Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 06-19-2017, 01:37 PM
aldiboronti aldiboronti is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Troynovant
Posts: 7,804
Is the Syrian situation likely to escalate?

Russia says it will attack US planes bombing the Syrian military?

Is Putin bluffing? Would Trump respond in like manner if he isn't? This shit is making me nervous. Could all this get out of hand?

Last edited by aldiboronti; 06-19-2017 at 01:37 PM.
Advertisements  
  #2  
Old 06-19-2017, 01:41 PM
Ramira Ramira is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 3,141
Allahu Âlim. But did I not read from the Pro Trump that among the reasons to elect him was Mrs Clinton would escalate a confrontation with the Russians just like this?

Honestly it is hard to think Madame Clinton would be so clumsy only months into her Presidency.
  #3  
Old 06-19-2017, 01:49 PM
John Mace John Mace is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: South Bay
Posts: 79,479
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ramira View Post
Allahu Âlim. But did I not read from the Pro Trump that among the reasons to elect him was Mrs Clinton would escalate a confrontation with the Russians just like this?

Honestly it is hard to think Madame Clinton would be so clumsy only months into her Presidency.
I don't think you want to make this about Clinton. Remember, she wanted to institute a no fly zone. That would likely have made things worse.
  #4  
Old 06-19-2017, 01:52 PM
manson1972 manson1972 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 4,474
I hope it escalates to full on nuclear war. I'd like to walk around the nuclear wasteland and still hear people say "Clinton would have been worse"
  #5  
Old 06-19-2017, 02:00 PM
XT XT is offline
Agnatheist
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: The Great South West
Posts: 32,298
Quote:
Is Putin bluffing?
Probably. Russia has as much or more to lose as the US if dialogue breaks down wrt the back channel communications between Russian and US/alliance air groups. He's got a lot more to lose (as does Assad) if they start actually shooting at US planes.

This particular incident seems to have been a test of US/allied resolve. From what I've read multiple attempts were made to wave the Syrian aircraft off (it had already done an attack run previously), and my WAG is that the Syrian's (and probably the Russian's) figured they would see what we'd do if they pressed the attack. Guess they found out, tragically for the poor pilot who had to do the dying part.

Quote:
Would Trump respond in like manner if he isn't?
On this Trump's hands are probably tied. I doubt he's going to pull the US out of the region or halt air sorties in the area, so this will play out as Russia wants it to at this point. If Putin takes some shots at US or allied aircraft then I'm pretty sure the ROE will allow the US to respond in the theater (i.e. they won't have to ask Trump et al back in DC if they can shoot back).

Quote:
This shit is making me nervous. Could all this get out of hand?
Yeah, no shit. This has a pucker factor of at least 9.
  #6  
Old 06-19-2017, 02:10 PM
Ramira Ramira is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 3,141
Quote:
Originally Posted by John Mace View Post
I don't think you want to make this about Clinton. Remember, she wanted to institute a no fly zone. That would likely have made things worse.
Ah yes, i had not followed the details of these things.
  #7  
Old 06-19-2017, 02:15 PM
Stranger On A Train Stranger On A Train is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Manor Farm
Posts: 16,512
Quote:
Originally Posted by John Mace View Post
I don't think you want to make this about Clinton. Remember, she wanted to institute a no fly zone. That would likely have made things worse.
It is difficult to evaluate how Clinton would have responded to events but in her capacity as Secretary of State in the Obama Administration she veered toward more hawkish. However, she would likely have assembled a Cabinet with experienced advisors and not gutted the State Department of senior leadership, and would likely started by taking a hard stance with Putin, giving him less tactic encouragement to push the envelope of US/NATO and Russian relations.

Quote:
Originally Posted by manson1972 View Post
I hope it escalates to full on nuclear war. I'd like to walk around the nuclear wasteland and still hear people say "Clinton would have been worse"
Please do not joke. Given Trump's blatant ignorance about military affairs and our nuclear deterrent, this is all too plausible a scenario.

Stranger
  #8  
Old 06-19-2017, 02:32 PM
manson1972 manson1972 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 4,474
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stranger On A Train View Post
Please do not joke. Given Trump's blatant ignorance about military affairs and our nuclear deterrent, this is all too plausible a scenario
I'm not joking. On the bright side, a lot of coal-mining jobs will be needed to get us out of the stone age again.
  #9  
Old 06-19-2017, 02:42 PM
John Mace John Mace is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: South Bay
Posts: 79,479
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stranger On A Train View Post
It is difficult to evaluate how Clinton would have responded to events but in her capacity as Secretary of State in the Obama Administration she veered toward more hawkish. However, she would likely have assembled a Cabinet with experienced advisors and not gutted the State Department of senior leadership, and would likely started by taking a hard stance with Putin, giving him less tactic encouragement to push the envelope of US/NATO and Russian relations.
I won't argue with any of that. My response was more to the idea that it's obvious Clinton would not have been involved in shooting down Syrian jets. That is not at all obvious to me, even though I think Clinton would have been infinitely preferable as president than Trump. Her campaign rhetoric implied an escalation of the hostilities in Syria, not an effort to extricate us from them.
  #10  
Old 06-19-2017, 02:43 PM
Lemur866 Lemur866 is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: The Middle of Puget Sound
Posts: 20,941
So all you "Clinton would have been worse" people think that she would have unilaterally imposed a no-fly zone that included the Russkis, and ordered the Air Force to shoot down Russian planes that violated the zone?

That's what would have happened?

The only way a no-fly zone can work is if the Russkis agreed to it. Because it's one thing to shoot down an airplane belonging to some third world shithole, it's another thing to shoot down a Russian, or Chinese, or European plane.

Of course, this is how the isolationist Trump of the campaign was always going to get embroiled in some foreign shooting war. His overwhelming fear of looking weak means that the only option is escalation.
  #11  
Old 06-19-2017, 02:49 PM
XT XT is offline
Agnatheist
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: The Great South West
Posts: 32,298
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemur866
Of course, this is how the isolationist Trump of the campaign was always going to get embroiled in some foreign shooting war. His overwhelming fear of looking weak means that the only option is escalation.
I dislike Trump at least as much as anyone else on this board, but in this case, I can't see how things would have been different under Obama or Clinton. Well, except perhaps one key point that Stranger mentioned, namely that by acting and saying some of the stuff Trump has he's given Putin et al the false impression we'd (the US that is) would stay clear of Syria and let them do whatever they wanted. Neither Obama nor Clinton would have done that, so Putin and Assad would have known where they stood on this more clearly than with the often contradictory Trump and his convoluted and befuddled foreign policy where even our allies don't know what the fuck we are doing or where we are going with any of this.

Last edited by XT; 06-19-2017 at 02:49 PM.
  #12  
Old 06-19-2017, 03:01 PM
John Mace John Mace is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: South Bay
Posts: 79,479
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemur866 View Post
The only way a no-fly zone can work is if the Russkis agreed to it.
You'll have to take that up with Ms. Clinton, as she clearly had no intention of seeking Russian agreement. Her no-fly zone would have included Russian planes along with Syrian planes. From the 3rd presidential debate (that is, Oct 2016):

Quote:
Clinton stuck to an argument she has made many times: Creating an area where Syrian and Russian planes cannot fly would give the U.S. “leverage” over Syria and Russia to negotiate a political resolution.
There is more danger of shooting down Syrian (or Russian) planes if a No-Fly Zone is in place. Unless you expect them to meekly not test it.

Last edited by John Mace; 06-19-2017 at 03:04 PM.
  #13  
Old 06-19-2017, 03:09 PM
HurricaneDitka HurricaneDitka is offline
2016 Election-from-Heck RnnrUp
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 6,012
Quote:
Originally Posted by aldiboronti View Post
Could all this get out of hand?
I suppose it could, but keep in mind that Turkey shot down a Russian jet, leading to a Russian pilot's death and the loss of an additional rescue helicopter and crew member, and war didn't break out between them. I think we're even less likely to end up in a full-on shooting war with Russia over a Syrian plane and pilot.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemur866 View Post
So all you "Clinton would have been worse" people think that she would have unilaterally imposed a no-fly zone that included the Russkis, and ordered the Air Force to shoot down Russian planes that violated the zone?

That's what would have happened?
That was the concern.
  #14  
Old 06-19-2017, 03:15 PM
QuickSilver QuickSilver is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Posts: 15,163
I think Putin is more likely to continue to test Trump than he would have likely dared test Clinton.

Putin sees how America has twisted itself around the axle over Russia's meddling in the elections and he has every reason to think that continuing to threaten US interests will continue to yield desired results. After all, the punishment for having meddled in the elections was an invitation to Russian diplomats to the oval office for an RT photo op.
  #15  
Old 06-19-2017, 03:22 PM
AK84 AK84 is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 13,862
There is big difference in shooting down a plane (which has happened on and off since '45, though mostly off these days) and having a policy of attacking any Russian plane you see over Syria.

Quote:
Originally Posted by XT
This has a pucker factor of at least 9.
Dude all those Tridents, SS-18 and Minuteman are just sitting there. Might as well get some use out of them.
  #16  
Old 06-19-2017, 03:22 PM
HurricaneDitka HurricaneDitka is offline
2016 Election-from-Heck RnnrUp
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 6,012
Quote:
Originally Posted by QuickSilver View Post
I think Putin is more likely to continue to test Trump than he would have likely dared test Clinton.

Putin sees how America has twisted itself around the axle over Russia's meddling in the elections and he has every reason to think that continuing to threaten US interests will continue to yield desired results. After all, the punishment for having meddled in the elections was an invitation to Russian diplomats to the oval office for an RT photo op.
Were the 'desired results' of testing Trump a damaged airbase and a shot down (Syrian) jet? That seems ... counter-intuitive.

Last edited by HurricaneDitka; 06-19-2017 at 03:25 PM.
  #17  
Old 06-19-2017, 03:22 PM
John Mace John Mace is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: South Bay
Posts: 79,479
Quote:
Originally Posted by aldiboronti View Post
Could all this get out of hand?
Why would bombing the shit out of another country for 2 years "get out of hand"? We're the good guys.

Last edited by John Mace; 06-19-2017 at 03:23 PM.
  #18  
Old 06-19-2017, 03:25 PM
XT XT is offline
Agnatheist
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: The Great South West
Posts: 32,298
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
Were the 'desired results' of testing Trump a damaged airbase and a shot down (Syrian) jet? That seems ... counter-intuitive.
Miscalculation. The gas bombing obviously was a serious miscalculation based on both previous inaction when they did it before and by the perception that Trump would allow Assad and Putin a free hand in Syria, with the US backing away. This jet attack was probably similar, though I think it was also a test to see what the US would do. If the US backed off, then well and good. If not, well, I guess from Putin's perspective (and Assad's for all I know) it was a small loss to test our resolve.
  #19  
Old 06-19-2017, 03:27 PM
AK84 AK84 is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 13,862
Quote:
Originally Posted by QuickSilver View Post
I think Putin is more likely to continue to test Trump than he would have likely dared test Clinton.

Putin sees how America has twisted itself around the axle over Russia's meddling in the elections and he has every reason to think that continuing to threaten US interests will continue to yield desired results. After all, the punishment for having meddled in the elections was an invitation to Russian diplomats to the oval office for an RT photo op.
In what world? Putin has "tested" Mrs Clinton and Obama many times and typically outmaneuvered them. In Syria, In the Crimea, in the Eastern Ukraine.

To think Putin is motivated by anything other than Russian self-interest is crazy. As crazy as those who think the Soviets backed down because they were scared of Reagan.

Now if there were adults around, like say, Mr Clinton, then yes things would have been a lot better.
  #20  
Old 06-19-2017, 03:36 PM
Oredigger77 Oredigger77 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: 48 M East of the Ravine
Posts: 4,310
The conspiracy theory part of my brain always goes to Russian and Trump creating som controversy between them whenever the evidence of how close they get to a certain level. First, it was bombing the air base and now shooting down a jet. That way the trumpists can point and say "Look, Trump and Russia can't be friends, just see all of the things he does that they don't like."

Of course, that is also the part of my brain that says this can't escalate due to both parties manufacturing it. I'm not sure whether I want to believe that part of my brain or not.
  #21  
Old 06-19-2017, 03:50 PM
Evan Drake Evan Drake is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2016
Posts: 2,536
It's all nothing much, and whomever was US president in this scenario doesn't matter, military policy by all parties proceeds regardless.

The U.S. has increasingly moved to block the efforts of the Syrian military and its allies, which include local and Iran-backed militias, to retake parts of the country once under ISIS control. In addition to sponsoring the Syrian Democratic Forces in Raqqa, the U.S. has set up a Special Forces operations base near the southern town of al-Tanf, located by the Jordanian and Iraqi borders. Around this area, the U.S. has unilaterally declared a "de-confliction zone" where pro-government forces cannot enter. In the past few weeks, the U.S. has launched airstrikes against the pro-government forces three times, accusing them of threatening U.S. and local allied forces, many of which seek to topple Assad.

Russia had previously threatened that it would defend Syrian troops against U.S. aggressions.


So ISIS is collapsing due to Putin's support of Assad, and America wants to exploit the gap as it would. Which it did unilaterally as it would. Russia then says it will defend Syrian pro-government forces, as it would.


This is not WWIII. The dance continues.



And on a more serious matter, why do these fracking news sites have auto-playing video starting up ? Apart from being cheap and nasty, it makes people wary of going to their sites. Plus it's kind of condescending.

Last edited by Evan Drake; 06-19-2017 at 03:51 PM.
  #22  
Old 06-19-2017, 04:08 PM
QuickSilver QuickSilver is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Posts: 15,163
Quote:
Originally Posted by AK84 View Post
To think Putin is motivated by anything other than Russian self-interest is crazy.
If I intimated otherwise, I would like to restate for the record that it is all in the interest of Putin/Russia.

That said, I would not assume that simply because Obama did not declare war on Russia because of Russian aggression in Ukraine and Syria, necessarily means that Putin outmaneuvered everyone at every turn.
  #23  
Old 06-19-2017, 04:18 PM
XT XT is offline
Agnatheist
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: The Great South West
Posts: 32,298
Quote:
Originally Posted by QuickSilver View Post
If I intimated otherwise, I would like to restate for the record that it is all in the interest of Putin/Russia.

That said, I would not assume that simply because Obama did not declare war on Russia because of Russian aggression in Ukraine and Syria, necessarily means that Putin outmaneuvered everyone at every turn.
Yeah, I'd have to say that the supposed genius of Putin, The Great Chessmaster is vastly overstated. Let's see what it's gotten him thus far. He got the Crimea, a province that's a net negative for Russia, even if we don't include the sanctions that have been ramped up on Russia (at a time when, frankly, they can't afford them, seeing as how their one trick pony has lost its trick). In Syria, he's gotten bogged down in a money pit that has also cost the Russian's plenty of political capital and good will around the world and basically put them squarely on the side of folks like Assad. Eastern Ukraine is pretty much the same thing...they are on the side of folks who shot down a passenger jet because they were too stupid to remember to breathe and mistook it for a Ukrainian fighter. Overall, his political maneuvers have made Russia look bad, has cost them financially and generally put them on the sides of the worst actors in this entire drama...and that's pretty difficult to do, considering the rampant corruption in the Ukraine and the fact that most of the other actors in Syria are pretty bad as well.

In short, Putin is an idiot who is merely less clueless than Trump but has miscalculated himself into a position where there aren't very many good options...the least bad being if he actually gets into an armed conflict with the US directly in Syria. Sure, it will be bad all around, but it will be worst for the Russians than anyone else (well, except perhaps Assad).

Last edited by XT; 06-19-2017 at 04:19 PM.
  #24  
Old 06-19-2017, 04:38 PM
Wesley Clark Wesley Clark is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 17,848
Mutually assured destruction still works with Putin. Putin is the dictator of a large, powerful nation and probably has $300 billion squirreled away. He isn't going to risk any of that over Syria, which has strategic interest to Putin due to access to the Mediterranean, but he isn't going to risk everything for it since there are many other countries that border the sea he could build alliances with.

Last edited by Wesley Clark; 06-19-2017 at 04:38 PM.
  #25  
Old 06-19-2017, 04:42 PM
Wesley Clark Wesley Clark is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 17,848
Quote:
Originally Posted by XT View Post
Yeah, I'd have to say that the supposed genius of Putin, The Great Chessmaster is vastly overstated. Let's see what it's gotten him thus far. He got the Crimea, a province that's a net negative for Russia, even if we don't include the sanctions that have been ramped up on Russia (at a time when, frankly, they can't afford them, seeing as how their one trick pony has lost its trick). In Syria, he's gotten bogged down in a money pit that has also cost the Russian's plenty of political capital and good will around the world and basically put them squarely on the side of folks like Assad. Eastern Ukraine is pretty much the same thing...they are on the side of folks who shot down a passenger jet because they were too stupid to remember to breathe and mistook it for a Ukrainian fighter. Overall, his political maneuvers have made Russia look bad, has cost them financially and generally put them on the sides of the worst actors in this entire drama...and that's pretty difficult to do, considering the rampant corruption in the Ukraine and the fact that most of the other actors in Syria are pretty bad as well.

In short, Putin is an idiot who is merely less clueless than Trump but has miscalculated himself into a position where there aren't very many good options...the least bad being if he actually gets into an armed conflict with the US directly in Syria. Sure, it will be bad all around, but it will be worst for the Russians than anyone else (well, except perhaps Assad).
He also rose through the ranks of politics to become dictator and enjoys 80% approval ratings at home. He is also technically the richest man on earth (Forbes doesn't count heads of state who got rich due to that position in their list). He attacked Ukraine after Ukraine gave up their nukes in exchange for security assurances, and the west didn't do much to stop him. Russia is promoting a form of propaganda that is pretty effective (throwing so many lies and truth out there that people give up and stop paying attention). So he can't be doing everything wrong.

Last edited by Wesley Clark; 06-19-2017 at 04:44 PM.
  #26  
Old 06-19-2017, 04:52 PM
XT XT is offline
Agnatheist
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: The Great South West
Posts: 32,298
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wesley Clark View Post
He also rose through the ranks of politics to become dictator and enjoys 80% approval ratings at home. He is also technically the richest man on earth (Forbes doesn't count heads of state who got rich due to that position in their list). He attacked Ukraine after Ukraine gave up their nukes in exchange for security assurances, and the west didn't do much to stop him. Russia is promoting a form of propaganda that is pretty effective (throwing so many lies and truth out there that people give up and stop paying attention). So he can't be doing everything wrong.
He's eroded his image at home by attacks on their press and other political parties opposed to him as well as policies that have lost the Russian's jobs and money. Much of his '80% approval ratings' come from the fact that he controls the press and the message as well as just general Russian angst over their loss of power and prestige when the Soviet Union folded. It will only go so far, and at least to me the cracks are starting to be visible in his clay feet.

No, of course, The West(tm) didn't do much to stop him in the Ukraine or the Crimea...but, again, what has that actually gained him in tangible terms? As to his propaganda lies, well, the thing is that as with the Chinese equivalent, folks aren't nearly as stupid or clueless as Putin or the CCP THINK they are, and certainly not as much outside of their countries. Oh, even on this board we have folks willing to swallow anything they put out or handwave it away, but I think the majority see it for what it is...a load of horseshit.

Is he 'doing everything wrong'? No, of course not. He, like Trump, has tapped into a wellspring of emotion and anger over the world and how it is. But, as with Trump, that only goes so far...at some point, you have to produce. And he's been pretty bad about producing tangible results, just a lot of hot air and words telling the Russian people to suck it up, good times will be around the bend. Eventually, even if you totally control the message, they figure out that around the bend never happens, or that the light at the end of the tunnel is really a train coming the other way.

Last edited by XT; 06-19-2017 at 04:53 PM.
  #27  
Old 06-19-2017, 05:05 PM
Ramira Ramira is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 3,141
Quote:
Originally Posted by Evan Drake View Post
So ISIS is collapsing due to Putin's support of Assad, .
That is a weird thing to happen since the forces of the Russian and the Regime Assad have spent almost all their time fighting the non DAESH opposition from the Islamic to the centrist, and have had an almost complete détente with the DAESH.

It is quite the dezinformatsia revisionist history, worthy of the kind of claims the fellow-travellers made about the stab of the POUM, to claim that DAESH is collapsing because of the Russian and the Regime Assad non-action. While the Kurdish and the other fighters non-Assed have bled and died in reality against the DAESH.
  #28  
Old 06-19-2017, 05:09 PM
XT XT is offline
Agnatheist
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: The Great South West
Posts: 32,298
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ramira View Post
That is a weird thing to happen since the forces of the Russian and the Regime Assad have spent almost all their time fighting the non DAESH opposition from the Islamic to the centrist, and have had an almost complete détente with the DAESH.

It is quite the dezinformatsia revisionist history, worthy of the kind of claims the fellow-travellers made about the stab of the POUM, to claim that DAESH is collapsing because of the Russian and the Regime Assad non-action. While the Kurdish and the other fighters non-Assed have bled and died in reality against the DAESH.
Totally agree it's an odd claim, and it's sad that those who have fought and died to actually make this happen are often overlooked in the effort to claim it's really Russia and Putin who have done this.
  #29  
Old 06-19-2017, 05:17 PM
Wesley Clark Wesley Clark is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 17,848
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ramira View Post
That is a weird thing to happen since the forces of the Russian and the Regime Assad have spent almost all their time fighting the non DAESH opposition from the Islamic to the centrist, and have had an almost complete détente with the DAESH.

It is quite the dezinformatsia revisionist history, worthy of the kind of claims the fellow-travellers made about the stab of the POUM, to claim that DAESH is collapsing because of the Russian and the Regime Assad non-action. While the Kurdish and the other fighters non-Assed have bled and died in reality against the DAESH.
I saw a good special on national geographic last weekend called Hell on Earth: The Fall of Syria and the Rise of ISIS. It was very well put together, and they claim that the Assad regime wants ISIS to be strong because they want the west to feel like their only options are to either support Assad, or support ISIS. Having a democratic middle group that is fighting against Assad provides a group the west can get behind supporting.

They also claimed 80% of Russian attacks have been against the moderate resistance, not ISIS.

Last edited by Wesley Clark; 06-19-2017 at 05:18 PM.
  #30  
Old 06-19-2017, 06:02 PM
Ramira Ramira is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 3,141
Yes that is exactly the information that you can get in the ARabic as well.

Outside of the circles of the Russian propaganda and the Regime Assad propaganda it has been very evident that the Regime Assad has not been sad to have the entente cordiale with the DAESH, letting them attack the other opposition, and trading the oil with them.

For those apologists here - there is more than one selling the idea of the Russian Assed axis as the real heroes - this has the bizarre echoes of the Stalin apologies.
  #31  
Old 06-19-2017, 06:45 PM
QuickSilver QuickSilver is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Posts: 15,163
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
Were the 'desired results' of testing Trump a damaged airbase and a shot down (Syrian) jet? That seems ... counter-intuitive.
Syrian planes/pilots are expendable to Putin. Russia has planes to sell to Assad. Putin may not be playing the long game but he is very good at testing what he can get away with. That much has to be obvious by now to the entire world.

Why is testing an opponent's resolve a counter-intuitive strategy? Given Trumps erratic and impulsive behaviour, it seems like an entirely rational strategy for Putin.
  #32  
Old 06-19-2017, 06:49 PM
Little Nemo Little Nemo is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Western New York
Posts: 74,345
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wesley Clark View Post
Mutually assured destruction still works with Putin. Putin is the dictator of a large, powerful nation and probably has $300 billion squirreled away. He isn't going to risk any of that over Syria, which has strategic interest to Putin due to access to the Mediterranean, but he isn't going to risk everything for it since there are many other countries that border the sea he could build alliances with.
I think Putin is rational enough to back down from a situation here he knew he would lose. The problem is he might misread the situation. I can see Putin and Trump getting locked into an escalating situation where each thinks he can make the other one back down by pushing a little harder.
  #33  
Old 06-19-2017, 07:00 PM
John Mace John Mace is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: South Bay
Posts: 79,479
The image of Putin pushing a little harder on Trump is not one that I want in my mind!
  #34  
Old 06-19-2017, 07:07 PM
XT XT is offline
Agnatheist
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: The Great South West
Posts: 32,298
Quote:
Originally Posted by John Mace View Post
The image of Putin pushing a little harder on Trump is not one that I want in my mind!
Ugh...probably on a bear skin rug (that Putin personally shot after he had some of his boys tree it) with vodka and McD's wrappers strewn about the floor...

  #35  
Old 06-19-2017, 07:10 PM
HurricaneDitka HurricaneDitka is offline
2016 Election-from-Heck RnnrUp
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 6,012
Quote:
Originally Posted by QuickSilver View Post
Syrian planes/pilots are expendable to Putin. Russia has planes to sell to Assad. Putin may not be playing the long game but he is very good at testing what he can get away with. That much has to be obvious by now to the entire world.

Why is testing an opponent's resolve a counter-intuitive strategy? Given Trumps erratic and impulsive behaviour, it seems like an entirely rational strategy for Putin.
I don't think Putin had all that much to do with it. Do you believe Putin ran the chemical weapons attack and/or ordered the SyAAF Su-22 into the de-confliction zone?
  #36  
Old 06-20-2017, 04:02 AM
Latro Latro is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 3,213
The Syrians/Russians have every right to shoot down hostile planes over Syrian territory.

I don't imagine how anyone, not immersed in propaganda, would see differently.
  #37  
Old 06-20-2017, 08:53 AM
John Mace John Mace is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: South Bay
Posts: 79,479
Quote:
Originally Posted by Latro View Post
The Syrians/Russians have every right to shoot down hostile planes over Syrian territory.

I don't imagine how anyone, not immersed in propaganda, would see differently.
Is anyone saying the don't? It's war. You shoot at each other.
  #38  
Old 06-20-2017, 09:27 AM
XT XT is offline
Agnatheist
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: The Great South West
Posts: 32,298
Quote:
Originally Posted by Latro
The Syrians/Russians have every right to shoot down hostile planes over Syrian territory.
It's exactly the same 'right' they have to bomb the crap out of the Syrian population and the same 'right' that has kept Assad in power all these years after his brutal treatment of his own people...a 'right' they have chosen to use with abandon.

I'm sure it will be cold comfort to them that they had the 'right' to shoot at US or other allied planes when it escalates into war. 'But we had the RIGHT!!'.

Quote:
I don't imagine how anyone, not immersed in propaganda, would see differently.
I don't see how anyone, not immersed in propaganda, can't see that it's more complex than 'but we have the RIGHT!'. I'm fairly sure that even Assad and Putin understand this...otherwise they would have been shooting at US and allied planes in the past.
  #39  
Old 06-20-2017, 09:28 AM
QuickSilver QuickSilver is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Posts: 15,163
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
I don't think Putin had all that much to do with it. Do you believe Putin ran the chemical weapons attack and/or ordered the SyAAF Su-22 into the de-confliction zone?
I have no evidence to support that assertion, but I do not believe it's beyond the pale.

If I were Putin, I certainly would not hesitate to probe my opponent's resolve.
  #40  
Old 06-20-2017, 09:52 AM
Latro Latro is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 3,213
Quote:
Originally Posted by John Mace View Post
Is anyone saying the don't? It's war. You shoot at each other.
When did the US declare war on Syria?
  #41  
Old 06-20-2017, 09:59 AM
John Mace John Mace is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: South Bay
Posts: 79,479
Quote:
Originally Posted by Latro View Post
When did the US declare war on Syria?
There is a war going on in Syria, and we are participating in it. That's all that matters.

Or is it your contention that:

1. There is no war in Syria.
2. We are not participating in that war.

If so, please explain.

Last edited by John Mace; 06-20-2017 at 10:00 AM.
  #42  
Old 06-20-2017, 09:59 AM
QuickSilver QuickSilver is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Posts: 15,163
Quote:
Originally Posted by Latro View Post
When did the US declare war on Syria?
When did Russia and Syria declare war on the US?
  #43  
Old 06-20-2017, 10:09 AM
XT XT is offline
Agnatheist
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: The Great South West
Posts: 32,298
Quote:
Originally Posted by Latro View Post
When did the US declare war on Syria?
Well, no one has declared war on anyone. Doesn't negate the fact that fighting is taking place and that the US has, for years now, participated in that fighting.
  #44  
Old 06-20-2017, 10:49 AM
HurricaneDitka HurricaneDitka is offline
2016 Election-from-Heck RnnrUp
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 6,012
Apparently the Iranians wanted in on the party too:

US shoots down Iranian drone in Syria

Quote:
The armed pro-regime Shaheed-129 UAV was shot down by a U.S. F-15E Strike Eagle about 12:30 a.m. after it displayed hostile intent and advanced on Coalition forces. This is the second the U.S. shot down an Iranian drone in less than a month.

The coalition forces were manning an established combat outpost to the northeast of At Tanf where they are training and advising partner ground forces in the fight against ISIS. This is the same location where another pro-regime UAV dropped munitions near Coalition forces before it was shot down on June 8.

The F-15E intercepted the armed UAV after it was observed advancing on the coalition position. The armed UAV was shot down when it continued to advance on the coalition's position without diverting its course.
Or perhaps the Air Force didn't want the Navy to hog all the glory.

Anyways, we're apparently shooting down 'all the things' these days.
  #45  
Old 06-20-2017, 10:51 AM
XT XT is offline
Agnatheist
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: The Great South West
Posts: 32,298
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
Apparently the Iranians wanted in on the party too:

US shoots down Iranian drone in Syria



Or perhaps the Air Force didn't want the Navy to hog all the glory.

Anyways, we're apparently shooting down 'all the things' these days.
We actually shot down one a month or so ago, so this isn't anything new.
  #46  
Old 06-20-2017, 10:51 AM
HurricaneDitka HurricaneDitka is offline
2016 Election-from-Heck RnnrUp
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 6,012
These deconfliction areas seem to be evolving into no-fly zones by another name.
  #47  
Old 06-20-2017, 10:55 AM
John Mace John Mace is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: South Bay
Posts: 79,479
Quote:
Originally Posted by XT View Post
Well, no one has declared war on anyone. Doesn't negate the fact that fighting is taking place and that the US has, for years now, participated in that fighting.
The biggest difference is that no one even knows how many sides there are or how many we are fighting with or against. So, yeah, that might "escalate".

Last edited by John Mace; 06-20-2017 at 10:55 AM.
  #48  
Old 06-20-2017, 11:00 AM
XT XT is offline
Agnatheist
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: The Great South West
Posts: 32,298
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
These deconfliction areas seem to be evolving into no-fly zones by another name.
I don't think we had an issue with them flying about...it's when they drop bombs that we kind of get tense. Especially when we make the effort to wave them off and they ignore the warning.

Quote:
Originally Posted by John Mace
The biggest difference is that no one even knows how many sides there are or how many we are fighting with or against. So, yeah, that might "escalate".
This situation is rife for miscommunications, miscalculation and missile-aneous mischance of malicious mayhem. It's a complete cluster fuck where the leaders of 3 of the main players are all idiots who don't know about the whole playing with fire thingy and also want to measure dick size and see who has a lower IQ than their golf average...
  #49  
Old 06-20-2017, 11:06 AM
Lemur866 Lemur866 is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: The Middle of Puget Sound
Posts: 20,941
Yes, don't forget that the so-called "moderate rebels" aren't actually a group, that just means "Any one of dozens group except ISIS".

These groups are the ones Assad and the Russians are fighting, they might eventually decide it's time to try to fight ISIS someday, but that's last on the list.
  #50  
Old 06-20-2017, 11:07 AM
HurricaneDitka HurricaneDitka is offline
2016 Election-from-Heck RnnrUp
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 6,012
Quote:
Originally Posted by XT View Post
I don't think we had an issue with them flying about...it's when they drop bombs that we kind of get tense. Especially when we make the effort to wave them off and they ignore the warning.
Unfortunately, their purpose for 'flying about' is primarily to drop bombs. And we don't mind if they drop their bombs on ISIS. We get mad when they drop them on 'our guys'. This morning's shoot-down of the Iranian drone seems different than the previous one, and different from the Su-22 we shot down yesterday: my understanding is that in previous cases, the aircraft we ultimately destroyed had actually dropped bombs. In this case, it sounds like it was a bit more pre-emptive. In other words, this morning's drone hadn't actually had a chance to drop bombs yet when we shot it down.

Quote:
... it was observed advancing on the coalition position. The armed UAV was shot down when it continued to advance on the coalition's position without diverting its course.
That's closer to 'them flying about' than previous shoot-downs. Still not a blanket prohibition like a no-fly zone, but closer to that than we were yesterday, it seems.
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:24 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@chicagoreader.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Publishers - interested in subscribing to the Straight Dope?
Write to: sdsubscriptions@chicagoreader.com.

Copyright © 2017 Sun-Times Media, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017