Russia's at it again

[Red Defence]

Dodgy defenestration.

Or suicide in Russian. (Or...was UK wot done it)

 

[endless_wheelies]

Don't know why we're so afraid of "provoking" Russia with these latest strikes.

Their military technology is nothing compared to the Western world's, pound for pound we would do far more harm to them than they would us, not even taking into account volume-wise a US-led coalition would far outstrip Russia and geographical advantage. If Putin wants to play the big-man that never backs down then let him, my guess however is that he's not an idiot and he'd bail his troops out faster than Stevie Wonder on newly-built stairs.

 

[Hammerfell]

Don't know why we're so afraid of "provoking" Russia with these latest strikes.

Their military technology is nothing compared to the Western world's, pound for pound we would do far more harm to them than they would us, not even taking into account volume-wise a US-led coalition would far outstrip Russia and geographical advantage. If Putin wants to play the big-man that never backs down then let him, my guess however is that he's not an idiot and he'd bail his troops out faster than Stevie Wonder on newly-built stairs.

The nukes though.

 

[endless_wheelies]

The nukes though.

Hard to see the logic in jumping from losing in Syria to destroying all of Russia by starting a nuclear war.

 

[Cheesy]

Hard to see the logic in jumping from losing in Syria to destroying all of Russia by starting a nuclear war.

It still is a risk though. Especially considering any actual conflict wherein Russia were put on the back-foot would inherently make the power of top Russian officials a lot weaker, and would make them more prone to an irrational act of madness.

 

[Classical Mechanic]

I think the biggest issue for such a war is that the general population in the West wouldn’t accept the probable conditions that would come with it. The massive cost of the war, the collateral deaths and the possibility of the gas getting turned off. We just want to get on with our relatively comfortable lives. There is little political value on the domestic front in the US and her allies going balls deep into a war with Russia over Syria.

 

[Paxi]

I think the biggest issue for such a war is that the general population in the West wouldn’t accept the probable conditions that would come with it. The massive cost of the war, the collateral deaths and the possibility of the gas getting turned off. We just want to get on with our relatively comfortable lives. There is little political value on the domestic front in the US and her allies going balls deep into a war with Russia over Syria.

I think it could get a hell of a lot worse than collateral death and gas supply. It could be an extinction level event.

 

[Paxi]

Don't know why we're so afraid of "provoking" Russia with these latest strikes.

Their military technology is nothing compared to the Western world's, pound for pound we would do far more harm to them than they would us, not even taking into account volume-wise a US-led coalition would far outstrip Russia and geographical advantage. If Putin wants to play the big-man that never backs down then let him, my guess however is that he's not an idiot and he'd bail his troops out faster than Stevie Wonder on newly-built stairs.

Again, in a an all out nuclear war (which it will be as no side will back down) there would be no winners. The whole world will cease to exist as we know it.

 

[Mrs Smoker]

The only winning move...is not to play.

St. Joshua, AD 1983.

 

[endless_wheelies]

It still is a risk though. Especially considering any actual conflict wherein Russia were put on the back-foot would inherently make the power of top Russian officials a lot weaker, and would make them more prone to an irrational act of madness.

Would losing in Syria put them on that much of a backfoot though? Did they bring the nukes out in Afghanistan in the 80s? Did USA bring the nukes out in Vietnam? It's still a massive leap to assume that losing a minor war would cause suicidal madness in the Russian hierarchy.

I think the biggest issue for such a war is that the general population in the West wouldn’t accept the probable conditions that would come with it. The massive cost of the war, the collateral deaths and the possibility of the gas getting turned off. We just want to get on with our relatively comfortable lives. There is little political value on the domestic front in the US and her allies going balls deep into a war with Russia over Syria.

Perhaps, you don't think the "moral" argument would hold any weight? That it's the only way to save the Syrian population from a murderous, nefarious dictator? Public opinion was after all (originally) pretty high when we invaded Iraq. We may like our comfort but we also hate injustice, Assad, Russia and losing. Though many weren't fond of the discomfort of going to war with Hitler when the time came spirit and patriotism kicked in.

I was talking with my RAF brother the other day, we agreed the Russians would test the water by engaging with some minor skirmishes and spreading propaganda in Western countries to try and demoralise the populations in the hope that they would pressurise their governments to pull out as you say, and as soon as it became apparent that the West were staying the course the Russians themselves would pull out as a "best of a bad situation" move.

 

[Kostov]

Perhaps, you don't think the "moral" argument would hold any weight? That it's the only way to save the Syrian population from a murderous, nefarious dictator? Public opinion was after all (originally) pretty high when we invaded Iraq. We may like our comfort but we also hate injustice, Assad, Russia and losing. Though many weren't fond of the discomfort of going to war with Hitler when the time came spirit and patriotism kicked in.

You hate injustice? What Americans and it's European allies have done over the years is criminal and it's hypocrite to act like the Russians are the bad guys in every story.

Since you invaded Iraq some 165,000 civilians have lost their lives, and you speak about murderous nefarious dictators?

And you underestimate the Russians, they'd rather burn the whole world altogether than play by your rules.

 

[endless_wheelies]

You hate injustice? What Americans and it's European allies have done over the years is criminal and it's hypocrite to act like the Russians are the bad guys in every story.

Since you invaded Iraq some 165,000 civilians have lost their lives, and you speak about murderous nefarious dictators?

And you underestimate the Russians, they'd rather burn the whole world altogether than play by your rules.

Pretty sure the vast majority of those casualties were post-invasion, not caused directly by Western forces, and it would only be “nefarious” if we went round intentionally killing civilians for a laugh like Assad. Either way though it doesn't relate to my point at all; yes we hate injustice, doesn’t everyone? If you want to argue some more on that just go into a British high street with an “Assad - like or dislike” questionnaire and see what you get.

Russia don’t need to play by our rules, just get out of Syria. The majority of Russia’s hierarchy are comfort-loving petro-dollar fat cats, for all the rhetorical tough-guy nonsense you’ve clearly swallowed I don’t think they particularly want to burn in a nuclear fallout any more than the next man.

 

[Kostov]

Pretty sure the vast majority of those casualties were post-invasion, not caused directly by Western forces, and it would only be “nefarious” if we went round intentionally killing civilians for a laugh like Assad. Either way though it doesn't relate to my point at all; yes we hate injustice, doesn’t everyone? If you want to argue some more on that just go into a British high street with an “Assad - like or dislike” questionnaire and see what you get.

Russia don’t need to play by our rules, just get out of Syria. The majority of Russia’s hierarchy are comfort-loving petro-dollar fat cats, for all the rhetorical tough-guy nonsense you’ve clearly swallowed I don’t think they particularly want to burn in a nuclear fallout any more than the next man.

Pretty sure you invaded their country under false pretense, lying the whole world in the process, and yeah there were countless examples of civilians being killed, like the ones in the leaked video from the Apaches. Assad does not go an kill civilians for a laugh, it's not black and white over there, it's a fecking mess, and the ones you are backing against Assad are no better, but worse.

If you so much hate injustice why don't you admit the criminal war activities your countries have been doing for years? You bombed Serbia just because they defended their countries sovereignty without a UN resolution, backed neo-Nazis in Ukraine just a year or two ago, in 2001 in my own country Macedonia you backed Albanian extremist when they were attacking our cities and people, and as soon as we got to the point of victory NATO bailed them out.

You are just hypocrites, who under the pretext of democracy and seeking justice do what it suits you agenda, don't sell that ''injustice'' crap to me.

Russia unlike you has a international pact to back Syria in case of danger, you US/UK/France, have no business being there.

 

[MoskvaRed]

Would losing in Syria put them on that much of a backfoot though? Did they bring the nukes out in Afghanistan in the 80s? Did USA bring the nukes out in Vietnam? It's still a massive leap to assume that losing a minor war would cause suicidal madness in the Russian hierarchy.


Perhaps, you don't think the "moral" argument would hold any weight? That it's the only way to save the Syrian population from a murderous, nefarious dictator? Public opinion was after all (originally) pretty high when we invaded Iraq. We may like our comfort but we also hate injustice, Assad, Russia and losing. Though many weren't fond of the discomfort of going to war with Hitler when the time came spirit and patriotism kicked in.

I was talking with my RAF brother the other day, we agreed the Russians would test the water by engaging with some minor skirmishes and spreading propaganda in Western countries to try and demoralise the populations in the hope that they would pressurise their governments to pull out as you say, and as soon as it became apparent that the West were staying the course the Russians themselves would pull out as a "best of a bad situation" move.

What is at stake in Syria for the West that is worth risking a military confrontation? It’s relevant for the Sunni vs Shia (KSA vs Iran) contest but I am at a loss to see why we should up the ante over whether Bashar or some other thug runs the place. I am fully supportive of getting on the front foot in response to Russia’s hybrid war against the West but the measures should be economic where our advantage is overwhelming.

 

[nickm]

You bombed Serbia just because they defended their countries sovereignty without a UN resolution

Yeah man, that's the full story right there.

 

[Kostov]

Yeah man, that's the full story right there.

It’s not the full story, but it’s the truth.

 

[endless_wheelies]

What is at stake in Syria for the West that is worth risking a military confrontation? It’s relevant for the Sunni vs Shia (KSA vs Iran) contest but I am at a loss to see why we should up the ante over whether Bashar or some other thug runs the place. I am fully supportive of getting on the front foot in response to Russia’s hybrid war against the West but the measures should be economic where our advantage is overwhelming.

Don't Syria have substantial oil fields? I remember reading something about them having a dispute with Israel about potentially annexed land shortly before all this...? USA is also now in a political climate where they could seize more control of resources without too much outcry from those that matter. Also installing another friendly governent in the Middle East wouldn't hurt, providing lessons have been learned from Iraq. Not that those are *the* reasons but they are nice rewards. Don't think economically we'll reach such agreement on sanctions that Putin would care about; where UK/USA used London/New York to hit obligarchs EU capitals would profit and vice versa. Militarily however we don't need such consensus, the US could do it on their own, though allied support is likely just because they are that. The USA's military power would be reaffirmed, Trump re-elected, and Russia made more nervous of provoking a Western response in their future activities.

 

[Nucks]

Don't know why we're so afraid of "provoking" Russia with these latest strikes.

Their military technology is nothing compared to the Western world's, pound for pound we would do far more harm to them than they would us, not even taking into account volume-wise a US-led coalition would far outstrip Russia and geographical advantage. If Putin wants to play the big-man that never backs down then let him, my guess however is that he's not an idiot and he'd bail his troops out faster than Stevie Wonder on newly-built stairs.

This is a terrible way to look at it. Why? Russia can end the world, just like the US can. Pound for pound, sure, in a total war, we'd win, until they pushed the button. We'd also take so many casualties in the process our democracy would probably never recover in its current form if it was a non-existential war, as in, if Russia isn't invading, we're not going to buckle down and accept tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands of casualties in a matter of months or years.

Meanwhile, we're fighting a people who have nuclear weapons, and suffered nearly 30 million dead in WW2. We'd kill more of them, sure, but our civilian population is going to go bat shit crazy when we have 20 year olds coming home in body bags at a rate not seen since WW2 fighting a war that doesn't matter to the homeland. That is Russias deterrent, they can end the world, and they can inflict casualties on us that no country has been able to since Germany in WW2.

 

[Nucks]

Pretty sure the vast majority of those casualties were post-invasion, not caused directly by Western forces, and it would only be “nefarious” if we went round intentionally killing civilians for a laugh like Assad. Either way though it doesn't relate to my point at all; yes we hate injustice, doesn’t everyone? If you want to argue some more on that just go into a British high street with an “Assad - like or dislike” questionnaire and see what you get.

Russia don’t need to play by our rules, just get out of Syria. The majority of Russia’s hierarchy are comfort-loving petro-dollar fat cats, for all the rhetorical tough-guy nonsense you’ve clearly swallowed I don’t think they particularly want to burn in a nuclear fallout any more than the next man.

Yea. We overthrow a dictator strong man, and cause a power vacuum and a civil war to break out, when then allows radical religious lunatics to seize a large part of the country. Not our fault. We have nothing to do with that. Cause and effect? What's that?

 

[devips]

The arrogance shown by some Free World Junkies around here is unbelievable. The rest of the world do not need you to poke your snotty nose in their affairs. You are not God's appointed messengers on this earth.

 

[endless_wheelies]

Yea. We overthrow a dictator strong man, and cause a power vacuum and a civil war to break out, when then allows radical religious lunatics to seize a large part of the country. Not our fault. We have nothing to do with that. Cause and effect? What's that?

Which is why I said "providing lessons have been learned from Iraq". I would say Syria will be a smoother process than Iraq, the key difference being there's already powerful pre-existing pro-Western military groups to prop up any newly installed government, with willing regional allies.

This is a terrible way to look at it. Why? Russia can end the world, just like the US can. Pound for pound, sure, in a total war, we'd win, until they pushed the button. We'd also take so many casualties in the process our democracy would probably never recover in its current form if it was a non-existential war, as in, if Russia isn't invading, we're not going to buckle down and accept tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands of casualties in a matter of months or years.

Meanwhile, we're fighting a people who have nuclear weapons, and suffered nearly 30 million dead in WW2. We'd kill more of them, sure, but our civilian population is going to go bat shit crazy when we have 20 year olds coming home in body bags at a rate not seen since WW2 fighting a war that doesn't matter to the homeland. That is Russias deterrent, they can end the world, and they can inflict casualties on us that no country has been able to since Germany in WW2.

Your problem is you're looking at this through tunnel vision. Do you think Russia will want to take casualties at an even higher rate than you emphasise we will take, to eventually lose the war anyway? In practice all that would happen is Russia would withdraw before any substantial casualties from either side occurred.

World politics is like a game of poker; right now Putin is flawing the Western world because he's the only one prepared to bluff... and we have the bigger hand.

 

[Nucks]

Which is why I said "providing lessons have been learned from Iraq". I would say Syria will be a smoother process than Iraq, the key difference being there's already powerful pre-existing pro-Western military groups to prop up any newly installed government, with willing regional allies.


Your problem is you're looking at this through tunnel vision. Do you think Russia will want to take casualties at an even higher rate than you emphasise we will take, to eventually lose the war anyway? In practice all that would happen is Russia would withdraw before any substantial casualties from either side occurred.

World politics is like a game of poker; right now Putin is flawing the Western world because he's the only one prepared to bluff... and we have the bigger hand.

Here is the thing. Russia is not threatening to invade the USA. It can't. It's not threatening to invade Europe. If this war goes down, it will be fought primarily on, or near Russian soil, and the Russians will fight to defend, Russian soil.

The US cannot beat Russia, what I mean is, the US cannot occupy enough of Russia to "end" a war. Sure, after a few years NATO might reduce any organized military forces to dust, but, you're talking about occupying the largest country in the world by a WIDE margin. How many MILLIONS of soldiers does that take? I can't even begin to imagine. The ongoing cost of occupying Russia would break the US, it would break NATO. This is also ignoring the part about, Russia has enough nukes to kill everyone.

What does victory look like for the US and NATO? Any war with Russia has to be limited in size and scope. The risks of over commiting are too great. Put a carrier task force in the wrong place, and the entire thing gets schwacked. Get sucked into a Ukrainian conflict with Russia, and oh boy, just try to contain that. Nukes will be flying the moment Russia thinks it's got no other choice. In the meantime, Russia isn't Iraq. Both in terms of their military capabilities, and in terms of their terrain. Moreover, Syria isn't Iraq in terms of terrain. Airpower isn't as infallible as some people think it is. This belief in the absolute superiority of air-power largely comes out of two desert wars, where there is nowhere to hide on the ground. Now, throw a first rate military power on the other end of this engagement. Are Russians going to be capable to take large numbers of casualties? I think you will find they will, if they believe that they are at risk of being invaded. Is the US? The US has been barely able to stomach the casualties it took in Afghanistan and Iraq, and I'd be fairly certain Russia while sustaining more, would inflict as many casualties as the US has taken in Afghanistan and Iraq, combined, in a matter of weeks or months.

We can talk about who is stronger, and we know who is stronger, but that isn't the only factor here. We have to consider the relative stakes. A war going down on Russias front door is going to be considerably higher stakes for them, than us. Are we willing to commit hard enough to win such a war, or provoke such a war, that could escalate into Russia pushing all in?

A war with Russia, would be a complete disaster. Not only would it risk nuclear war, it would risk involving the US in a war it simply isn't prepared to fight. I think in large part, you have it the other way around. The US is the country that is bluffing. Allow me to explain. The US is a democracy, a very divided democracy. It is beholden to these democratic principles. The US hasn't really fought a war where the other side could really do anything but die to us since WW2. The country has been so insulated from the realities of war for so long, that you're going to have a VERY hard time rationalizing fighting Russia on their doorstep, to at least half of the country. We would win, if we decided we needed to win, but the cost of doing so could very well prove fatal to the country on a wider basis. Russia will fight a total war if it is pushed to fighting a total war. We won't. We can't. You will not be able to justify to the American public that level of involvement against a country that CANNOT invade the continental USA.

In short, the consequences to the US and NATO for fighting that war against Russia, which Russia would HAVE to fight, are too high. Not in risking losing, but in actually doing what was necessary to win, and therein lies the problem. You can't win. It is LITERALLY, an unwinnable war, the moment we cross that threshold where we've broken Russias back conventionally, the birds will fly. So how do you win a war against Russia (on Russias doorstep), if you can't actually risk fighting it without provoking the end of the world? If Russia were to somehow beat back a Nato coalition, there is no reason for NATO to nuke Russia. If Russia loses in Syria, something kicks off in Ukraine, then they will be left with, the invasion, occupation, or some other punitive treaty against Russia, or they will unleash their nukes as a last gasp deterrent. If such a situation happened, a treaty for Russia is going to see it stripped off all of its semi-autonomous republics, and other punitive measures.

What do we have to gain, versus what do they have to lose. That's the balance sheet here. We have almost nothing to gain, and they have nothing to lose. Smells like a disaster to me.

 

[Raoul]

Here is the thing. Russia is not threatening to invade the USA. It can't. It's not threatening to invade Europe. If this war goes down, it will be fought primarily on, or near Russian soil, and the Russians will fight to defend, Russian soil.

The US cannot beat Russia, what I mean is, the US cannot occupy enough of Russia to "end" a war. Sure, after a few years NATO might reduce any organized military forces to dust, but, you're talking about occupying the largest country in the world by a WIDE margin. How many MILLIONS of soldiers does that take? I can't even begin to imagine. The ongoing cost of occupying Russia would break the US, it would break NATO. This is also ignoring the part about, Russia has enough nukes to kill everyone.

What does victory look like for the US and NATO? Any war with Russia has to be limited in size and scope. The risks of over commiting are too great. Put a carrier task force in the wrong place, and the entire thing gets schwacked. Get sucked into a Ukrainian conflict with Russia, and oh boy, just try to contain that. Nukes will be flying the moment Russia thinks it's got no other choice. In the meantime, Russia isn't Iraq. Both in terms of their military capabilities, and in terms of their terrain. Moreover, Syria isn't Iraq. Airpower isn't as infallible as some people think it is. This belief in the absolute superiority of air-power largely comes out of two desert wars, where there is nowhere to hide on the ground. Now, throw a first rate military power on the other end of this engagement. Are Russians going to be capable to take large numbers of casualties? I think you will find they will, if they believe that they are at risk of being invaded. Is the US? The US has been barely able to stomach the casualties it took in Afghanistan and Iraq, and I'd be fairly certain Russia while sustaining more, would inflict as many casualties as the US has taken in Afghanistan and Iraq, combined, in a matter of weeks or months.

We can talk about who is stronger, and we know who is stronger, but that isn't the only factor here. We have to consider the relative stakes. A war going down on Russias front door is going to be considerably higher stakes for them, than us. Are we willing to commit hard enough to win such a war, or provoke such a war, that could escalate into Russia pushing all in?

A war with Russia, would be a complete disaster. Not only would it risk nuclear war, it would risk involving the US in a war it simply isn't prepared to fight. I think in large part, you have it the other way around. The US is the country that is bluffing. Allow me to explain. The US is a democracy, a very divided democracy. It is beholden to these democratic principles. The US hasn't really fought a war where the other side could really do anything but die to us since WW2. The country has been so insulated from the realities of war for so long, that you're going to have a VERY hard time rationalizing fighting Russia on their doorstep, to at least half of the country. We would win, if we decided we needed to win, but the cost of doing so could very well prove fatal to the country on a wider basis. Russia will fight a total war if it is pushed to fighting a total war. We won't. We can't. You will not be able to justify to the American public that level of involvement against a country that CANNOT invade the continental USA.

In short, the consequences to the US and NATO for fighting that war against Russia, which Russia would HAVE to fight, are too high. Not in risking losing, but in actually doing what was necessary to win, and therein lies the problem. You can't win. It is LITERALLY, and unwinnable war, the moment we cross that threshold where we've broken Russias back conventionally, the birds will fly. So how do you win a war against Russia (on Russias doorstep), if you can't actually risk fighting it without provoking the end of the world? If Russia were to somehow beat back a Nato coalition, there is no reason for NATO to nuke Russia. If Russia loses in Syria, something kicks off in Ukraine, then they will be left with, the invasion, occupation, or some other punitive treaty against Russia, or they will unleash their nukes as a last gasp deterrent. If such a situation happened, a treaty for Russia is going to see it stripped off all of its semi-autonomous republics, and other punitive measures.

What do we have to gain, versus what do they have to lose. That's the balance sheet here. We have almost nothing to gain, and they have nothing to lose. Smells like a disaster to me.

They are already threatening the USA and Europe by attempting to modify their political systems through interference. That is more than sufficient a threat to view them as an existential threat. At the end of the day this is a battle between democratic and authoritarian systems.

 

[Nucks]

They are already threatening the USA and Europe by attempting to modify their political systems through interference. That is more than sufficient a threat to view them as an existential threat. At the end of the day this is a battle between democratic and authoritarian systems.

Yet, the country is completely divided over the subject. You might think it constitutes an existential threat. Others don't. There is a difference between Russian boots on the ground in Maine, and Russian hackers fecking with an election. You're going to have a hard time justifying to at least half of the US population that "Hey, they meddled in our election, we need to send 5 million people to Russia to invade them, conquer them, and end their threat to our democracy". Oh, and that's ignoring the whole, the moment you start winning in Russia, you might as well just launch all our nukes anyways, because theirs will be coming at us.

(Edit, incoming addition)

People seem to think that the US is militarily superior to Russia. We're not. Just like in the 50's when Eisenhower shifted the military from conventional, to non-conventional to keep pace with Russia/USSR. His theory was, it doesn't matter if Russia can come through the Fulda gap and roll us into the Atlantic in 2 weeks. We have more nukes, and if we are willing to use them, this equalizes the military strength of our nations. It was a pretty intelligent strategy. In the 50's Russia was superior to us in conventional standing military strength. However, we nullified that because of our superior nuclear arsenal.

Russia doesn't have a superior nuclear arsenal, but they don't need to. Critical mass was reached long ago. Our conventional military forces, our conventional military advantage means absolutely nothing when it comes to confronting Russia. Their nuclear weapons can end the world. Our nuclear weapons can end the world. That is parity. That is all the military strength they need to prevent us from doing what we want to them, or with them.

We can beat them in a conventional war, but why would they fight a conventional war if it wasn't absolutely necessary, and if it was absolutely necessary, then they will be willing to use nukes, at which point, our superiority conventionally doesn't matter.

 

[Ubik]

"Yesterday, Alexander Yakovenko, Russia's ambassador to the UK, claimed British authorities had injected the Skripals with nerve agent developed at the military research agency at Porton Down, ten miles from Salisbury."

 

[Paxi]

Excellent posts @Nucks USA/Russia war is unwinnable from both perspectives if one or the other country were to occupy thier respective territories.

Imagine Russian ground forces in America? You think an average American wouldn't take up arms against the Russian army? Well the same applies to Americans and NATO on Russian soil. It would be a total disaster and a blood bath on all sides.

That is why the only way forward between Russia and the West is through diplomatic discourse.

I find it extremely strange that some people want this thing to escalate. It could get fecking ugly, and very, very quickly! And when it does -- I wonder how many people will have heart for what's to come? Very few, I'd imagine.

 

[Raoul]

 

[Raoul]

Excellent posts @Nucks USA/Russia war is unwinnable from both perspectives if one or the other country were to occupy thier respective territories.

Imagine Russian ground forces in America? You think an average American wouldn't take up arms against the Russian army? Well the same applies to Americans and NATO on Russian soil. It would be a total disaster and a blood bath on all sides.

That is why the only way forward between Russia and the West is through diplomatic discourse.

I find it extremely strange that some people want this thing to escalate. It could get fecking ugly, and very, very quickly! And when it does -- I wonder how many people will have heart for what's to come? Very few, I'd imagine.

Not entirely true. Russia is waging a hybrid war against the west right now, involving mainly cyber (which is still a form of warfare). The idea is to dissolve your opponent's political system from within by fomenting chaos and getting them to question their own institutions, leadership, and the value of objective truth itself. If you can do that then you likely won't be spreading democracy into Russia, which is Putin's greatest nightmare.

 

[endless_wheelies]

Here is the thing. Russia is not threatening to invade the USA. It can't. It's not threatening to invade Europe. If this war goes down, it will be fought primarily on, or near Russian soil, and the Russians will fight to defend, Russian soil.

The US cannot beat Russia, what I mean is, the US cannot occupy enough of Russia to "end" a war. Sure, after a few years NATO might reduce any organized military forces to dust, but, you're talking about occupying the largest country in the world by a WIDE margin. How many MILLIONS of soldiers does that take? I can't even begin to imagine. The ongoing cost of occupying Russia would break the US, it would break NATO. This is also ignoring the part about, Russia has enough nukes to kill everyone.

What does victory look like for the US and NATO? Any war with Russia has to be limited in size and scope. The risks of over commiting are too great. Put a carrier task force in the wrong place, and the entire thing gets schwacked. Get sucked into a Ukrainian conflict with Russia, and oh boy, just try to contain that. Nukes will be flying the moment Russia thinks it's got no other choice. In the meantime, Russia isn't Iraq. Both in terms of their military capabilities, and in terms of their terrain. Moreover, Syria isn't Iraq in terms of terrain. Airpower isn't as infallible as some people think it is. This belief in the absolute superiority of air-power largely comes out of two desert wars, where there is nowhere to hide on the ground. Now, throw a first rate military power on the other end of this engagement. Are Russians going to be capable to take large numbers of casualties? I think you will find they will, if they believe that they are at risk of being invaded. Is the US? The US has been barely able to stomach the casualties it took in Afghanistan and Iraq, and I'd be fairly certain Russia while sustaining more, would inflict as many casualties as the US has taken in Afghanistan and Iraq, combined, in a matter of weeks or months.

We can talk about who is stronger, and we know who is stronger, but that isn't the only factor here. We have to consider the relative stakes. A war going down on Russias front door is going to be considerably higher stakes for them, than us. Are we willing to commit hard enough to win such a war, or provoke such a war, that could escalate into Russia pushing all in?

A war with Russia, would be a complete disaster. Not only would it risk nuclear war, it would risk involving the US in a war it simply isn't prepared to fight. I think in large part, you have it the other way around. The US is the country that is bluffing. Allow me to explain. The US is a democracy, a very divided democracy. It is beholden to these democratic principles. The US hasn't really fought a war where the other side could really do anything but die to us since WW2. The country has been so insulated from the realities of war for so long, that you're going to have a VERY hard time rationalizing fighting Russia on their doorstep, to at least half of the country. We would win, if we decided we needed to win, but the cost of doing so could very well prove fatal to the country on a wider basis. Russia will fight a total war if it is pushed to fighting a total war. We won't. We can't. You will not be able to justify to the American public that level of involvement against a country that CANNOT invade the continental USA.

In short, the consequences to the US and NATO for fighting that war against Russia, which Russia would HAVE to fight, are too high. Not in risking losing, but in actually doing what was necessary to win, and therein lies the problem. You can't win. It is LITERALLY, an unwinnable war, the moment we cross that threshold where we've broken Russias back conventionally, the birds will fly. So how do you win a war against Russia (on Russias doorstep), if you can't actually risk fighting it without provoking the end of the world? If Russia were to somehow beat back a Nato coalition, there is no reason for NATO to nuke Russia. If Russia loses in Syria, something kicks off in Ukraine, then they will be left with, the invasion, occupation, or some other punitive treaty against Russia, or they will unleash their nukes as a last gasp deterrent. If such a situation happened, a treaty for Russia is going to see it stripped off all of its semi-autonomous republics, and other punitive measures.

What do we have to gain, versus what do they have to lose. That's the balance sheet here. We have almost nothing to gain, and they have nothing to lose. Smells like a disaster to me.

I'm not seeing the jump from pushing Russia back in Syria to automatically bombing Moscow.

Do you really think in the war games simulations that Russia's leaders undoubtedbly play out every few months, the situation of "Western forces have attacked Russian aircraft attempting to bomb Syrian rebels" is met with the unanimous jumping up of everyone in the room to the cry "ALL IN"? The options put forward will be something like "counter-attack and prepare for escalated conflict by sending more Russian forces to the region", "pursue a diplomatic solution with a weakened hand" or "pull out", whereby the former simply leads to heavier Russian casualties culminating in the eventual loss of the war anyway, whilst the latter two allow them to save face and spin themselves as the more mature country.

In practical terms I don't see why they are going to think any more suicidally than us when it comes to Syria, and very little loss of life would actually be involved in attaining a favourable outcome for the West.

 

[matherto]

It still is a risk though. Especially considering any actual conflict wherein Russia were put on the back-foot would inherently make the power of top Russian officials a lot weaker, and would make them more prone to an irrational act of madness.

It's a minute risk though.

Nobody wants the end of the world, which is what using nukes would entail.

Russia will never have a conventional war with NATO, I'm 99.99% sure of that, so we don't need to worry about nukes.

 

[Red Defence]

"Yesterday, Alexander Yakovenko, Russia's ambassador to the UK, claimed British authorities had injected the Skripals with nerve agent developed at the military research agency at Porton Down, ten miles from Salisbury."

Weird bloke that Yakovenko. His press performances are excruciatingly embarrassing.

 

[2cents]

In practical terms I don't see why they are going to think any more suicidally than us when it comes to Syria, and very little loss of life would actually be involved in attaining a favourable outcome for the West

What would a favourable outcome for the West look like in Syria?

 

[antihenry]

Weird bloke that Yakovenko. His press performances are excruciatingly embarrassing.

Except he didn't claim it.

Yakovenko "claimed that the speed with which the chemical was identified after the attack suggested the UK already had its own samples.

Referring to the Government’s defence research establishment at Porton Down, he said: “We know what kind of laboratory is only 10 miles from Salisbury.”

And his reasoning was quite logical, I thought. When you discuss the actual quotes and not some journo's interpretation of them.

Spoiler

Russia’s ambassador to the UK has suggested that Sergei and Yulia Skripal may have been injected by British authorities with nerve agent produced at Porton Down.

Alexander Yakovenko repeated Russia’s demands to see the former spy and his daughter, claiming that the UK’s failure to grant access meant the case should now be seen as “an abduction of two Russian citizens”.

The comments came in a press conference at which Mr Yakovenko accused Britain of lying not only over the Skripal case, but also about the chemical weapons attack in Syria and alleged Russian cyber attacks on the UK.

They represent the latest in a series of widely-varying and sometimes contradictory explanations produced by Moscow for the events in Salisbury, which have been dismissed by the Foreign Office as an attempt to distract attention from the UK’s conclusion that Russia is “very likely” to be responsible for poisoning the Skripals.

A report by experts at the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons this week confirmed the UK’s analysis that the attack on the Skripals in Salisbury on March 4 was conducted with the nerve agent Novichok.

But Mr Yakovenko said that details of the OPCW report gave Russian experts cause for concern.

The OPCW reported that the Novichok contained in blood samples from the victims showed little sign of decomposition, even though the agent would normally be expected to react with naturally-occurring chemicals inside the body, he said.

“This is strange, given that 18 days passed between the poisoning and the arrival of the OPCW in the UK,” said Mr Yakovenko.

“It might mean that the chemical was intentionally injected just before the blood samples were taken.”

The fact that the OPCW found the sample of Novichok to be “of high purity” suggested that it was synthesised in a laboratory rather than an industrial plant, he said.

And he claimed that the speed with which the chemical was identified after the attack suggested the UK already had its own samples.

Referring to the Government’s defence research establishment at Porton Down, he said: “We know what kind of laboratory is only 10 miles from Salisbury.”

Mr Yakovenko challenged the independence of the OPCW investigation, saying that it had been arranged on a bilateral basis with the UK rather than under the standard practices set out in the Chemical Weapons Convention.

“The work of the OPCW experts was conducted under the control of the British side,” he said.

“Pressure on them can’t be ruled out.

“They checked only the sites designated by the UK beforehand and they looked only for the substance identified by the UK.

“The format chosen cannot guarantee impartiality and the comprehensive nature of the verification.”

Russia would not take the report’s conclusions at face value unless it was given full access to the victims and to the materials gathered in the investigation, he said.

Mr Yakovenko said Russia was acting in accordance with international law in wanting to speak to its citizen Yulia Skripal, who is now said to have left hospital and be recovering.

He added: “We want to see that she is in good shape and good health. She can tell us herself that she doesn’t want our help.”

He repeated allegations that the decontamination operations under way in Salisbury amounted to an attempt by the UK authorities to destroy evidence relating to the attack.

 

[Red Defence]

Except he didn't claim it.

Yakovenko "claimed that the speed with which the chemical was identified after the attack suggested the UK already had its own samples.

Referring to the Government’s defence research establishment at Porton Down, he said: “We know what kind of laboratory is only 10 miles from Salisbury.”

And his reasoning was quite logical, I thought. When you discuss the actual quotes and not some journo's interpretation of them.

Spoiler

Russia’s ambassador to the UK has suggested that Sergei and Yulia Skripal may have been injected by British authorities with nerve agent produced at Porton Down.

Alexander Yakovenko repeated Russia’s demands to see the former spy and his daughter, claiming that the UK’s failure to grant access meant the case should now be seen as “an abduction of two Russian citizens”.

The comments came in a press conference at which Mr Yakovenko accused Britain of lying not only over the Skripal case, but also about the chemical weapons attack in Syria and alleged Russian cyber attacks on the UK.

They represent the latest in a series of widely-varying and sometimes contradictory explanations produced by Moscow for the events in Salisbury, which have been dismissed by the Foreign Office as an attempt to distract attention from the UK’s conclusion that Russia is “very likely” to be responsible for poisoning the Skripals.

A report by experts at the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons this week confirmed the UK’s analysis that the attack on the Skripals in Salisbury on March 4 was conducted with the nerve agent Novichok.

But Mr Yakovenko said that details of the OPCW report gave Russian experts cause for concern.

The OPCW reported that the Novichok contained in blood samples from the victims showed little sign of decomposition, even though the agent would normally be expected to react with naturally-occurring chemicals inside the body, he said.

“This is strange, given that 18 days passed between the poisoning and the arrival of the OPCW in the UK,” said Mr Yakovenko.

“It might mean that the chemical was intentionally injected just before the blood samples were taken.”

The fact that the OPCW found the sample of Novichok to be “of high purity” suggested that it was synthesised in a laboratory rather than an industrial plant, he said.

And he claimed that the speed with which the chemical was identified after the attack suggested the UK already had its own samples.

Referring to the Government’s defence research establishment at Porton Down, he said: “We know what kind of laboratory is only 10 miles from Salisbury.”

Mr Yakovenko challenged the independence of the OPCW investigation, saying that it had been arranged on a bilateral basis with the UK rather than under the standard practices set out in the Chemical Weapons Convention.

“The work of the OPCW experts was conducted under the control of the British side,” he said.

“Pressure on them can’t be ruled out.

“They checked only the sites designated by the UK beforehand and they looked only for the substance identified by the UK.

“The format chosen cannot guarantee impartiality and the comprehensive nature of the verification.”

Russia would not take the report’s conclusions at face value unless it was given full access to the victims and to the materials gathered in the investigation, he said.

Mr Yakovenko said Russia was acting in accordance with international law in wanting to speak to its citizen Yulia Skripal, who is now said to have left hospital and be recovering.

He added: “We want to see that she is in good shape and good health. She can tell us herself that she doesn’t want our help.”

He repeated allegations that the decontamination operations under way in Salisbury amounted to an attempt by the UK authorities to destroy evidence relating to the attack.

Well that’s as maybe but I was commenting on Yakovenko himself rather than what he said on this particular occasion. Weird bloke.

 

[Ubik]

Except he didn't claim it.

Yakovenko "claimed that the speed with which the chemical was identified after the attack suggested the UK already had its own samples.

Referring to the Government’s defence research establishment at Porton Down, he said: “We know what kind of laboratory is only 10 miles from Salisbury.”

And his reasoning was quite logical, I thought. When you discuss the actual quotes and not some journo's interpretation of them.

Spoiler

Russia’s ambassador to the UK has suggested that Sergei and Yulia Skripal may have been injected by British authorities with nerve agent produced at Porton Down.

Alexander Yakovenko repeated Russia’s demands to see the former spy and his daughter, claiming that the UK’s failure to grant access meant the case should now be seen as “an abduction of two Russian citizens”.

The comments came in a press conference at which Mr Yakovenko accused Britain of lying not only over the Skripal case, but also about the chemical weapons attack in Syria and alleged Russian cyber attacks on the UK.

They represent the latest in a series of widely-varying and sometimes contradictory explanations produced by Moscow for the events in Salisbury, which have been dismissed by the Foreign Office as an attempt to distract attention from the UK’s conclusion that Russia is “very likely” to be responsible for poisoning the Skripals.

A report by experts at the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons this week confirmed the UK’s analysis that the attack on the Skripals in Salisbury on March 4 was conducted with the nerve agent Novichok.

But Mr Yakovenko said that details of the OPCW report gave Russian experts cause for concern.

The OPCW reported that the Novichok contained in blood samples from the victims showed little sign of decomposition, even though the agent would normally be expected to react with naturally-occurring chemicals inside the body, he said.

“This is strange, given that 18 days passed between the poisoning and the arrival of the OPCW in the UK,” said Mr Yakovenko.

“It might mean that the chemical was intentionally injected just before the blood samples were taken.”

The fact that the OPCW found the sample of Novichok to be “of high purity” suggested that it was synthesised in a laboratory rather than an industrial plant, he said.

And he claimed that the speed with which the chemical was identified after the attack suggested the UK already had its own samples.

Referring to the Government’s defence research establishment at Porton Down, he said: “We know what kind of laboratory is only 10 miles from Salisbury.”

Mr Yakovenko challenged the independence of the OPCW investigation, saying that it had been arranged on a bilateral basis with the UK rather than under the standard practices set out in the Chemical Weapons Convention.

“The work of the OPCW experts was conducted under the control of the British side,” he said.

“Pressure on them can’t be ruled out.

“They checked only the sites designated by the UK beforehand and they looked only for the substance identified by the UK.

“The format chosen cannot guarantee impartiality and the comprehensive nature of the verification.”

Russia would not take the report’s conclusions at face value unless it was given full access to the victims and to the materials gathered in the investigation, he said.

Mr Yakovenko said Russia was acting in accordance with international law in wanting to speak to its citizen Yulia Skripal, who is now said to have left hospital and be recovering.

He added: “We want to see that she is in good shape and good health. She can tell us herself that she doesn’t want our help.”

He repeated allegations that the decontamination operations under way in Salisbury amounted to an attempt by the UK authorities to destroy evidence relating to the attack.

Slightly baffled at your point here. Literally just before the section you highlighted:

“It might mean that the chemical was intentionally injected just before the blood samples were taken.”"

 

[antihenry]

Slightly baffled at your point here. Literally just before the section you highlighted:

“It might mean that the chemical was intentionally injected just before the blood samples were taken.”"

Might means maybe. Claim means stating something as a fact.

 

[Ubik]

Might means maybe. Claim means stating something as a fact.

Yet you chose to omit that bit from the part you highlighted, suggesting something entirely different was said.

And it's really the only logical conclusion, following Russia's argument. They claim the concentration of the novichok supposedly administered was fatal, and that the supposed BZ was instead responsible for the illness. Yet the novichok was in the blood sample. Ergo, we must've put it in there ourselves.

 

[antihenry]

Yet you chose to omit that bit from the part you highlighted, suggesting something entirely different was said.

And it's really the only logical conclusion, following Russia's argument. They claim the concentration of the novichok supposedly administered was fatal, and that the supposed BZ was instead responsible for the illness. Yet the novichok was in the blood sample. Ergo, we must've put it in there ourselves.

I didn't choose to omit anything. The original post said "Alexander Yakovenko, Russia's ambassador to the UK, claimed British authorities had injected the Skripals with nerve agent developed at the military research agency at Porton Down, ten miles from Salisbury." Which is a lie, because that's not what he said.

The conclusions you draw are your own.

 

[endless_wheelies]

What would a favourable outcome for the West look like in Syria?

Where a force that we back ends with total or significant political power enabling similar Western influence.

 

[Raoul]

What would a favourable outcome for the West look like in Syria?

Probably as a democratic state with credible elections, in contrast to a failed state that is acting as a proxy for Russia and Iran.