|
Grouchio posted:We haven't been hearing terribly much from the European migrant crisis this year, have we? The EU has been bribin...paying Turkey essentially to keep it under control, and Erdogan is happy to use refugees as leverage. It is part of the reason there has been very little action on the part of the EU regarding Erdogan's obvious consolidation of power. Also, yeah, Hezbollah is one of the strongest political/paramilitary forces in Lebanon and it is doubtful the Lebanonese army could suppress them if they wanted. Also, it would be literally civil war, one the Lebanese public as a whole has no interest in. It is also what is frustrating to Israel since there is little internal opposition to Hezbollah, but attacking Lebanon would bring in Iran/Syria and possibly Russia/Turkey. (It also doesn't help that Hezbollah is one of the main parties of the ruling parliamentary coalition.) Ardennes fucked around with this message at 02:56 on Nov 7, 2017 |
#
¿
Nov 7, 2017 02:50
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 13, 2024 10:26 |
|
|
OhFunny posted:http://www.reuters.com/article/us-lebanon-politics-hariri-analysis/saudi-reopens-lebanon-front-in-struggle-with-iran-idUSKBN1D72BA Yeah, I could see why politicians might be skittish considering in general, I don't get a sense Lebanese people care for Saudi Arabia that much. Admittedly, many Maronites and Sunnis (usually depending on a number of factors) also dislike Hezbollah, but I doubt very much Lebanese would be willing to give their lives to get rid of them. Memories of both the Civil War and the 2006 War are very much alive in Lebanon, and I think everyone knows who is going to pay if there is another one (the Lebanese population itself). Also the pressure being applied is so haphazard and contradictory by the Saudis, it is hard to see how it would actually work (just like the Qatar situation). Sinteres posted:You could make the case that forcing Hezbollah out of the shadows and shoving the reality of their control of that country in everyone's faces serves Saudi Arabia's purpose to the extent that it makes hardliners in Israel and the US more likely to fight Iranian influence in the region, or at least gives Saudi Arabia more justification for brutalizing the gently caress out of Yemen to resist it themselves. That is assuming they could get Hezbollah to actually try to take direct control rather than just keep the status quo which completely benefits them. Also, if the goal is to get the Christian/Sunni Maronites to fight their war for them, they better get another plan (it doesn't help they seem to be also simultaneously blaming all of Lebanon). What I am trying to say is MbS doesn't seem to be a very good chess player. Ardennes fucked around with this message at 18:39 on Nov 7, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Nov 7, 2017 18:35
|
|
|
Iran does have a considerably more cosmopolitan society than Saudi Arabia (based on much of the evidence I have seen and people I have talked to), that doesn't necessarily mean it is a good idea that they or really anyone "controls" the Middle East. The Ottomans are a good example of why this isn't a particularly good idea. That said, the execution rate for the Saudis is relatively similar per capita and they fluctuate versus each other year by year. Neither one is a particularly attractive regime. That said, I don't see why we need to explicitly support the Saudis, even if they tried another embargo, I doubt they still have the pull to get it done especially since Russia/Iran/Iraq all have extra capacity as does the US shale industry. I much rather see the US act more as a more neutral force focused on keeping peace in the region (which is never going to happen). (As let's be honest, Saudi Arabia is even more totalitarian and an even more destabilizing force than Iran is and they are clearly causing their own considerable degree of misery.)
|
|
#
¿
Nov 9, 2017 06:11
|
|
|
khwarezm posted:If these figures are to be believed then Iran has consistently had a higher per capita execution rate than Saudi Arabia for years. You have to go back almost 10 years before they reach parity. I think the point is that while Iran has higher execution rates, the Saudis are usually just the next place down (they weren't that far behind in 2014), neither one deserves brownie points. Between MbS (disputes with Qatar and now Lebanon), Yemen and the money we know that is coming out of the Gulf to radical groups, yeah they are almost certainly as destabilizing or arguably more destabilizing. It is just replacing them with Iran would just be role reversal that wouldn't actually fix anything. At this point though, I think "taking Iran" out of the equation would be even more dangerous and the only thing that can be done is try to mitigate the damage both states are doing to their neighbors. My hope eventually some type of equilibrium is reached without full-scale war.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 9, 2017 07:14
|
|
|
khwarezm posted:You're being too vague here and I don't know why, you said they were basically the same when it came to execution rates but the point is they're not the same, from most figures I can dig up. It's nothing to do with Brownie points it's do with the fact that too many people have a kind naive view of what Iranian society is like. Even with somebody like Rouhani in charge at the moment, he came off the back of Ahmadinejad. As ridiculous as his demonization usually got in the west he was still a hardcore right-wing, religious populist and even now without the support of the Guardian Council he's a popular, influential figure in the country. I don't want to demonize Iran I'm just pointing out that I don't think the situation can be boiled down to a zealot government imposed over a population with totally different views, honestly a lot of Iran is very conservative in a way that's pretty in line with government policies. My point is generally, I don't think the headline execution rates are that different enough to balance the fact that Iran does have a more liberal culture (still not comparable to a Western country) and that the public does have some recourse versus the government even if it obviously isn't a liberal democracy. To be honest, there aren't really many functioning democracies left in the region period. If everything is relative, then Iranian society is more flexible despite its higher rate of executions by the state itself. The destabilization argument boils down to the fact that both sides are obviously locked in a Cold War situation with the requisite number of proxy wars and both are destabilizing the region for their own interests. I would argue though that Iran is more competent at it, especially since I don't think MbS really has a clue. I could easily say Saudi actions are equally worrying if not more chaotic. Also, I see the US backing the Saudis more of a danger since it since SA considerably more impunity. As for geopolitical mechanics go, I think in reality most foreign policy always boils down to realpolitik one way or another. I don't think we should buy into a fantasy that there are actually "good guys" but rather cynical actors that are pushing their own stakes. However, part of that realization, is that your "own side" also is just as cynical.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 9, 2017 15:32
|
|
|
I assume the timing is due to the fact it looks like the attempt to cut the SaA from Iraq has failed, and plan B is to attack Hezbollah directly while the Syrian Civil War is at least still going on. (That or it is saber rattling).
Ardennes fucked around with this message at 16:12 on Nov 9, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Nov 9, 2017 16:03
|
|
|
Ego-bot posted:David Frum is also a senior editor there. We have him to thank for the 'Axis of Evil' speech. I think that is the hope by some parts of the establishment, but at the same time, I think there is a quiet fear that it is already too late and the Iranians air defenses may be too strong to ignore. This is the reason the Saudis are going to Yemen/Qatar and are now trying to bully Lebanon. As for the Saudis and oil, I think the problem is they realize that oil isn't going to be enough to beat the Iranians since Iranian exports have been steadily climbing while Iran overall has a more diversified economy. The Aramco sale was supposed to a be a way to jump-start diversification by was largely based on a valuation that was mostly fantasy.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 13, 2017 04:54
|
|
|
Beyond airstrikes, we have troops on the ground in both countries. The forever war may be only high intensity in some theatres but that doesn't mean it isn't global. Also the fact we in assisting in ensuring one of the most serious humanitarian crises of recent history is also a bit of an issue.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 16, 2017 17:34
|
|
|
I think a part of me seriously doubts there will ever be a permanent break with Turkey, the Bosphorus is simply too strategic as it has always been and "turning" Turkey would mean a major shift in the balance of power in the region. That said, I do think we need to admit at a certain point that Russia and China are both more than regional powers and are making major moves outside their "home" regions.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 20, 2017 19:52
|
|
|
Sinteres posted:Saying the numbers are made up isn't fair, but they should be taken with a grain of salt if for no other reason than because people seem to be able to find a way to survive in far worse conditions than we tend to expect. The death toll falling short of estimates shouldn't discredit people trying to point out that a real crisis exists in the country, and that crisis is being worsened with US assistance, but sensational headlines predicting absolute catastrophe that fails to materialize do tend to foster a sense of complacency going forward. The reality is that nobody gives a poo poo anyway since there's no significant interest group in the US that's pushed back against our role in that pointlessly gruesome conflict, so people trying to draw attention to the crisis are in a tough spot, especially because underestimating the scope of a crisis also has consequences. Calculating deaths from famines is notoriously difficult and you may indeed have thousands of people still alive but may soon die from secondary infections. that may or may not show up in statistics. By all, accounts the famine in Yemen is massive and the devastation is already happening. The 50,000 number was indicated by an NGO, and we may never actually know that number comes to fruition or not. That said, in other historical circumstances (India, Ukraine) very rarely are verified deaths recorded, but rather some estimate is done on total causalities. In the end, the verified deaths may be "surprisingly low" but in reality, the costs may be much higher than that. Count Roland posted:No, its a good point he's making. The NGO that came out with the numbers has workers in Yemen, and those numbers are only referring to children, not the total causalities. I think you need to provide some evidence that the "numbers are made up." Btw, 130 children dying a day is the current baseline estimate. Ardennes fucked around with this message at 16:45 on Nov 21, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Nov 21, 2017 16:39
|
|
|
Willie Tomg posted:The nearly instantaneous code-switching between Reasonable and Nuanced Discourse and histrionic performative breast-tearing--and please don't think I'm singling anyone out here, because its utterly endemic to every single side in online argues especially relating to the SCW--is fascinating to me because in each very slightly different particular instance I can't clock the degree to which it's merely bog-standard human scumminess and dishonesty in the name of servicing one's presupposed ideology, and that to which the individual has actually been made schizoid by sad news on the internet. To be honest, I think most people arguing have some type of "dog" in the fight even if they have never visited MENA once or know a single person from it. I think it is endemic of a broader struggle for power that is occurring across the world. Some people may just be caught up in the debate, but usually, they aren't the ones that are constantly there in the "trenches' so to speak. It really isn't a new thing of its own either, it just feels knew because 1. consumer access to the internet didn't exist during the Cold War (I am sure you could find some gems from Usenet), and 2. the post-Cold War order is starting to seriously slip.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 21, 2017 21:59
|
|
|
I can see why Americans themselves may be more pessimistic for a while, it is going to be pretty much impossible for the US to reclaim the power and influence it had from 1991-2008 if anything that era might have been the closest thing the US has had to a golden age geopolitically speaking. I think Trump silently played off this development (although it is obviously accelerating it at the same time). Also, periods of "hope" were often very different for the US/West and the USSR/Russia/China respectively. For US, the 1980s/1990s were a period of prosperity, and growing influence...that generally came at the cost of the Russians. For China, since the 1980s to now, things have generally been looking up and if anything by all accounts there is a new confidence in China. Power itself is generally a zero-sum game, it is just we (the US) got used to holding all the cards. The preferable result if anything is eventually equilibrium, but that is going to require the West, in general, to realize it is in a different situation than it once was and that will require a generational change in leadership. It is hard to generalize, but there does seem to be a massive leadership gap in the West at the moment and the fact that Merkel (literally entitled the "leader of the free world" just a few months ago) can't even form a government should give us some pause. Ardennes fucked around with this message at 03:44 on Nov 22, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Nov 22, 2017 03:42
|
|
|
guidoanselmi posted:That anyone ever took Francis Fukuyama seriously at any point is mind boggling to me. It is pretty intoxicating to hear "we won guys." As far as DC goes, there are plenty of people there (maybe most of them?) that literally believe the 1990s continued on forever. They will literally shrug off reality at a whim. Living in DC for several years forced me to realize that yes...the system is completely and utterly hosed under these people.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 22, 2017 10:31
|
|
|
Yeah, any time the double-think that is the core of American foreign policy is actually communicated in public, it is going to come out as complete nonsense for a reason. I think this isn't the end of the puff pieces we are going to be seeing on MbS (or generally demonizing Iran). I did chuckle about "Iranian over-reach" in Lebanon and Yemen.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 24, 2017 07:02
|
|
|
fishmech posted:Plus the Baltic borders are far closer to St Petersburg than any Ukraine borders, and I think they're also better placed for attacking Moscow, if we're going to think that way. Ukraine joining NATO would bring them about 170km or so closer to Moscow, and also envelope Belarus on two sides. (Russian strategic planning obviously is more concerned about Moscow.) Also, once Ukraine joins NATO, it would essentially be lost to them entirely, while the current situation is actually much more in flux. (There is plenty to talk about on this topic.) Also, I don't think Russia cares about anything remotely near Alaska beyond the Kamchatka peninsula itself, anything north of it is essentially depopulated and really has no useful infrastructure. The Salon article is obviously a blow-job for Putin. Ardennes fucked around with this message at 18:43 on Nov 26, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Nov 26, 2017 18:31
|
|
|
Sergg posted:Ukraine is lost to them entirely, 100% already. Russia has already outright annexed the regions that contained the majority of ethnic Russians from where the pro-Russian factions drew their powerbase and influence. Recent polling suggests that party politics in Ukraine has become more fragmented even without the eastern regions. I suspect Russia is hoping to eventually return those regions to Ukraine (when Ukraine is weak enough) in exchange for some type of federalized structure. Russia hasn't walked about of Minsk for a reason, and I suspect that the recent take over a Luhansk was a sign of further consolidation. One issue has been the rise of the "For Life" party which has become a left-leaning anti-Nato alternative to the Opposition Bloc but nevertheless has been able to accrue its own share of voters. In addition, the Radical Party and Svoboda has been doing surprisingly well. At this point, there really isn't a strong consensus in the Ukrainian politics, especially since the Western-leaning parties have been taking a hit to their popularity. Also, other polling has suggested that the standard of living hasn't improved since the heart of the crisis and may gradually still be declining. The reason for this is complex, and may simply due to the continued weakness of the Hryvnia and Ukrainian exports, tight measures by the IMF, a very high debt burden, and war costs. It would still be a real push for a Euroskeptic/anti-NATO coalition to come to power, the more likely scenario is a deadlock or sheer lack of consensus. Ardennes fucked around with this message at 19:34 on Nov 26, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Nov 26, 2017 19:11
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
Count Roland posted: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. As someone who lived in Azerbaijan, there is absolutely no way the Azeris would be interested in the slightest and more or less the same with Turkmenistan. More importantly, both countries have independent sources of wealth, can defend themselves and very little actual ties with Iran. Also, Azerbaijani society diverged completely with Iran and is actually in many ways both more secular and extremely nationalist. Now they aren't necessarily interested in Russian domination either, but to be honest being inert hermit states generally works for everyone. If anything Central Asia is stabilizing, especially economically. I could see the Turkish-Russian alliance blow up much easier, but there is going to be the continued issue of the YPG and generally declining Turkish-US relations. That said, Erdogan obviously blames the coup on the US at some personal level, and US support for the YPG is quite obvious.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 29, 2017 23:27
|
|
|
Count Roland posted:Interesting. How do Azeris in Azerbaijain get along with Azeris inside Iran? And why is the economic situation getting better? I'd have thought they'd be smarting from the still low price of oil. Usually it is friendly but detached relationship, but in all honesty north and south Azerbaijan both linguistically and culturally diverged quite a bit. I never met an Azerbaijani who wanted to "reclaim" Tebriz or vice-versa. The all-consuming battle is for Karabakh and everything else is secondary. To add to that, Azerbaijani society is both very militant in general (far more than any other part of the former Soviet Union I have seen), extremely nationalist and revanchist. The Iranians would have to be insane to get involved in exchange for some half depleted Caspian fields. The situation has started to stabilize again with rising prices, the Manat took a brutal hit but their reserves stopped declining. Maybe Iranian-Russian relations won't always be as good as they are now, but the Saudi-Iranian relationship will likely always take precedence for the foreseeable future. Ardennes fucked around with this message at 00:03 on Nov 30, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Nov 29, 2017 23:59
|
|
|
Sinteres posted:It is, but US primacy will still be around for a while, and other powers will still seek to align to counter our interests for quite some time. China may be on our level a lot sooner than people think, but they're really the only ones with any shot of reaching parity in the next few decades unless we collapse like the Soviet Union or something, and while Chinese interests are steadily expanding, they aren't a realistic threat to vital US interests outside of East Asia for a while still. I guess you can quibble over "realistic threat to vital us interests" but it is clear China has made major inroads in Africa and across Eurasia. I guess you could argue those regions were never that vital to US interests in the first place, but they are also certainly outside of Eurasia. Also, it needs to be pointed out Russia-Chinese relations also seem to be strengthening and as discussed earlier, Russia clearly has growing interests in the ME and arguably Western countries as well. If US primacy means "we still have the largest fleet" then yeah it will probably take some time for that to change, but I do think the period of a being a "hyperpower" has ended and now we are back to being a super-power contesting other powers for control of the globe (China arguably will be a super-power soon if not already.) Ardennes fucked around with this message at 21:45 on Nov 30, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Nov 30, 2017 21:43
|
|
|
Pistol_Pete posted:Yeah, Europe's economy and population dwarf that of Russia's: Russia only remains such a potential threat because Europe's military are split into dozens of national forces, each with their own recruitment bases, supply chains and command structures. There'll never be a single European army of course, as controlling your own military is so fundamental to a nation's existence that it could never realistically be given up. Yeah, I don't know how useful it is to talk about "Europe" as a single entity anymore considering how very clearly divided it is at the moment. You could add all its GDP and fighters together and it would look impressive, but wouldn't reflect any useful political reality. One thing it is clear that most European militaries at this point are really defensive forces at this point, and moreover, there isn't the political will to utilize them in a combined effort. If anything the political will to cooperate seems to be only diminishing at the moment. I think Russia's strength at the moment is very situational, but the Kremlin seems to be getting better at predicting where developments are occurring and getting on the "better side of them." In addition, it is clear that Russia had initiate substantive overseas deployments, maybe not nearly on the scale of the US, but enough to turn a situation when they want it. It is true that Russia's economy is smaller, but they are essentially filling in a power vacuum that may be around a while depending on how the course of history goes. Anyway, as far as definitions go, I think everyone can agree the term "hyperpower" is now obsolete, and the US really can't just do whatever it wants. That said, I do think the US and China are in a different tier, with most of China's overseas power coming from its economic diplomacy. I do think there are also declining returns on a conventional military, you can't use it on a nuclear-armed state, and while a massive conventional military can launch a very impressive intervention this arguably could able be done with far fewer resources. This is a lot of "geopolitical" chit-chat, but it perhaps is useful when dicussing the Middle East at this point since it has become the battleground of powers. Ardennes fucked around with this message at 09:52 on Dec 1, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Dec 1, 2017 09:34
|
|
|
Granted, in the case of Turkey, they are developing their own arms industry that very likely could make access to NATO equipment relatively moot especially if they supplement it with high-end Russian equipment. Admittedly, there isn't a reason for Turkey to leave NATO (and NATO really can't kick them out), but simply push the situation to its limits especially since Erdogan himself has a personal vendetta and there is the ongoing issue of the Kurds. Likewise, Egypt can get access to some Western equipment, but it often older equipment (they are using F16 A/Bs and M1A1 tanks) and there is the obvious issue of selling equipment to Egypt that could, in turn, be used against Israel. By buying some Russian equipment, they sidestep the issue. Also, I actually have to agree that the Arab Spring/Color Revolutions/interventionist American policy spooked a lot of authoritarian governments, and have now forced them to work together. Russia, China, Iran and now possibly Turkey may see they have a more common cause in working with each other than against one another. Ardennes fucked around with this message at 12:12 on Dec 1, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Dec 1, 2017 12:09
|
|
|
Thats the thing, I have heard all of those measures of American power before but then there is the counter-argument. How much do a massive air force and navy buy you want you can't use them against another nuclear-armed state? That includes even state like North Korea? The First and Second Gulf wars were extremely impressive (in the beginning at least), but clearly an adaptation to conventional military strength has happened. (Also, a no-fly zone in Syria couldn't have happened without the Russians and it is why it was just a poor talking point.) How great is a space program when it still has to rely on the Russians themselves to send humans into space and the other alternative (maybe) is private contractors? How persuasive is Hollywood when China can essentially issue a veto over the material and you have Americans films that actively try to make China look good (the Martian/Looper among others)? How important is a financial industry when it is often as much as a threat to your economic stability as a benefit? How long is that "highly educated" professional class going to exist as higher education gets decimated (look at the House tax bill)? Hell, you could already say that in the context of area studies that we really DON'T have that many educated experts left. The state department is decimated, and the intelligence community is understaffed, and American academia especially when it comes to the social sciences (which you need btw) is in very rough shape. The US needs more than doctors, lawyers, and accountants. I guess I had to get that off my chest, but I think some Americans are still living in a dream. The US still has a massive amount of its influence, but Coke-Cola and Jeans aren't going to make people love America (at least not anymore). In many ways we are flying blind, our of broader foreign policy if not geopolitical strategy seems to just be coasting on its own momentum. Also, I don't think just hoping China and Russia just collapse on themselves, and we win by default is a smooth move. (Btw, this is not to say Russia and China have massive issues, but we got to be fair here.) Ardennes fucked around with this message at 12:51 on Dec 1, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Dec 1, 2017 12:36
|
|
|
Xerxes17 posted:The Martian made China look good in the original book, not at Hollywood. It still filtered its way through for a reason, and it is far from the only example of it happening. Hell, the Red Dawn remake had to change the enemy to North Korea for a similar reason (it is also why North Korea was probably the enemy in the first Crysis (from a German developer) among other games).
|
|
#
¿
Dec 1, 2017 12:58
|
|
|
Al-Saqr posted:saudi arabia will lose to russia because much like our country it's a spectacularly poo poo team run by complete loving incompetent morons. In all honesty, the Russian national team isn't that great either, it might be a pretty messy match. quote:At this point you can't really discuss Syria properly without discussing the broader geo-political climate, since nearly every world/great power of note that we've been discussing is involved in Syria in some way. The US and European partners, Russia, Turkey, Iran, Saudi Arabia, China (those lucrative reconstruction contracts), and the allies for all the above. The only notable countries I can think of that aren't involved are Brazil and India, and India tends to stay neutral on just about anything that doesn't directly involve them. Granted, my perspective is that the lion share of what is going wrong at the moment does come down to a broader geopolitical game being played across the Middle East played by the powers you mentioned above. Obviously, this isn't the first time this has happened, but I do think we may be looking at something more akin to the 19th century than the Cold War, where you have loose-knit alliances of different powers compete over space and resources. (There is also a bit of a parallel between the US during this period with the UK, and China with post-unification Germany, and maybe Russia with Revanchist France?) Ardennes fucked around with this message at 19:06 on Dec 1, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Dec 1, 2017 18:56
|
|
|
Yeah, air to ground missiles are quite a different kettle of fish than actual ICBM which need to be shot down in the launch phase before they reach too high of an altitude. That said, who knows if missiles were intercepted or not considering or not, the S-300 PMU2s that Iran has do have the anti-missile capability but it would really be pressing the technical specifications to the limit. Supposedly, the S-400 isn't supposed to be in that area of Syria. Ardennes fucked around with this message at 11:53 on Dec 2, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Dec 2, 2017 11:49
|
|
|
Al-Saqr posted:Whatever Saleh is up to, th next few days will either end up with the last card the saudi coalition had being executed or the tide will finally turn in Saleh's favor, but things so far not looking good, houthis reclaimed many many of the bases and outposts, quickly raided salehs friends homes and blew them up, have taken the TV station saleh broadcasted his uprising from, and from these unsubstantiated tweets he's fighting a kind of last stand, the only thing that might save him is if the saudi bombing saves him, so we'll find out soon enough. I have to give some credit to the Houthis, they seemed to have been really prepared (it is a case of Iranian advisors be really on the ball?). Maybe it isn't curtains for Saleh quite yet, but it is a bit of a mystery why his forces weren't better prepared. I get the Saudis have no idea what is going on, but you would think the Republican Guard would have some clue about the relative balance of forces in the capital. I guess I expect incompetence, but maybe not a suicidal level of it. quote:also loooool friedman is such a bitch I hope he's actually taking bribes because holy poo poo there's nothing sadder than being a dictators chump for free:- Yeah, this looking like it is happening at the Saban forum at Brookings. DC is like living in an alternate dimension, and you can say the most inane poo poo and people will clap their hands off for you. It isn't an especially fun place for someone actually knowledgeable. That type of poo poo happens all the time.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 3, 2017 21:40
|
|
|
Duckbox posted:It could be Saleh was anticipating the Houthis turning on him (dictators are paranoid) and this "uprising" was a desperation move. It seems like it would have been better to leave the capital in that case considering how fast the Houthis have moved in the city or at least have a better battle plan. It seems to have both a huge tactical and strategic misjudgment. Also, even if Saleh is able to hold on, there is the issue is how he reconciles with the multitude of other factions across Yemen.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 3, 2017 22:36
|
|
|
I am actually a bit loss of words on this one, I really didn't think it would shift this fast. We (and I guess the Saudis) must be completely and totally under-estimating the Houthis here. I know Al-Arabiya within the last 12 hours was still releasing stories that Saleh was consolidating control over central Sanaa. It is bizarre in a bit of a terrifying way. How much do we actually know what is happening? How much are we just being gaslit? It looks like this was taken somewhere outside the city. The narrative I am going with knew his position in Sanaa was going to be overrun, attempted to make it to the south, and hit a Houthi roadblock on the way. On a more macabre point, It looks like he was shot execution style. Ardennes fucked around with this message at 14:32 on Dec 4, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Dec 4, 2017 14:29
|
|
|
Vincent Van Goatse posted:Thank god the State Department is operating at peak efficiency these days :laughingthatturnsintocrying: Yeah, perhaps a credible point to be made that the hollowing of our diplomatic and intelligence infrastructure is very clearly having an effect. Well don't worry, I am sure tax cuts will fix the issu...oh yeah.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 4, 2017 16:01
|
|
|
Shageletic posted:why is this man still around? Easy, he says what people in DC want, and therefore he never had to be right or really even coherent. (The really surprising thing is he has been working at this since the 1980s, and still as a college freshmen level knowledge of the Middle East.)
|
|
#
¿
Dec 4, 2017 21:25
|
|
|
He was just at the Saban center, so he still has an audience. In fact, that entire conference is a pretty great watch. Also, Netanyahu and MbS coming out with the same plan (the Palestinians get bupkis) is similarly gold. Ardennes fucked around with this message at 21:47 on Dec 4, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Dec 4, 2017 21:43
|
|
|
FlamingLiberal posted:I mean, if you want to look at it in purely pragmatic terms, the Palestinians are not a major concern of the Saudis. They are just a bargaining chip. Yeah, and man....are the Saudis cashing in all their chips. I have a hard time believing that completely selling the Palestinians down the river isn't going to have cost in public perception especially with everything else going on. Also, the "proposal" is a pretty much unconditional surrender by Palestinians, there is no future for them if they accept that plan.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 4, 2017 22:24
|
|
|
Sinteres posted:Yeah, the preferred narrative for all of them blames all the problems of the region on the Iranian Revolution in 1979 because it's more convenient than blaming any of the radicalization on the Palestinian question or on Saudi Arabia empowering reactionaries after the grand mosque seizure. Obviously Iran really has been part of the problem, but addressing one part of it without addressing the others is obviously myopic (though MBS at least pays lip service to addressing the problems in Saudi Arabia too--we'll see). Let's be honest here and MBS himself has lain his own trail of dysfunction if not destruction across the region already. Yeah, if he somehow diversified the Saudi economy and "halted radicalism" (hmmm), it might make up for some of the dumb poo poo he has done but come on. Iran obviously is its own self-interested power, but for the most part, they have been filling in power vacuums offered by either the US or the Saudis. I mean look at just the Palestinian question itself, both the US and the Saudis are about to side so heavily with Israel that they very well may make Iran the de facto the alternative fof anyone that doesn't want to see the Palestinians absolutely crushed (most of humanity to be honest). If anything Erdogan (as per his tweet) probably would need to cut ties with Israel, if only be on the "right side" with the rest of the Muslim world. The way I see it, if Iranians are being pushed into a position of increasing dominance because their opponents are delusional. At a certain point, arrogance becomes more than hubris but a mental illness (ie megalomania). Ardennes fucked around with this message at 17:04 on Dec 5, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Dec 5, 2017 17:00
|
|
|
Sinteres posted:I hope they're at least smart enough to say West Jerusalem when they do it, but I'm not holding my breath. I don't think it matters, I think everyone assumes it is West Jerusalem. That said, I guess it would be even more of a dick move to bulldoze some Palestinian houses over it. Anyway if the tweet is true, the peace process/"two-state solution"/"American neutrality" is done. The Oslo process finally found a corner to curl itself up in and die.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 5, 2017 17:17
|
|
|
Sinteres posted:Maybe these semantic games don't matter much in comparison with the fact of the embassy (and occupation) on the ground, but I think the US needs to make clear that this move doesn't mean we're accepting that the entirety of Jerusalem is Israel's forever. Leaving open the possibility of opening an embassy for Palestine in East Jerusalem could at least soften the blow a little bit, but obviously I don't expect Trump to make an explicit nod toward that since he's not remotely an honest broker and this is a domestic political stunt. At the end of the day, it is a red line and makes any discussions after it moot. It shows that the US isn't a neutral actor and will actively try to change major parts of the "game" while the rules are being discussed. Also, much of it is how it plays outside Palestine itself....which I expect is extremely negative. Ardennes fucked around with this message at 17:58 on Dec 5, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Dec 5, 2017 17:50
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 13, 2024 10:26 |
|
|
Volkerball posted:An Iranian backed militia just assassinated a prominent world leader in front of the world. Come the gently caress on. Can you imagine your response if the US did that? Biased as hell. He was executed in wartime by his enemies. It looks like it was a relatively quick kill, unlike Gaddafi. As for the US, it happens all the time, we are still trying to kill Baghdadi. (Also, he was a deposed leader that seemed to have found little loyalty even among his own forces.)
|
|
#
¿
Dec 5, 2017 18:13
|
|