi Arabia (and other Gulf states) is actually host to thousands of Syrians. Most were already in SA prior to the revolution living as guest workers and they have been allowed to stay indefinitely.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2016 02:28
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 3, 2024 12:41 |
|
|
Sinteres posted:What else is he supposed to do? The US can't even get its own allies to compromise on what they consider vital interests in the name of peace, so good luck managing Russia now that they're riled up. The limit of Russia's action in Syria is going to be when Putin decides further gains are no longer worth the cost, and while diplomatic pressure can add to that cost, Kerry fundamentally isn't in a position to give Russia orders. Lobby Congress for further sanctions (and real ones, not "3rd defense department undersecretary's administrative assistant can't vacation in Florida"), not sign agreements with pathological liars.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2016 02:30
|
|