|
Cat Mattress posted:Pakistanese this isnt a word but i really really want it to be
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2017 21:51
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 24, 2024 22:21 |
|
|
Willie Tomg posted:this isnt a word but i really really want it to be
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2017 21:55
|
|
|
lollontee posted:They be Bashars homeboys without iran, south lebanon would be israeli. pretty sure that still counts for something to hezbollah. e: it does, at least, to nasrallah.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2017 22:14
|
|
|
Count Roland posted:Well its true that CNN is garbage, but there have been reports of slave markets in Libya for some time now. That's not the point, the point is that whatever CNN (or CNN International) reports from now on out will be rebutted with this.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2017 23:10
|
|
|
Count Roland posted:If you know any more about this I'd love to hear about it. lol meant to say seeing the way the wind is going or however that saying goes haha I've posted some articles about Iran-Hezbollah-PMU's before you can maybe click through my history, but I might find some more articles later.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2017 23:49
|
|
|
Never heard of this paper, is it reputable? China to deploy troops to fight alongside Assad in Syria: https://www.middleeastmonitor.com/20171128-china-to-deploy-troops-to-fight-alongside-assad-in-syria/
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2017 01:16
|
|
|
tekz posted:Never heard of this paper, is it reputable? From the headline alone, no, it isn't reputable.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2017 01:34
|
|
|
tekz posted:The US does that too, but sucks at propping its client puppets and jihadist proxies up. Better results! Given Syria's vastly larger bodycount despite the substantially smaller population and shorter time period I'd say the US obviously wasn't "doing that too". The massive displacement of the civilian population from Syria and the comparatively high level of devastation should also be a pretty obvious indication of differences. Throw in the whole thing where Assad/Russia are apparently responsible for the vast majority of those deaths in Syria - rather than the sectarian militias and such. I mean, given all of the large obvious differences you'd have to be an utter moron or entirely ignorant on the subject to think the two are the same or indicative of similar levels of violence. Warbadger fucked around with this message at 02:22 on Nov 29, 2017 |
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2017 02:10
|
|
|
tekz posted:Never heard of this paper, is it reputable? Rather than first asking whether an author is reputable or not, try to read critically. I know its hard to think all the way back to high school English class, but don't let yourself passively absorb a piece's narrative, rather interrogate the article mercilessly. If I tried to tell you here that China was going to deploy troops to Syria, wouldn't you want to ask me "How do you know?" So do the same for middleeastmonitor. Starting from the first line: "China is planning to send troops to Syria to aid President Bashar Al-Assad’s forces, according to the New Khaleej." Hmm. . . Okay so there wasn't any original reporting here, it's just a reprint from another paper. Where did they get their information though? "According to informed sources," oh an anonymous source who it hasn't even been suggested is in the Chinese government or any other place where they might have access to this information. The article is simply rumor and hence of little interest. Squalid fucked around with this message at 06:35 on Nov 29, 2017 |
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2017 02:17
|
|
|
Warbadger posted:Given Syria's vastly larger bodycount despite the substantially smaller population and shorter time period I'd say the US obviously wasn't "doing that too". The massive displacement of the civilian population from Syria and the comparatively high level of devastation should also be a pretty obvious indication of differences. Yeah I've been asleep since 2001 as well and also believe America has the moral high ground over not turning entire regions into warzones and butchering civilians in recent history. They're currently engaged in supporting the Sauds to the hilt in starving Yemen to death dude. I'm sorry this is triggering you, but this is a diversion from my original point - Russia's military expenditures in Syria have been peanuts compared to that of the United States, and they have accomplished their strategic objectives, and the United States has not.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2017 02:51
|
|
|
Sorry if this is naive, but what constitutes the basis for Russia's alliance with Syria, other than obviously selling them weapons and generally just having a partner/tyrant/stake anywhere in the Middle East? I vaguely remember reading an article about various interests having interest/proxy-warring because of a proposed pipeline, and obviously Syria has oil fields.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2017 03:00
|
|
|
Heliogabalos posted:Sorry if this is naive, but what constitutes the basis for Russia's alliance with Syria, other than obviously selling them weapons and generally just having a partner/tyrant/stake anywhere in the Middle East? I vaguely remember reading an article about various interests having interest/proxy-warring because of a proposed pipeline, and obviously Syria has oil fields. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russia%E2%80%93Syria_relations
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2017 03:08
|
|
|
tekz posted:Yeah I've been asleep since 2001 as well and also believe America has the moral high ground over not turning entire regions into warzones and butchering civilians in recent history. They're currently engaged in supporting the Sauds to the hilt in starving Yemen to death dude. I'm sorry this is triggering you, but this is a diversion from my original point - Russia's military expenditures in Syria have been peanuts compared to that of the United States, and they have accomplished their strategic objectives, and the United States has not. In terms of strategic objectives the difference is the US somewhat failed to expand its sphere while Russia somewhat salvaged some of its. If avoiding the worst possible outcome is a strategic objective then Russia has succeeded but that's not a very high bar. Russia annexed Crimea but in the process lost the rest of Ukraine - annexing Crimea was only unnecessary because Ukraine wasn't reliable anymore. Assad may remain in power but Syria is devastated. In both cases Russia's strategic interests are now in a worse state than before. Conversely US wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have failed to produce security and reliable allies but not achieving something is not the same as losing something. As for economic costs nobody can really say anything. It's not like Russia is publishing the numbers. We know some 200+ Russians have died on the ground in Syria - more than coalition losses in the 2003 invasion of Iraq - and they have lost planes and plenty of armor. Undoubtedly Syria has been given money by both Russia and Iran to keep the lights on and process the war. It's obviously a lot less than what the US put into Iraq but Russia isn't trying rebuild anything either.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2017 03:32
|
|
|
Let's agree that US and Russian interference and constant wars in the Middle East hasn't done anyone much good.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2017 03:38
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/Reuters/status/935684765973434369
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2017 03:49
|
|
|
tekz posted:Yeah I've been asleep since 2001 as well and also believe America has the moral high ground over not turning entire regions into warzones and butchering civilians in recent history. They're currently engaged in supporting the Sauds to the hilt in starving Yemen to death dude. I'm sorry this is triggering you, but this is a diversion from my original point - Russia's military expenditures in Syria have been peanuts compared to that of the United States, and they have accomplished their strategic objectives, and the United States has not. You have no idea how much Russia has spent on Syria. As far as strategic objectives - you are looking at the ongoing humanitarian disaster, civil war, and largely devastated country of Syria and claiming MISSION ACCOMPLISHED. I know you don't understand why this is a stupid thing for you say, but it is. Also, by killing a lot less people and refraining from things like systematic hospital bombing campaigns and high altitude carpet bombing of urban areas the US has, in fact, maintained the moral high ground in the Russia/US comparison.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2017 05:12
|
|
|
Warbadger posted:Given Syria's vastly larger bodycount despite the substantially smaller population and shorter time period I'd say the US obviously wasn't "doing that too". The massive displacement of the civilian population from Syria and the comparatively high level of devastation should also be a pretty obvious indication of differences. No one supported Iraq while the Syrian government had an internal and outside base of support that could withstand opposition. Not only that but while the Iraqi insurgency was considerable, it did not have the incredible level of support all the various rebels in Syria had. Not only that but one of the main reasons Syria is so bloody is because Iraq is a giant blackhole where people could jump to for safe refuge and for free gear. When ISIS got bored they conquered almost half the country at a marching pace. Without a pathethically destroyed and hopeless Iraq this wouldn't have happened. The United States has maintained a military occupation of two countries for almost two decades now while also unilaterally supporting Israel, Saudi Arabia and Egypt who have massacred a ridiculous number of civilians as well. If the bodycount isn't as large as it is in Syria it's because those who oppose the three regimes aren't being fed weapons at a proportional rate. Warbadger posted:
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2017 05:15
|
|
|
Mans posted:No one supported Iraq while the Syrian government had an internal and outside base of support that could withstand opposition. Not only that but while the Iraqi insurgency was considerable, it did not have the incredible level of support all the various rebels in Syria had. And yet none of your whataboutism examples come anywhere near the reckless methods or associated bodycount Russia or Assad's forces achieved in Syria. I live the part where you already know that and try to handwave it because "well uhhhhh the people everyone else is bombing just aren't as well armed!" because you obviously know how insipid and stupid your argument is.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2017 05:26
|
|
|
Warbadger posted:You have no idea how much Russia has spent on Syria. As far as strategic objectives - you are looking at the ongoing humanitarian disaster, civil war, and largely devastated country of Syria and claiming MISSION ACCOMPLISHED. I know you don't understand why this is a stupid thing for you say, but it is. Stopping the humanitarian disaster was probably not one of Russia's strategic objectives. I'm not sure why you can't see this. Their core objective was retaining a Russia friendly government and by all appearances they have succeed. Your trivial moralizing has little relevance to this circumstance. Bates posted:In terms of strategic objectives the difference is the US somewhat failed to expand its sphere while Russia somewhat salvaged some of its. If avoiding the worst possible outcome is a strategic objective then Russia has succeeded but that's not a very high bar. This is more-or-less my opinion. Although I think it is worth pointing out the central objective of American policy in Syria for at least the last three years has been the defeat of ISIS and removing the Assad regime always came in second to countering the threat of Islamic extremism. One can argue whether this policy was wise or not but I'm not sure how one could disagree. The only point Bates with which I disagree is that America has lost nothing in Afghanistan. America is still paying a great deal for those mistakes.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2017 06:53
|
|
|
You can be against American imperialism without fellatting Russian fascists you imbeciles. ‘Russian policy in the Middle East not being as destabilizing as American policy’ is such an incredibly low bar to clear that I’m shocked to hear this argument in good faith Russian imperialism in the Middle East is just as wrong as American imperialism in the Middle East. That the only argument that people can use to justify Russian intervention is that they are not as damaging as America is pretty much the picture perfect example of damning with faint praise
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2017 07:32
|
|
|
Squalid posted:(...) removing the Assad regime always came in second to countering the threat of Islamic extremism. The amount of unsavory FSA-factions with an obvous salafi agenda that the Americans have funded kinda ruins this narrative.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2017 08:03
|
|
so that means I can be a cheapskate and post about posting instead of having some wit or spending any more on comedy avs for people. Which I'm also incapable of. Comedy.
|
I don't think anyone is "fellating" Russia here. It seems to be a lot more going "they achieved what they set out to and America didn't". Their objectives were dog poo poo but they got them done, which is a problem for all of us who like things like "none curated democracy" and "not getting the poo poo kicked out of us".
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2017 08:14
|
|
|
Yeah nobody did any JUSTIFYING Russian activity in the region, this entire spat started with someone talking about "bang for your buck" and regardless of how expensive it's been for russia even ten cents of bang for their buck beats out NEGATIVE bang for your buck, as america swapped out a rival of their big enemy in the region for at BEST a fair weather friend and by all appearances left basically every other interest they had in the region actively worse off.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2017 08:21
|
|
|
Retarded Goatee posted:The amount of unsavory FSA-factions with an obvous salafi agenda that the Americans have funded kinda ruins this narrative. Yes well it was sometimes a fine balancing act between the competing objectives. The United States liked these groups so little they literally tried to create their own moderate rebel factions from scratch and spent hundreds of millions of dollars training and organizing them. Americas main service to these groups was turning a blind eye as the gulf funded them. Actors usually have multiple motivations. Some get priorities over others, and America’s priorities in this conflict have been clear: counter al qaeda/isis and contain Iran in that order. I guess there have also been some efforts at protecting human rights and liberalizing markets or w/e.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2017 08:41
|
|
|
On that note, a larger philosophical question: How do we encourage better respect for Human Rights in the Middle East from a policy standpoint?
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2017 09:12
|
|
|
Luckily we have a wise elder statesman in charge who is going to set US foreign policy on the right track by encouraging peaceful coexistence with Muslims
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2017 09:13
|
|
|
Bates posted:In terms of strategic objectives the difference is the US somewhat failed to expand its sphere while Russia somewhat salvaged some of its. If avoiding the worst possible outcome is a strategic objective then Russia has succeeded but that's not a very high bar. If we are talking purely about results not the morality of actions. Then we need to put the Russian Syrian intervention into the context of their diplomatic offensive which has been extremely effective in turning both Iran and Turkey to their side. I think the war itself was more of a political tool in that sense than a military one. Saving Assad was necessary to develop broader links with Iran and Iranian aligned forces and in that sense, and it was successful (Turkey-Russian relations has been more situational but are now closer than they have ever been). As far as Ukraine, as I mentioned previously, we actually don't know how Ukraine is going to work out and that Ukrainian politics at the moment are actually very divided and chaotic. We simply don't know how it will work out in the long-term, and I honestly think this is the result of the West more or less turning their back on the Ukrainians. Also, you are completely wrong about Iraq and Afganistan, both were complete disasters and we lost a ton over both of them, especially politically. The Iraq War if anything allowed Iran to break its containment and become of the most influential actors in the Middle East, and both wars were extremely damaging to American image in the region. This isn't even really debatable at this point. Also 51 Russian servicemen have died in Syrian, a larger number of Russian nationals have died as mercenaries. They have lost 9 aircrafts in some form including accidents and it doesn't seem armored losses have been substantial. I am pulling that data from Wikipedia. Btw, the point isn't that Russia is "good" or "not-imperialist" but rather than they have been effective and have made a major impact on the power-structure of the Middle East. Ardennes fucked around with this message at 10:34 on Nov 29, 2017 |
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2017 10:30
|
|
|
Josef bugman posted:I don't think anyone is "fellating" Russia here. It seems to be a lot more going "they achieved what they set out to and America didn't". Their objectives were dog poo poo but they got them done, which is a problem for all of us who like things like "none curated democracy" and "not getting the poo poo kicked out of us". The point being that they haven't accomplished much and it certainly wasn't cheap. Syria remains unstable and will probably stay unstable due to problems like the humanitarian catastrophe Russia has helped create. Yes, Assad hasn't been defeated and that is good for Russia, but he also hasn't even won the conventional phase of the war yet and the country is a shell of what it used to be. The brutality of the war has also deepened the divide in the arab world and created an awful lot of hate toward Assad/Russia/Hezbollah/Iran/etc. This is the equivalent of fawning over the minimalist approach to the Iraq invasion before even taking Baghdad. Warbadger fucked around with this message at 13:58 on Nov 29, 2017 |
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2017 13:41
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/th3j35t3r/status/935837241968070657 Bin Laden smiling in his watery grave.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2017 15:04
|
|
|
Warbadger posted:The point being that they haven't accomplished much and it certainly wasn't cheap. Syria remains unstable and will probably stay unstable due to problems like the humanitarian catastrophe Russia has helped create. Yes, Assad hasn't been defeated and that is good for Russia, but he also hasn't even won the conventional phase of the war yet and the country is a shell of what it used to be. The brutality of the war has also deepened the divide in the arab world and created an awful lot of hate toward Assad/Russia/Hezbollah/Iran/etc. Russia did accomplish a lot though. This is not fawning; I don't support Russia's intervention, nor Assad in any way. But when Russia waded into this, Assad was losing badly. Now, even Assad's enemies are quietly acknowledging he'll be sticking around, and that the war is winding down. That's exactly what Russia wanted. I agree Syria in the longer term faces huge problems. It isn't going to be truly secure maybe ever again. Russia could face something like an Iraq of Afghanistan (ha), by now being quasi responsible for security in the country. I'd actually compare it to the US action against IS. I'm not huge on that one either, as it may create more problems in the long run. But the strategy was clearly to take out IS asap, and in that they're successful.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2017 15:16
|
|
|
Count Roland posted:Russia did accomplish a lot though. This is not fawning; I don't support Russia's intervention, nor Assad in any way. Granted, I suspect Russia isn't going to be that interested in reconstruction, but that the war more about securing bases and territory than anything about the country of Syria or Assad. I suspect part of the intervention was to put Iran in a stronger position to challenge the Saudis, thereby dividing the Middle East. In that sense, I think they were successful if not very cynically and brutally so. As far as Syria, it is going to be screwed up for years considering the damage it has taken, but I suspect Russia is going to have a minimal interest in it unless the SAA starts to collapse again like it was in 2015.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2017 15:43
|
|
|
Ardennes posted:Granted, I suspect Russia isn't going to be that interested in reconstruction, but that the war more about securing bases and territory than anything about the country of Syria or Assad. I suspect part of the intervention was to put Iran in a stronger position to challenge the Saudis, thereby dividing the Middle East. In that sense, I think they were successful if not very cynically and brutally so. Ehh, not sure how keen Russia is on a stronger Iran. Sticking it to the US is all well and good, but Iran has no loyalties to Russia, either... And as far as Syria goes, I think its a bit more than just military bases. Russia has shown allies and enemies alike that it sticks with its friends through thick and thin. Plus you know that show of force and violence and all that. So when Russia goes to central asia and says "hey we'll protect you in exchange for x", there some action to back up that promise.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2017 16:05
|
|
|
Count Roland posted:Ehh, not sure how keen Russia is on a stronger Iran. Sticking it to the US is all well and good, but Iran has no loyalties to Russia, either... I don’t think Russia fears a stronger Iran as long as the US have sanctions on them, I think they would be willing to cut them loose and not use veto power to eliminate those sanctions. Russia is already involved in rebuilding Syria, mainly oil and gas related as that is expertise they have. Iran is very interested, beyond military bases, in getting sweet sweet reconstruction money, and is heavily invested in Syrian telecoms as one of their payments for support. Turkey would likely want to get in on the action as well, and those types of concessions might be used in negotiations.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2017 16:48
|
|
|
Count Roland posted:Ehh, not sure how keen Russia is on a stronger Iran. Sticking it to the US is all well and good, but Iran has no loyalties to Russia, either... A stronger Iran is to the general benefit of Russia, more precisely it moves the balance of power in the Middle East away from the Middle East since the Kremlin knows the foreign policy establishment in DC will always have an axe to grind against the Iranians. I wouldn't say Russia is tied to Iran, but it is in their interests for it to be a forceful actor in the Middle East if only to make sure the Middle East is divided. Ironically enough Russia has been always to move across the Middle East and form agreements with states that should theoretically be hostile to it at the same time as Turkey and even the Saudis. The Russians are also happy to tell weapon systems to countries like Egypt. Simply, but Russia is gaining at the expense of diminished US influence in the Middle East and the Syria war is very much a part of that. Likewise, it is becoming clear that China is always financially backing both the Russians, Iranians and a multitude of other states across Eurasia, Africa, and even Latin America. Simply put, I think we are stumbling around in the dark, and pretending it isn't happening it actually making it worse. China and Russia ARE making moves and no they aren't just falling flat on their face and disappearing. It isn't mean they are now the "good guys" but there is a regional shift of power and I honestly don't know if we have people qualified enough to do anything about it.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2017 16:57
|
|
|
It's funny considering how terrible Russo-Persian relations have been historically, I guess Iran will never get to the point where they're so strong that those natural tensions reawaken.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2017 17:24
|
|
|
Punkin Spunkin posted:It's funny considering how terrible Russo-Persian relations have been historically, I guess Iran will never get to the point where they're so strong that those natural tensions reawaken. I strongly disagree with this, mostly because I see Iran getting quite a lot stronger in the coming decades. Not as strong as Russia, but strong enough to exert strong influence on neighbouring states. Much like Turkey, Iran has longstanding and natural beefs with Russia. And also like Turkey, one merely has to look at a map to see why. The caucuses and central asia are where Iran and Russia will come into conflict. Iran has traditionally been powerful in these regions, but in the 1800s the Russian empire expanded down and took territory at Iran's expense. A stronger Iran may want this territory back, or may want areas as buffer regions to keep between it and Russia.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2017 18:03
|
|
|
Count Roland posted:I strongly disagree with this, mostly because I see Iran getting quite a lot stronger in the coming decades. Not as strong as Russia, but strong enough to exert strong influence on neighbouring states. Yep, but right now both are pissed at the USA, for their own reasons, and Russia is keen to capitalize on that. And so you get this:  Look at how smug Vladdy looks on that picture. As for getting ancestral clay back, I doubt they'll try anything in the near future. Even if they had irredentist views on these territories (do they actually?), it's not something that could be done militarily against a Russia that remains one of the most powerful military nations on Earth just by virtue of having a ton of nukes. In fact, Russia itself gave us the playbook for how to do that kind of poo poo: foster nationalist sentiment, try to be subtle about it so that it doesn't look like a threat until it's ready and you get a good opportunity to strike because the central power is destabilized and won't be able to react forcefully. It'd take a couple generations at least IMO to build the base, and then who knows how long waiting for a collapse of the Russian government. Definitely not something Putin has to worry about.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2017 19:44
|
|
|
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xMM1yyXFUPs Faylaq al-Rahman video release on their defence of Eastern Ghouta.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2017 19:50
|
|
|
Cat Mattress posted:Yep, but right now both are pissed at the USA, for their own reasons, and Russia is keen to capitalize on that. And so you get this: Yeah, the short term calculus is different for sure. I love that photo because they're all natural rivals of each other. They're all smiling and shaking hands while holding daggers behind their backs. I don't know if Iran has eyes on territory its lost. It'd be in modern day Azerbaijan and Turkmenistan. I don't think that would mean Iran going to war against Russia (not if they could help it), but it could mean getting these territories or parts-there-of on side. I see this in the context of both the caucuses and especially central asia being unstable. If poo poo goes down, a more powerful Iran will have opinions on the subject.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2017 20:09
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 24, 2024 22:21 |
|
|
There's no way on earth Iran is interested in absorbing pre-existing issues in the Caucasus region when it can be a nice buffer. Like it brings on more liability - bringing new conflicts and entering into places where their geopolitical opponents have more ties - than gain. I mean Baku & pipelines are nice and all but we're in Tom Clancy territory to think it's remotely worth the cost at any point in the next half century at least. At that point, I have no idea on what value would remain. Joint investments & pipeline connections there would be the best way to diversify power/risk for IR. Even that is very uphill AFAIK. The gains they've made in the past two decades are still not solid, so consolidation of new & existing leverage from Tehran to Beirut is what'll be happening. I think what happens soon in Lebanon will be indicative of the tack that'll take.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2017 20:16
|
|
