|
Coldwar timewarp posted:Lol, this guy is true mastermind. Yeah its basically just nationalism. This was inevitable really. Even if they kick out the theocracts, whatever comes next is not going to be friendly with KSA, that's for drat sure. Nor a US that is constantly threatening them.
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2017 17:30
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 23, 2024 14:34 |
|
|
The US isn't the only foreign policy axis, fortunately, though do you think this wave of nationalism will also kill off relations with the EU?
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2017 19:25
|
|
|
This is from a Russian with connections in the SAA: https://twitter.com/IvanSidorenko1/status/935198517726982144 This is the first time I've seen such a post in regards to the Tigers, or really any of the regime forces in general. If the information is true the drive to the Euphrates has been a far more brutal affair than the quick progress would otherwise indicate. You should discount the specific numbers but ISIS has clearly fought like a trapped rat and have consistently turned away from facing the SDF in favor of fighting an opponent with weaker air power. It's important to realize that the Tigers and other 'elite' units have seen constant and intense battles since they were deployed into Aleppo to fight off the rebels last year. If any of this paints a true picture of reality on the ground it is absolute madness for the regime to threaten SDF territory because they are still bleeding heavily in Ghouta (rebels launched an apparently failed offensive two weeks ago) as well as Idlib and that's -without- sacrificing the quantities of men and material that those two campaigns will require. Both Assad and ISIS have fought this war from an attritional standpoint. Bleed out their opponents while preserving as much of their manpower as possible. I have no doubt that Russia is weary of the expenses of this war and Putin wants a decisive victory to showcase to his domestic population and that the preservation of manpower is now secondary to geopolitical goals.
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2017 20:30
|
|
|
steinrokkan posted:The US isn't the only foreign policy axis, fortunately, though do you think this wave of nationalism will also kill off relations with the EU? No, and it might have the opposite effect of making Iran closer to the EU. Nationalism is a much more familiar force than religious fundamentalism. Also a lot less revolutionary. An Iran that works in its national self interest instead of the self interest of religion may be easier to deal with for distant powers.
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2017 22:25
|
|
|
Can we, perhaps, not go to war with Iran?
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2017 22:55
|
|
|
now you're just being silly.
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2017 23:16
|
|
|
Is this the thread to discuss Pakistan in? This weekends' events have made the government look incredibly weak once more and it seems that the military is content with just sitting back and let religious tension grow to ever higher levels. I am really wondering what their long term game is, surely destabilising the country and continuing to provide fertile grounds for violent fundamentalist opposition to the force of law is a really lovely idea? What does the military have to gain from sitting back and not helping the government?
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2017 23:17
|
|
|
Grouchio posted:Can we, perhaps, not go to war with Iran? Well, that's been the status quo so probably still yes?
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2017 23:23
|
|
|
elbkaida posted:Is this the thread to discuss Pakistan in? This weekends' events have made the government look incredibly weak once more and it seems that the military is content with just sitting back and let religious tension grow to ever higher levels. I am really wondering what their long term game is, surely destabilising the country and continuing to provide fertile grounds for violent fundamentalist opposition to the force of law is a really lovely idea? What does the military have to gain from sitting back and not helping the government? Are you not aware of Pakistan’s long history of going back and forth between civilian government and military dictatorship rule? Did you forget about Musharraf? Lol
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2017 23:24
|
|
|
In Pakistan you have the military, but you also have the intelligence services. From what little I know, the Pakistanese intelligence services are those who are behind propping up terrorist groups everywhere (in Afghanistan, in Kashmir, at home...) and the government doesn't really control them.
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2017 23:54
|
|
|
Cat Mattress posted:In Pakistan you have the military, but you also have the intelligence services. From what little I know, the Pakistanese intelligence services are those who are behind propping up terrorist groups everywhere (in Afghanistan, in Kashmir, at home...) and the government doesn't really control them. The military and ISI have been closely linked, especially since the nuclear program. The civilian government largely exists because the military/ISI allowed them too and it made the country more palatable to western allies for the War on Terror.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2017 00:01
|
|
|
But still, what's the point in allowing the country to go even more to poo poo? I mean surely the military can't want more power for fundamentalists who are already making life difficult?
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2017 00:05
|
|
|
elbkaida posted:But still, what's the point in allowing the country to go even more to poo poo? I mean surely the military can't want more power for fundamentalists who are already making life difficult? Well between the millions of refugees from Afghanistan starting from the the Soviet invasion to the War on Terror. And the privatization of former public services by companies owned by those that win elections in civic government. And the rise of insurgents in Baluchistan. And the massive inflation occurring for everything but especially food stuffs. Etc etc Also, you can’t discount divisions in the ISI/military where they either believe in fundamentalists or prefer them over a strong Afghan government. The Taliban is seen as more controllable, but they’ve changed over the War on Terror, so who really knows. Things not too good.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2017 00:35
|
|
|
How loyal have the shia militias been so far? The ones operating in Syria and Iraq. There's Hezbollah and a slew of smaller ones. Do they mostly do what Iran says? Do they ever switch sides or rebel?
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2017 02:51
|
|
|
Count Roland posted:How loyal have the shia militias been so far? The ones operating in Syria and Iraq. There's Hezbollah and a slew of smaller ones. Do they mostly do what Iran says? Do they ever switch sides or rebel? Do they switch sides and joing IS or Al qaeda?
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2017 03:23
|
|
|
Count Roland posted:How loyal have the shia militias been so far? The ones operating in Syria and Iraq. There's Hezbollah and a slew of smaller ones. Do they mostly do what Iran says? Do they ever switch sides or rebel? Switch sides to whom? Who would accept them?
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2017 03:30
|
|
|
OctaMurk posted:Switch sides to whom? Who would accept them? The glorious communist state of Rojava. I don't know, whomever. The sunni groups splinter and infight constantly, I'm wondering if anything like this happens to the shia militias.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2017 04:03
|
|
|
Brother Friendship posted:I have no doubt that Russia is weary of the expenses of this war and Putin wants a decisive victory to showcase to his domestic population and that the preservation of manpower is now secondary to geopolitical goals. I was under the impression that Russian expenses in the war in Syria was only a couple billion dollars.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2017 07:49
|
|
|
tekz posted:I was under the impression that Russian expenses in the war in Syria was only a couple billion dollars. how much do you think maintaining dozens of aircraft and navel vessels in an extended military campaign costs? This is not even mentioning the multiple fighters and attack helicopters that have been shot down
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2017 08:37
|
|
|
tekz posted:I was under the impression that Russian expenses in the war in Syria was only a couple billion dollars. The Russian economy is not in a good place right now. Their military has always been good at doing more with less than the US, but they're a vastly poorer country and the sanctions and oil crash hit them hard. Between Syria and Ukraine, they're surely feeling the pinch.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2017 09:32
|
|
|
A Typical Goon posted:how much do you think maintaining dozens of aircraft and navel vessels in an extended military campaign costs? This is not even mentioning the multiple fighters and attack helicopters that have been shot down It still puts America's insane spending in perspective, and for far better results.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2017 10:28
|
|
|
tekz posted:It still puts America's insane spending in perspective, and for far better results. Massacring tens of thousands of random people in a hospital and infrastructure bombing campaign to prop up a national socialist authoritarian regime at the cost of 50% of the population displaced, half a million dead, and a continuing civil war: better results!
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2017 13:27
|
|
|
Warbadger posted:Massacring tens of thousands of random people in a hospital and infrastructure bombing campaign to prop up a national socialist authoritarian regime at the cost of 50% of the population displaced, half a million dead, and a continuing civil war: better results! I mean that sounds almost the same as Iraq. Although I guess one is the Russians and SAA actively doing it while the other is the population themselves doing it. Still, end result isn’t much better in Iraq than Syria.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2017 13:50
|
|
|
Duckbox posted:The Russian economy is not in a good place right now. Their military has always been good at doing more with less than the US, but they're a vastly poorer country and the sanctions and oil crash hit them hard. Between Syria and Ukraine, they're surely feeling the pinch. Eh, that really isn't true, especially since 2015/2016. I guess I have put in the awkward position again of saying "good things about the Russians" but the Russian economy is doing a lot better at the moment, including signs of growth but more importantly perhaps low rates of inflation and unemployment. I think the Russian Central Bank seriously needs to lower rates at this point to improve growth, but the Russian economy at this point is doing okay. Also, the oil prices absolutely hurt more than the sanctions, and with lower costs/higher prices much of the damage to the energy sector and the budget is being unwound with rising prices. That isn't to say Russia spends too much on its military, it does, but I think your narrative is well counter-factual compared to the statistics. The Russians probably could sustain a campaign in Syria indefinitely. Also, the Russians lost 9 aircraft (a mix of helicopters and jets) during the conflict including the jet shot down by Turkey and accidents. That seems pretty expected for how long it as gone on. Saladman posted:I mean that sounds almost the same as Iraq. Although I guess one is the Russians and SAA actively doing it while the other is the population themselves doing it. Still, end result isn’t much better in Iraq than Syria. I am sure the calculation for Yemen is pretty rough for the GDC considering their "accomplishments" although they are letting hunger and disease doing most of the work for them. Ardennes fucked around with this message at 13:57 on Nov 28, 2017 |
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2017 13:53
|
|
|
Saladman posted:I mean that sounds almost the same as Iraq. Although I guess one is the Russians and SAA actively doing it while the other is the population themselves doing it. Even without considering who pulled the triggers and handwaving the fact half the Syrian population was pushed out as refugees while using the high end statistics for deaths in Iraq the Iraq war had only a third of Syria's bodycount. Iraq wasn't remotely as bad as Syria, despite having twice the population. Not to mention that the war in Syria isn't over yet and Iraq in the most unstable times looked kinda like Syria probably will after the civil war "ends". Edit: The US also managed to steamroll ISIS through air support and a minimal ground presence in both Syria and Iraq. Even using local ground forces and electing an orange clown to meddle in the last bit it was done without turning it into a bloodbath. Not sure how the Russian sponsored meatgrinder is supposed to look better. Warbadger fucked around with this message at 15:22 on Nov 28, 2017 |
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2017 14:01
|
|
|
steinrokkan posted:...wave of nationalism... The nationalism angle in describing Iran is an exaggeration. It's really just more acquiescence in reform-minded Iranians from friends I've talked to as other powers and forces in the ME are demonstrably more destabilizing and radical. People are OK with Iran's foreign adventures because people accept it will give more leverage for security. IMHO, NYT has consistently done a lovely job of reading Iran & reporting. The recent article is a great example: artists putting on shows in support of the government are undoubtedly being underwritten by the government. Of course, they decontextualize the actual impression of Iranians by not mentioning the Iran-Iraq war and two US invasions and stick to the narrative that this "nationalism" is all a reaction to Trump, ISIS, and KSA as though the threats to the Iran are brand new. Seriously lovely. Coldwar timewarp posted:I don’t think this means “reform” vs hardliners in Iran is dead. It probably reflects a bipartisan foreign policy consensus. So the country will have internal movements on rights, the economy etc, but funding their MIC will be unquestioned. This nails it on the head and comes back to: steinrokkan posted:...do you think this wave of nationalism will also kill off relations with the EU? One of the best parts of opening trade up with Iran is that forces more transparency in economic institutions, which is a major reason some hard-liners are not interested in opening ties with the west. Consider: https://www.ft.com/content/43de1388-9857-11e7-a652-cde3f882dd7b Here Khamenei has a really fine line to straddle. He can't alienate his powerful followers wrapped up in corruption but western capital would really, really, really help stabilize the economy & currency: http://www.xe.com/currencycharts/?from=EUR&to=IRR&view=10Y. Of course, many of said followers are deeply invested in the arms industry. So long as anti-corruption are focused away from MIC and the same people are not involved in both, western investment like the Total will help buoy Europe-Iranian relations. Note that sectors mentioned in the FT article are "ranging from oil and gas to telecoms and construction" are sectors where foreign investment would make sense is already being sought.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2017 16:18
|
|
|
guidoanselmi posted:The nationalism angle in describing Iran is an exaggeration. It's really just more acquiescence in reform-minded Iranians from friends I've talked to as other powers and forces in the ME are demonstrably more destabilizing and radical. People are OK with Iran's foreign adventures because people accept it will give more leverage for security. Some day, if Iran is to grow as a nation, they're going to have to tackle and neuter the IRGC. Now is probably not the time given how successfully they've been tooling around the region. But they're a huge parallel army, under direct theocratic control, and control a huge chunk of the economy. Going after them is politically difficult (I'd think a president would risk a coup doing so) but in the long run the IRGC is a hindrance more than a help.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2017 16:56
|
|
|
Count Roland posted:Some day, if Iran is to grow as a nation, they're going to have to tackle and neuter the IRGC. Now is probably not the time given how successfully they've been tooling around the region. That's not unintentional. The IGRC is meant to provide the theocrats at the top with a hammer to smash any internal opposition - even if the regular military or elected government as a whole are opposed to it. To do this they need to be big and they need to be independent from the elected government (hence the independent industrial/income component). It's going to be hellishly difficult to reform for the same reasons - it couldn't fulfill its role if it were vulnerable to such efforts and it's a massive benefit militarily, financially, and politically for the few people to whom it is accountable - who are themselves not accountable to anyone else in the government. Warbadger fucked around with this message at 17:15 on Nov 28, 2017 |
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2017 17:07
|
|
|
Grouchio posted:Can we, perhaps, not go to war with Iran? I mean the US might not make a formal deceleration so, there you go!
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2017 17:13
|
|
|
Warbadger posted:Massacring tens of thousands of random people in a hospital and infrastructure bombing campaign to prop up a national socialist authoritarian regime at the cost of 50% of the population displaced, half a million dead, and a continuing civil war: better results! The US does that too, but sucks at propping its client puppets and jihadist proxies up. Better results!
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2017 17:15
|
|
|
Glad I'm not the only one who got a bad taste in their mouth from that article. I generally like Erdbrink but man have his last few articles seemed clickbaity.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2017 17:24
|
|
|
tekz posted:The US does that too, but sucks at propping its client puppets and jihadist proxies up. Better results! Well Russia had to invade Ukraine to prevent it from defecting and are fighting in Syria to prevent it from collapsing. If that's the measure for successfully propping up your proxies the US is doing fine.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2017 17:24
|
|
|
Bates posted:Well Russia had to invade Ukraine to prevent it from defecting and are fighting in Syria to prevent it from collapsing. If that's the measure for successfully propping up your proxies the US is doing fine. Sure, whatever. The US is doing a good job of supporting the Syrian Kurds too. The original point was that I don't believe the Russians are bleeding money from the expenses of their military operations in Syria, the real externality is the sanctions. e: It does feel like Russia has more or less achieved its strategic objectives in europe (maintaining control of crimea and influence in the black sea), and in syria in keeping the Baathists alive. Anything more is a bonus. You could say the same for the US if you took the cynical view that American objectives were to set the entire region on fire. mila kunis fucked around with this message at 17:42 on Nov 28, 2017 |
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2017 17:37
|
|
|
Count Roland posted:How loyal have the shia militias been so far? The ones operating in Syria and Iraq. There's Hezbollah and a slew of smaller ones. Do they mostly do what Iran says? Do they ever switch sides or rebel? They've been remarkably loyal to Iranian interests, due to Iran's deft ability to work with outside groups that differ from themselves (compare that to Saudi Arabia's iron fisted and incompetent handling of its representatives in Syria). Also due to them, from Hezbollah to the many paramilitary Iranian aligned groups, smelling where the wind is going (towards Iran). Hezbollah has lost ALOT of personnel in Syria, but the ties between them and iran, monetarily, personnel-wise, ideologically, are the strongest they've ever been.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2017 18:48
|
|
|
Warbadger posted:Massacring tens of thousands of random people in a hospital and infrastructure bombing campaign to prop up a national socialist authoritarian regime at the cost of 50% of the population displaced, half a million dead, and a continuing civil war: better results! The US did this in Iraq for a much larger bill. Not even counting the better results seen by propping up Saudi Arabia, Israel and Egypt.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2017 19:06
|
|
|
Shageletic posted:They've been remarkably loyal to Iranian interests, due to Iran's deft ability to work with outside groups that differ from themselves (compare that to Saudi Arabia's iron fisted and incompetent handling of its representatives in Syria). Also due to them, from Hezbollah to the many paramilitary Iranian aligned groups, smelling where the wind is going (towards Iran). If you know any more about this I'd love to hear about it. I understand a lot of the people and maybe groups operating in Syria and Iraq are semi conscripted Afghan refugees, for example. The sort of people that might not be too loyal. Regarding Hezbollah, ties do seem stronger than ever, though Hezbollah seems to maintain some sort of independence, though I have nothing really to back up that feeling. While in Iraq, there's the potential for conflicting loyalties. What if they prefer Sistani to Khomenei? Or would rather be loyal to Baghdad? And what do you mean smelling the way the wind is going?
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2017 19:23
|
|
|
The orange moron is providing cover to all sorts of awful poo poo around the world just by being himself. https://twitter.com/jenanmoussa/status/935507511242784768
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2017 19:28
|
|
|
Well its true that CNN is garbage, but there have been reports of slave markets in Libya for some time now.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2017 19:39
|
|
|
hezbollah is not going to switch teams.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2017 21:22
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 23, 2024 14:34 |
|
|
spaceships posted:hezbollah is not going to switch teams. They be Bashars homeboys
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2017 21:25
|
|
