|
Volkerball posted:Mightypeon, unless it's to ask questions so you can start to get a grasp on some of the more basic aspects of the war, you're really not going to add anything of value to your own, or anyone else's lives by posting here. I don't even know what to say about you claiming that Assad keeping this thing a stalemate for 5 years with the direct on the ground support of tens of thousands of foreign military fighters, and air support from one of the largest air forces in the world, and a massive campaign of forced conscription, while his opponents "allies" bomb ISIS and uphold sanctions that prevent rebels from getting the anti-air capabilities they need, is somehow indicative of domestic majority support for Assad. It's just unforgivably dumb. And that might be the closest thing to reality you've poo poo out in this little posting spurt. Just stop. The one who is not understanding the war is you. So, lets make a game. We both make testable predictions, of the non trivial kind, and we see who is right. My predictions: 1: Russians and Syrian forces will focus on rebel groups formerly backed by the Turkish deep state (so called "Turkmens" etc.). The current situation in Turkey makes this an excellent way to kill people they wanted to kill anyway while also testing Erdogans intentions. 2: There will be increases in loyalist- vs. Kurd/SDF clashes. Russia will attempt to mediate, and will not directly participate in these clashes. 3: Various Islamist groupings will engage in creative Maskirovka to diminish their Islamist identity in the eyes of the west. Other groupings will run under SDF umbrella. Russia will support this, Assad loyalists wont so frictions will increase between the two. If 3 is not testible enough: 4: Rebel held parts of Aleppo will fall in 2016.
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2016 22:39
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 10, 2024 04:20 |
|
|
Mightypeon posted:4: Rebel held parts of Aleppo will fall in 2016. I'll Toxx on this not happening. It's one thing to cut off a city - it's an entirely different thing to take it. (USER WAS BANNED FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2016 22:55
|
|
|
Is there even a word for when an act of mass-murder gets so large that mass-murder isn't a strong enough descriptor?
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2016 23:11
|
|
|
RandomPauI posted:Is there even a word for when an act of mass-murder gets so large that mass-murder isn't a strong enough descriptor? "Politicide" is sometimes used to refer to mass murders of political opponents that reach scales normally associated with genocide.
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2016 23:38
|
|
|
Democide. For a discussion on this: http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/GENOCIDE.HTM
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2016 00:09
|
|
|
Anos posted:I'll Toxx on this not happening. It's one thing to cut off a city - it's an entirely different thing to take it. Precisly how does toxx work? I didnt find anything about it in the rules. Temporary posting bans for incorrect predictions would actually be pretty swell and likely improve overall quality.
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2016 00:12
|
|
|
Mightypeon posted:If you look at his actual language, it is completely non committal ("A review will likely be our first priority"). Considering a source close to her is openly admitting they are considering regime change, that omission is enough to warrant worry over exactly how she would accomplish it. It is hard to see the rebels in a better position in 2017, if anything you can make a pretty decent argument they are simply incapable of beating Assad at this point even with support.
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2016 00:19
|
|
|
Mightypeon posted:Temporary posting bans for incorrect predictions would actually be pretty swell and likely improve overall quality. It's not temporary. You  and if wrong, you are banned.
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2016 00:46
|
|
|
Ardennes posted:Considering a source close to her is openly admitting they are considering regime change, that omission is enough to warrant worry over exactly how she would accomplish it. It is hard to see the rebels in a better position in 2017, if anything you can make a pretty decent argument they are simply incapable of beating Assad at this point even with support. I would actually argue that the US is capable of destroying of destroying what remains of the Syrian state, and that Russia is unlikely to escalate to World War 3 over Syria. From what I get concerning Russian writings, Russias Syrian intervention is partly driven by a desire for strategic depth, as well as for bargaining chips. Both stategic depth and bargaining chips are worthless if you arent willing to part with them to avoid worse outcomes. Russias assets in Syria are operating on the tail end of a somewhat complex supply chain. They have put their best foot forward as well, while some strategic reserves certainly exist, these are likely to be of lower quality then the forces currently operating in Syria. Strategically, if the US commits to the massive and epic mistake (for a number of reasons) of destroying the Syrian state via an all out invasion (its capability to do so military is not in question), Russia will retreat from Syria, and strike back via proxys and asymetric means. The damage to Russian prestige from not starting WW3 over Assad will be quite containable. From what I get, the degree of what Russia did for Assad exceeded what even traditional allies of Russia believed Assad to be entitled to. The US would be seen, by basically anyone outside of the west, as the clear agressor. Unless it commits massive ground forces, Islamists would destroy or subsume whatever rebels the US initially backed. This will make the US look both aggressive and weak. It will tie down major US assets in Syria, exposing them to counterattacks by various factions. Russia would not even neccessarily have her "own" factions attack the US, it would be enough to provide some support to Iranian factions that would be very willing to do so. There will be no meaningfull US exit plan, and, as in Iraq 2003, a number of US european allies will jump ship. Russia will, in many back channel negotiations with various current US allies, be able to point towards the US incapability to learn from even very recent past mistakes. With the US engaged in Syria, providing easy targets for pretty cheap (for the backers, not for those actually doing the attacks) asymmetric warfare, the US position in both the South China Sea and in Eastern Europe would be greatly weakened. Second order effects such as reverse bandwaggoning (people jumping of the US bandwaggon) would likely occur. You see, there are hard core factions within Russia that want this scenario. You could probably call them "confrontationists", who do want to gently caress up the US as much as possible and then negotiate from a position of strength. They are also somewhat likely to go on on how the adversity from this will reinvigorate the Russian national spirit or whatever, well, you get the general idea. The thing is that the high state around Putin considers this to be a pretty good way to get literally everyone killed via WW3, and they arent very keen on that. The High state is also keen on not having a unilateral US hegemon, and strongly prefers a more multilateral system. They are explicitly OK with the US being primus inter pares in this system (because the other possible primus is worse news in the long run from the Russian pov., and the high state know Russia wont be primus) and would be quite willing to get the US a soft landing/build them a golden bridge for their retreat back to the US hemisphere. In their pov. a USA that minds its own business would share most of its strategic interests with Russia (containing China, preventing the unification of Europe, keeping terrorism in check, preventing the emergence of additional new challengers to a modified system) by default, and would be a pretty great partner.
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2016 01:03
|
|
|
That's some real fan fiction there.
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2016 04:44
|
|
|
The Russian perspective seems pretty relevant to a conflict in which they're arguably the most important actor. Even if it's not 100% accurate, Mightypeon's take on Putin can't possibly be worse than some of the takes on Obama and US foreign policy this thread has seen over the years.
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2016 04:58
|
|
|
I have no argument with any of this, I just wanted to say that as I was reading it a car drove by playing Vivaldi on the stereo and it kind of felt like I was in an episode of Legend of Galactic Heroes for a minute.
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2016 05:55
|
|
|
Mightypeon posted:I would actually argue that the US is capable of destroying of destroying what remains of the Syrian state, and that Russia is unlikely to escalate to World War 3 over Syria. From what I get concerning Russian writings, Russias Syrian intervention is partly driven by a desire for strategic depth, as well as for bargaining chips. Both stategic depth and bargaining chips are worthless if you arent willing to part with them to avoid worse outcomes.
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2016 08:16
|
|
|
Well we can't accuse him of just being a troll as he clearly believes this stuff. Which makes it worthwhile to read his posts. You don't have to agree with him but is useful to know what one part of the other side is thinking. His narrative about how Russia will play extra dimensional chess and then be in a position of strength vs the USA is instructive as to how the Russian patriot sees themselves in the world. Like, it's not going to happen ever for simple economic reasons but hey, they want to be able to go "No, gently caress you!" to uncle Sam and will want to take actions towards this goal.
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2016 08:58
|
|
|
Bip Roberts posted:That's some real fan fiction there. You are aware that Putin started out as a somewhere between the statist pragmatist and the western integrationist camps of Russian foreign policy? And that the somewhat misleadingly named Eurasianists and confrontationists are both real and were quite possible contenders for state power? And that the urge to say "gently caress you no" comes from some really hosed up things the United States has done in the last 25 years? Also, players in the "great game" live a lot better than the pawns, let alone battlefields, in it. It is not just vanity, you either play it or someone will play with you.Some states can leave the "great game" by neutrality, on account of its size and resource endowment, this is not very feasable for Russia. And its not particular "high dimensional super chess". Its just Geopolitics 101. They perceive, correctly, that number one (USA) is objectively more threatened from the number 2(China) then from the numbers 3-5 (one of these would be Russia. Which one depends more on Indian administration and on the degree of European unification then on anything Russia does). The goal is thus not to "crush" the USA, which Russia cannot exactly do, but to show them that any confrontation will be drawn out, not go according to Washingtons script and drain far more resources then Washington thought it would. The conventional definition of "Great Power" is any power which cannot be defeated by another Great power without that Great power incurring enormous risks to its own existence. This is why Austria-Hungary was regarded as a Great Power, despite not really being in the same league as Germany or the UK. In that pov. Russia lost her Great power status because she was defeated by the end of the cold war, without the USA taking any existential risk. The US is trying to drive Russia back to the 90s (where it was both pawn and battlefield), and again without taking on existential risks. Once the USA accept that this is not going to work, they implicitly accept Russias Great Power status. According to that pov., the current US believes it can defeat Russia with a combination of political, economic, diplomatic, cultural and military vectors, while avoiding a costly direct military clash. They believed that because it worked against the Soviet Union. Given that the USSR was on many levels more powerful then todays Russia, this is indeed a pretty good reason for such a belief. As long as the US believes that, they see no need to meaningfully negotiate with Russia. Making the US change that pov., particularly in a scenario of increased Chinese assertiveness, is arguably achievable for Russia.
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2016 11:58
|
|
|
Poor plucky little Russia.
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2016 12:12
|
|
|
solaranus posted:This is one of the most bizarre, cruel, and un-hinged posts I have yet to read about events in the region. Yes, the post explaining an internal Russian political view of the situation is so very cruel and truly insane for doing so, how dare a Russian explain anything!!! 
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2016 12:17
|
|
|
As warped as it sounds, given the levels of internal propaganda, anti-intellectualism and censorship; a Russian is kinda the last person I'd ask to understand how things work in Russia.
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2016 12:37
|
|
|
Dusty Baker 2 posted:Poor plucky little Russia. The plucky little award of the century so far goes to Mongolia. Very sizeable increases in wealth and life expectancy (+10 years life expectancy over the last 20 years) and a pretty free system while being in an incredibly unenviable geopolitical position.
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2016 12:47
|
|
|
WarpedNaba posted:As warped as it sounds, given the levels of internal propaganda, anti-intellectualism and censorship; a Russian is kinda the last person I'd ask to understand how things work in Russia. That doesn't sound warped but stupid.
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2016 13:00
|
|
|
FYI the more you guys keep up this level of discourse the more Mightypeon looks like the most trustworthy authority on the subject.
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2016 13:03
|
|
|
solaranus posted:This is one of the most bizarre, cruel, and un-hinged posts I have yet to read about events in the region. This is what I generally think about posts that conflate all the syrian rebels (many motivated by such ideals as "we don't want to die")* with the jihadists. *surely true of some of the militias fighting for Assad as well, to be fair.
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2016 13:21
|
|
|
Jazerus posted:Yes, the post explaining an internal Russian political view of the situation is so very cruel and truly insane for doing so, how dare a Russian explain anything!!! While it's good to get an opposing view, TBH his posts remind me of all the 'experts,' who after the quagmire that was Iraq still insist that removing Assad and even more American direct interventionism would 'sort it all out.' It just comes from the opposite corner of global interest.
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2016 13:50
|
|
|
RandomPauI posted:Is there even a word for when an act of mass-murder gets so large that mass-murder isn't a strong enough descriptor? You can maybe use the word "holocaust" for any event where many people is massacred, even if mostly used for the one event where the victims of it where jews. Maybe "massacre" is less politically charged.
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2016 14:33
|
|
|
I really don't get why anyone is upset about what Mightypeon is posting, other than pure nationalist blindness. There's not even a dramatic contrast to the western consensus like with his posting on Ukraine and Crimea. I think we can all admit that there is a lot of overlap between Islamist terrorists and the supposed secular freedom fighters of the FSA or whoever. We are supporting any number of murderers at this point and to pretend superiority over Putin/Assad is a little naive.
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2016 14:34
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:I really don't get why anyone is upset about what Mightypeon is posting, other than pure nationalist blindness. There's not even a dramatic contrast to the western consensus like with his posting on Ukraine and Crimea. I think we can all admit that there is a lot of overlap between Islamist terrorists and the supposed secular freedom fighters of the FSA or whoever. We are supporting any number of murderers at this point and to pretend superiority over Putin/Assad is a little naive. Well, its sometimes illuminating to challenge your own biases and reset your pattern recognition, so I volunteer to make a start. Things the US got right in Syria The best thing the US did so far is to support the Kurds, despite quite kinetic protests from Erdogan. This is commendable, especially compared to Merkels kowtows before Erdogan in basically everything. The Syrian Kurds arent angels, but fullfilling their ambitions will objectively require the least amount of mass murder compared to any other factions goals. They have also shown a remarkable degree of keeping their word with truces etc. (the continued existence of loyalist enclaves deep in Kurdish territory proves this) . They suffered some tactical reverses from situations where keeping their word got them betrayed, rather the being the betraying party, but a decent reputation in terms of truce keeping and not murdering captives will strategically benefit them down the line. Kurdish efforts to act as a go between between Russia and the USA are also a welcome thing. Sadly, being a go between here is far beyond Kurdish capabilities. SDF is theoretically open to Alawites, Christians and Shiites (not many takers so far, since they currently prefer the SAA coalition). In the event of an Assad collapse (from things like an assasination, or a coup attempt by more hard line Mukhabarat faction), previous Assad backers could in theory join the SDF, and now have a western approved option over the them getting genocided or ethnically cleansed. That is actually quite a game changer, and potentially offers exit ramps for a number of internal Syrian actors. From a machiavellian great game vs. Russia pov, US supporting the Syrian Kurds, while not restricting Kurdish abilities to talk with Russia effectively creates a situation in which Russia is competing with the US for Kurdish loyalties. The "Russian" coalition consists of groups that have no beef with Kurds (Russia, Hezbollah, other Lebanese parties) and of factions who feel quite threatened by perceived or real Kurdish ambitions (Iraq, Iran, Syria). As such, any support Russia offers to the Kurds actively increases Irani/Iraqi/Syrian loyalist suspicions of Russias motives, and therefor adds friction to Russias coalition. Further on the US plus side, Kurdish options deliver tangible gains on the ground for US interests, thus increasing the quantity and quality of options available to the USA. The only issue is some measure of Turkish disapproval, but the entire US coalition features just 1 (2 if you count Iraq, but that gets complex) participant with a Kurd complex, compared to 3 (including Iraq)such participants in the considerably smaller Russian coalition. As such, the ratio of generated friction here clearly favors the US vis a vis Russia. Someone in the Pentagon knows his Clausewitz. Lastly, Russian support for the Kurds is a trigger button for Erdogan, and reduces both the odds and the possible magnitude of a Turkish flip flop. So, TLDR: Supporting SDF gets pretty good marks in both moral and machiavellian terms, and the US should keep doing that. I seriously doubt btw. that Erdogans new bromance with Putin will be long term.
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2016 15:44
|
|
|
IMO realpolitik is a myth. I think the US just loves democracy and freedom and Putin, the only russian who matters, just loves dictators and oppression.
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2016 16:55
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/SanaAjel/status/759293004217659392quote:#SANA reporter: A number of gunmen in the eastern neighborhoods of #Aleppo turn themselves in and hand over their [weapons to the Syrian Arab Army.]  https://twitter.com/a5barsy1/status/759369424335929344 https://www.reddit.com/r/syriancivilwar/comments/4vby3a/hmeymim_military_base_169_civilians_and_69/ Rough translation: 169 civilians and 69 militants have surrendered so far (from East Aleppo). Now a map for reference, all the tweets below are talking about areas in and around Sheikh Maqsood:  https://www.reddit.com/r/syriancivilwar/comments/4vbt37/weapons_seized_from_division_16_by_ypg_near_bani/ Weapons seized from Division 16 by YPG near Bani Zeid. (Bani Zeid is directly west of Sheikh Maqsood.) http://imgur.com/a/M0rcj https://twitter.com/agirecudi/status/759356549190021120 quote:YPG seizes these weapons & ammunitions from Turkey-backed jihadis in battles of last 2 days in Aleppo. #TwitterKurds https://twitter.com/DrPartizan_/status/759391220284153856 quote:YPG refuse pro Assad troops demand to withdraw from positions inside Beni Zeid which were liberated by YPG. Tensions rising & YPG on alert. https://twitter.com/DrPartizan_/status/759399828212285440 quote:SDF Spokesman Talal Silo confirms tensions in Aleppo between YPG and Assad troops and warns them not to provoke YPG. https://twitter.com/DrPartizan_/status/759421594540408834 quote:Sounds of gunfire between YPG and Assad troops have now been heard in Ashrafiyeh neighbourhood. (ANHA) https://twitter.com/kovandire/status/759388785826226176 quote:Breaking #Aleppo fade5 fucked around with this message at 17:52 on Jul 30, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2016 17:49
|
|
|
Mightypeon posted:Russia stronk. Its this bizaare abstract way to view IR that helped lead us to WWI BTW. Viewing things on the level of Great Powers devalues human life and eschews real world realities.
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2016 17:53
|
|
|
Mercrom posted:IMO realpolitik is a myth. I think the US just loves democracy and freedom and Putin, the only russian who matters, just loves dictators and oppression. Everyone knows the US is the Federation, Russia is the Cardassians, and China is the Ferengi. And Islam is the Dominion.
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2016 17:53
|
|
|
Mightypeon posted:
The US isn't all that interested in defeating Russia today, nor do I think it can inflict an end-of-cold war level of defeat on russia without significant costs either even pre-2014
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2016 18:03
|
|
|
Shageletic posted:Its this bizaare abstract way to view IR that helped lead us to WWI BTW. Viewing things on the level of Great Powers devalues human life and eschews real world realities. Is there any reason to believe this is going to change anytime soon? The cold war is over but China is growing, Russia wants to be relevant again, and the US is in the best case scenario going to elect a Kissinger fangirl.
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2016 18:10
|
|
|
Peon Prediction 2 (increased SAA-SDF/YPG tensions) vindicated. A bit quicker then expected. Lets see if SDF follows on and goes "Hello SAA, nice enclaves you have their deep in my territory, shame if something would happen to them". Thing is, Russia was ok with SDF presence in Aleppo in order to give militants there someone other then SAA to surrender to. SDF is now making a pretty predictable try to get some parts of real estate as well. Ballsy but cant blame them, their calculus is probably that they are closer to finishing Manbij then SAA is to finishing East Aleppo, and they are imho correct in this assumption. Given that these areas are pretty distant from actual SDF turf, I am thinking its a bargaining chip as far as SDF is concerned. It wouldnt surprise me much if the SDF enclave in Aleppo is "exchanged" for some of the loyalist enclaves in Kurdish territory.
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2016 18:20
|
|
|
Typo posted:The US isn't all that interested in defeating Russia today, nor do I think it can inflict an end-of-cold war level of defeat on russia without significant costs either even pre-2014 I would argue that Russia was stronger pre 2014 then now, and that Ukraine crisis represents a major strategic defeat of Russia. I am not certain you agree, you sentence could be read both ways. I would also argue that Ukraine does represent an nearly (but not quite, Russia simply does not have enough influence left to lose as for an end of cold war repeat) end of cold war level of defeat, and that Russias pretty global reaction can be explained by this perception.
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2016 18:35
|
|
|
Mightypeon posted:I would argue that Russia was stronger pre 2014 then now, and that Ukraine crisis represents a major strategic defeat of Russia. I am not certain you agree, you sentence could be read both ways. "Defeat" is probably too strong of a word. The US primarily wants to contain Russia and rein in its international adventurism. There's no interest in an actual military confrontation, just limiting the damage until Putin is finally gone and maybe it becomes more cooperative.
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2016 18:45
|
|
|
Has Brown Moses left Turkey yet?
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2016 18:52
|
|
|
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-36932694 Hopefully civilians are actually being evacuated safely, but I can't say I'm inclined to trust the Russian military here.
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2016 19:45
|
|
|
VanSandman posted:Has Brown Moses left Turkey yet? Been back home a week mostly catching up with boring admin and business stuff for Bellingcat. I spend more doing that and chasing grants than I spend doing investigations, but at least it's working. Just got Open Societies Foundation to fund a version of Bellingcat translated fully into Russian, and two staff members, one focused Syria and the wider Middle East, another on UK financial shenanigans.
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2016 21:26
|
|
|
Deteriorata posted:"Defeat" is probably too strong of a word. The US primarily wants to contain Russia and rein in its international adventurism. There's no interest in an actual military confrontation, just limiting the damage until Putin is finally gone and maybe it becomes more cooperative. Defeat is arguably too weak, catastrophe is more appropriate. There was a Brookings study on what Russia invested in pre Maidan Ukraine, they came up with half a trillion (very iirc, I believe to remember that those numbers were overblown)or so, but I dont want to derail this too much. One under-appreciated reason why Russia gets along with the SDF is btw. that SDFs actions are often ballsy, but generally predictable from the highly realist Russian pov. . SDF does by no means do what Russia says, but they are playing the "same game" with mutually understood rules. In some cases, SDF is perceived as more "realistic" then Assads loyalist who are sometimes to murderous for their own good. SDFs surprisingly successful diplomacy with Russia also rests on the fact that they invested a credible effort in being "their own party" rather then someone elses pawn. This is really important if you are some actor dealing with Russia. If you are seen as pawn, Russia will give not the slightest drat about your interests, and wreck you poo poo if they feel inclined to do so. As that CIA backed group near Jordan discovered, they may also wreck your poo poo solely to make a point to your patron, even if you have not actually engaged in combat with Russia directly or with Russian assets for a while. If you manage to be seen as your own party/faction, you can make deals, you get to talk (and can f.e. infer useful things such as growing disillusionment with Assad from such talks) and if your goals are in some way compatible with Russias, the odds of Russian air force wrecking your poo poo decrease considerably. SDF succeeded in that, FSA failed.
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2016 21:52
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 10, 2024 04:20 |
|
|
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-36932694 This is btw. a pretty typical "surrender race". Going from numerous precedents during the Chechen campaigns, what will happen is a "triage" of those who surrendered strongly based on the timing of their surrender. Those that surrender first will be treated decently, with escalatingly worse treatment for those who surrender at later points. Given the amnesty time frame, I would suggest to absolutely distrust any Syrian or Russian announcement of surrendered numbers. This will be maskirovkaed as gently caress. There will be active misinformation of the timing, the provenance, the quantity and the quality of surrenders, in order to so confusion and entice more surrenders. This can take unexpected forms, such as Russia/Syria not reporting a surrendered unit, and then impersonating that units communications to confound remaining holdouts. I would also expected that any accumulated rebel social media accounts SVR/GRU have so far (modus operandi would be to hack the account to establish control, then do nothing until you have hacked enough accounts to do a concerted effort) will be used in concert to magnify and support the maskirovka.
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2016 22:03
|
|