The Unz Review - Mobile
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 TeasersRussian Reaction Blog
Douma and Dumber
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New Reply
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

trump-assad-animal

At this point I’m just wondering when neoliberalism.txt will finally lay off the Russiagate conspiracy theory.

I suspect never.

jail-trump-anyway

The neocons surrounding Trump have locked him into a never-ending spiral of escalation towards Russia in a hopeless bid to “prove” that he is not Putin’s puppet.

By striking Syria, Trump becomes “Presidential” in eyes of the Western media and the average American is all too happy to swallow it up, no matter the patent false flaginess of this false flag.

Meanwhile, Egor Kholmogorov is on point, as usual: “I still don’t understand why Novorossiya wasn’t worth war, while a fake chemical chemical attack on Skripal and the bearded ones – was. We warned you that all attempts to “de-escalate” would lead to this.

 
Hide 253 CommentsLeave a Comment
253 Comments to "Douma and Dumber"
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
    []
  1. Dmitry says:

    neoliberalism.txt will finally lay off the Russiagate conspiracy theory.

    The neocons surrounding Trump have locked him into a never-ending spiral of escalation towards Russia in a hopeless bid to “prove”

    There’s little relation between neoliberalism and neoconservatism.

    Neoliberalism is an economic policy, based originally on Austrian economy, Friedrich Hayek and classical liberalism.

    Its ideas have been taken up by international bodies (World Bank and IMF), but largely because this is now standard good economic advice (to cut government spending, lower taxes, liberalize economy).

    Neoconservatism is a movement – which tries to give justification to foreign intervention as a way to ‘spread democracy and freedom around the world’ and because Western ideas are superior and should rule.

    Neoliberalism itself does not need democracy – in the case of its most famous neoliberal, Pinochet, it was combined with dictatorship.

    Putin himself combines moderate neoliberal economic policy and advisors, with a multi-vector foreign policy.

    If you look at Trump’s case. He is neither fully neoliberal nor neoconservative. His domestic economic policy, involves elements of neoliberal agenda (cutting taxes), but also protectionism in trade, and talk about ‘big infrastructure spending’.

    Likewise in foreign policy, we can see he has little interest in promoting democracy around the world or arguing about the superiority of Western ideals. He is open to conquering stuff if he thinks it will make America richer, as he says for Iraq. Otherwise, he is like Polemarchus in Plato’s Republic, for who justice is “helping friends and harming enemies”.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Singh
    Actually sir, Neo Liberalism & Neo Conservatism are branches of the Great Tree of Judaism।।
    , @Felix Keverich
    That's a lot of hogwash. Neoconservatism is a first and foremost a Jewish movement that serves Jewish goals. There is plenty of Zionist Jews in the Trump's administration (including his own son-in-law!), who are pushing Trump to confront Syria and Iran, because these countries are Israel's enemies, and the Jews want them destroyed.

    For all practical purposes neocons = Zionist Jews. This is definitely a neoconservative administration.
    , @utu

    There’s little relation between neoliberalism and neoconservatism.
     
    They differ only on where the capitol of the NWO Empire will be. Neocons want to do the shortcut and place it in Jerusalem from the day one but neoliberals would prefer to keep it in London or New York at least until the final conquest of the world. Neocons do not mind to be outed as suprematist Jews while neoliberals prefer to keep appearances that's why they use leftist rhetoric of diversity, etc.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
    AgreeDisagreeLOLTroll
    These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Troll, or LOL with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used once per hour.
    Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
    More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  2. Dmitry says:

    By striking Syria, Trump becomes “Presidential” in eyes of the Western media and the average American is all too happy to swallow it up, no matter the patent false flaginess of this false flag.

    His idea of ‘striking’ though will be firing a some dozen cruise missiles at an empty base, like last time.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  3. Trump gets rolled by the dweeb state yet again.

    He needs to openly declare that the Assman could shove pregnant women into ovens and that America will still not intervene because doing so is contrary to our strategic interests.

    And surely by now he has to realize these are fucking false flags. If anything there needs to be another special prosecutor to find out who’s executing these repeated false flag attacks.

    I would not be surprised at all to discover that Mad Duck Mattis himself coordinates this.

    One of the more disturbing revelations from the 2016 nationalist victories is the incredible unity, energy, and pure evil of neoliberalism.txt. Trump and the Brexiteers have stirred up a hornet’s nest.

    Trump is even having trouble hiring lawyers. The President of the United States!

    This unity is quite new as well. It didn’t exist even a decade ago. During the Bush Administration “Old Europe” aligned with Moscow against the Anglo-Americans. Within America and Britain itself significant elements of the elite openly opposed W’s cack-brained Iraq project.

    I don’t really understand how this came to be. I also don’t understand why destroying the Assman is so very important to these people.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Dmitry

    One of the more disturbing revelations from the 2016 nationalist victories is the incredible unity, energy, and pure evil of neoliberalism.txt. Trump and the Brexiteers have stirred up a hornet’s nest.

     

    Orban wins today the election of Hungary - he is very sensible neoliberal reformer, but portrayed in CNN as a nationalist. Putin is a moderate neoliberal policy maker, but he also uses nationalist ideas.

    I would say this is the ideal policy mix for the time - to domestic neoliberal reforms, but also to keep sensible nationalist ideals to guide your decisions.

    The Brexit movement will also support neoliberal policy in the United Kingdom, as the UK will try to become a more business friendly environment away and to liberalize the economy away from the EU Soviet style over regulation and bureaucracy.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  4. ilkarnal says:

    From the outside looking in it seems you’re being completely autistic. Yes, the position of the Kremlin is really stupid and really cucked, in absolute terms. But in the spectrum of modern politics, they are on the good end. What do you think you’re going to get that’s better than Putin & his coterie? The more ‘based’ people are out of touch and incredibly vulnerable, if they don’t just twitch over to some other out-of-bounds position when in power. It seems clear to me that good governance will only be found through the founding of some new and isolated community – within the mainstream of civilization, you can only choose the best of terrible options. Putin seems to be a clear winner in this regard.

    Is Syria the ideal place to confront the US? No. Is it as terrible as you make it out to be? No. It is too much to ask that you get your confrontation in the ideal location. The important thing is that you stand fast, because losing is very destabilizing.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  5. Haha, so much for “Trump is really smart and fighting the Deep state, don’t worry!”.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Dmitry

    Haha, so much for “Trump is really smart and fighting the Deep state, don’t worry!”.

     

    He's not really smart (we can see the often idiotic use of language and lack of filter between brain and mouth), but neither is he as stupid as portrayed.

    He has developed his own set of principles and worldview (mercantilism in trade, support for business, aggressiveness/bullying to other countries to get concessions, etc) - and his policy is always consistent with them (he is not changing with the wind as some journalists claim).

    We did not see any surprising actions from him, that were not expected since 2016. The only surprise was the lack of tariffs for the first year - but now he is talking about these.
    , @Greasy William
    what do you want Trump to do? He at least said he wants to leave. With anybody else the US would already have 50k troops in Syria by now.

    ...

    This is the first time I've ever bought the "false flag" thing. The timing is just too convenient for the rebels and too horrible for Assad.

    The Deep State definitely taught Trump a lesson on this one. That's for sure.

    note: I have never predicted a US withdrawal from Syria. Only that the US wouldn't attack Iran.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  6. Dmitry says:
    @Thorfinnsson
    Trump gets rolled by the dweeb state yet again.

    He needs to openly declare that the Assman could shove pregnant women into ovens and that America will still not intervene because doing so is contrary to our strategic interests.

    And surely by now he has to realize these are fucking false flags. If anything there needs to be another special prosecutor to find out who's executing these repeated false flag attacks.

    I would not be surprised at all to discover that Mad Duck Mattis himself coordinates this.

    One of the more disturbing revelations from the 2016 nationalist victories is the incredible unity, energy, and pure evil of neoliberalism.txt. Trump and the Brexiteers have stirred up a hornet's nest.

    Trump is even having trouble hiring lawyers. The President of the United States!

    This unity is quite new as well. It didn't exist even a decade ago. During the Bush Administration "Old Europe" aligned with Moscow against the Anglo-Americans. Within America and Britain itself significant elements of the elite openly opposed W's cack-brained Iraq project.

    I don't really understand how this came to be. I also don't understand why destroying the Assman is so very important to these people.

    One of the more disturbing revelations from the 2016 nationalist victories is the incredible unity, energy, and pure evil of neoliberalism.txt. Trump and the Brexiteers have stirred up a hornet’s nest.

    Orban wins today the election of Hungary – he is very sensible neoliberal reformer, but portrayed in CNN as a nationalist. Putin is a moderate neoliberal policy maker, but he also uses nationalist ideas.

    I would say this is the ideal policy mix for the time – to domestic neoliberal reforms, but also to keep sensible nationalist ideals to guide your decisions.

    The Brexit movement will also support neoliberal policy in the United Kingdom, as the UK will try to become a more business friendly environment away and to liberalize the economy away from the EU Soviet style over regulation and bureaucracy.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Thorfinnsson
    Corbyn seems likely to win the next UK election, though neoliberalism.txt is working overtime to delegitimize him as an "antisemite". A Corbyn government is likely to increase taxes and regulation, and also to nationalize some sectors of the economy (mainly rail, water, gas, and electricity).

    I am mostly a free market guy as well, but the Tories really deserve to get beaten.

    Despite skyrocketing crime they fired 20,000 police officers, and the bobbies still on the job are more concerned with arresting "racists" on Twitter than stopping Islamic grooming gangs. The UK has some of the most expensive housing in the world, yet housing construction is at its lowest level since the 1920s.

    May's handling of Brexit negotiations with the EU has also been pathetic.

    Then there's this embarrassing Skripal Affair they cooked up for some bizarre reason.

    A very, very badly governed island.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  7. Dmitry says:
    @German_reader
    Haha, so much for "Trump is really smart and fighting the Deep state, don't worry!".

    Haha, so much for “Trump is really smart and fighting the Deep state, don’t worry!”.

    He’s not really smart (we can see the often idiotic use of language and lack of filter between brain and mouth), but neither is he as stupid as portrayed.

    He has developed his own set of principles and worldview (mercantilism in trade, support for business, aggressiveness/bullying to other countries to get concessions, etc) – and his policy is always consistent with them (he is not changing with the wind as some journalists claim).

    We did not see any surprising actions from him, that were not expected since 2016. The only surprise was the lack of tariffs for the first year – but now he is talking about these.

    Read More
    • Replies: @German_reader
    No, he's a f***ing idiot, and the time to make excuses for him is well past. These emotional Twitter outbursts over the deaths of foreigners (who are probably anti-Western anyway...why else would they be in a jihadi-controlled area? Why should we care if Assad gasses them, even when one assumes this isn't a false flag attack?) are the sign of a weak, immature and gullible mind, just pathetic.
    , @Randal

    We did not see any surprising actions from him, that were not expected since 2016.
     
    You say that, but I suspect that if challenged you will resort to claiming the things he has done or not done that were indeed not expected were actually "expected" based upon your own personal assumptions and understandings.

    In reality, while as I noted here a few days ago it's difficult to really pin him down to clear commitments, it was generally expected that he would not join in the neocon/militarist regime change conspiracy over Syria, which in the event he clearly has, at the least, allowed to continue, and arguably, with gratuitous actions such as responding with needless hysteria to supposed "chemical weapons attacks" and making wholly unnecessary threats, he has significantly enabled.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  8. songbird says:

    I’m a big believer that the Constitution should be amended so that all seeking federal office should be tattooed with the phrase “we go not seeking dragons abroad.”

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  9. Randal says:

    Meanwhile, Egor Kholmogorov is on point, as usual: “I still don’t understand why Novorossiya wasn’t worth war, while a fake chemical chemical attack on Skripal and the bearded ones – was.

    This makes no sense, at least in isolation.

    We warned you that all attempts to “de-escalate” would lead to this.“

    I sympathise with the argument seemingly implicit to this position, that the US sphere is currently an unappeasable aggressor which must be confronted at some stage or it will keep pushing, but nevertheless it’s an easy position to take when you do not have responsibility for actually going to war. Imo, the likelihood is that going to war in Ukraine in 2014 would have been a possibly terminal and certainly catastrophic disaster for Russia, for the reasons discussed at length previously. Anatoly and some others argue that there are reasons why it might have succeeded. Well, I think those reasons do not add up to the kind of case needed to justify going to war in the face of the downside risks, and it appears Putin agreed with me on that one.

    Regardless, no war has yet occurred. Are we to take it that the assumption now is that there will be a US military aggression against Russia in Syria? Because that has not yet occurred and there are plenty of voices here who have been very insistent that the US “would not dare” do so – at least if they do it would shut those people up, perhaps.

    It appears Trump has painted himself into a corner in which he has to attack Syrian government forces or be ridiculed for exactly what he ridiculed Obama for. But attacking Syrian forces is not attacking Russia forces. So we are still a long way and a lot of choices away from open war between the US and Russia.

    Read More
    • Replies: @reiner Tor

    attacking Syrian forces is not attacking Russia forces
     
    But Russia has promised that they will not allow an American attack against their Syrian allies.

    Just letting you know, it awfully looks like a game of chicken.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  10. @Dmitry

    Haha, so much for “Trump is really smart and fighting the Deep state, don’t worry!”.

     

    He's not really smart (we can see the often idiotic use of language and lack of filter between brain and mouth), but neither is he as stupid as portrayed.

    He has developed his own set of principles and worldview (mercantilism in trade, support for business, aggressiveness/bullying to other countries to get concessions, etc) - and his policy is always consistent with them (he is not changing with the wind as some journalists claim).

    We did not see any surprising actions from him, that were not expected since 2016. The only surprise was the lack of tariffs for the first year - but now he is talking about these.

    No, he’s a f***ing idiot, and the time to make excuses for him is well past. These emotional Twitter outbursts over the deaths of foreigners (who are probably anti-Western anyway…why else would they be in a jihadi-controlled area? Why should we care if Assad gasses them, even when one assumes this isn’t a false flag attack?) are the sign of a weak, immature and gullible mind, just pathetic.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Thorfinnsson


    No, he’s a f***ing idiot, and the time to make excuses for him is well past. These emotional Twitter outbursts over the deaths of foreigners (who are probably anti-Western anyway…why else would they be in a jihadi-controlled area? Why should we care if Assad gasses them, even when one assumes this isn’t a false flag attack?) are the sign of a weak, immature and gullible mind, just pathetic.
     
    He's not an idiot. The trouble is that to achieve his policy goals, he effectively needs to complete a revolution. He was not aware of that when running, since like most patriotic Americans he was surprised to learn that we are governed by evil people who hate us and want to destroy us.

    We elected one of our own, but he isn't formidable enough to get the job done. He would've made an excellent President during the 1920s, when America was still largely governed by well-meaning patriots.

    That said, yes, Trump is a disappointment. But I would say he disappoints within the range of expectations. He has also played a very helpful educational and propaganda role. In 2015 the term "Deep State" was practically unknown in America, as was "chain migration".
    , @for-the-record
    who are probably anti-Western anyway…why else would they be in a jihadi-controlled area

    You're really bit a bit unfair there, a substantial portion (perhaps even a majority) of those in jihadi-controlled areas are effectively hostages forbidden from leaving. Those killed in "fake" chemical attacks are in fact most likely the children (there are never any "militants" killed in such attacks of course) of government-sympathisers.
    , @Dmitry

    No, he’s a f***ing idiot, and the time to make excuses for him is well past. These emotional Twitter outbursts over the deaths of foreigners (who are probably anti-Western anyway…why else would they be in a jihadi-controlled area? Why should we care if Assad gasses them, even when one assumes this isn’t a false flag attack?) are the sign of a weak, immature and gullible mind, just pathetic.

     

    We are aware he is not Putin - or subtle, and diplomatically spoken person.

    But he is in an American context, and this cowboy style is what Americans voted for (and I believe will continue to vote for in 2020).

    The Twitter rants are usually when he wants to apply pressure in some area, and then he will try to get a concession. It's his style for doing things all his life.

    He rants about Canada, Mexico, China, or Syria, or Russia. It's because he wants a concession from them in some area.

    When voters elect him, they all know this and it's what they wanted. He was openly saying he doesn't like the traditional way of negotiating (which usually means with subtle diplomats and avoidance of public statements).
    , @Daniel Chieh
    Senility hit him hard.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  11. @Dmitry

    One of the more disturbing revelations from the 2016 nationalist victories is the incredible unity, energy, and pure evil of neoliberalism.txt. Trump and the Brexiteers have stirred up a hornet’s nest.

     

    Orban wins today the election of Hungary - he is very sensible neoliberal reformer, but portrayed in CNN as a nationalist. Putin is a moderate neoliberal policy maker, but he also uses nationalist ideas.

    I would say this is the ideal policy mix for the time - to domestic neoliberal reforms, but also to keep sensible nationalist ideals to guide your decisions.

    The Brexit movement will also support neoliberal policy in the United Kingdom, as the UK will try to become a more business friendly environment away and to liberalize the economy away from the EU Soviet style over regulation and bureaucracy.

    Corbyn seems likely to win the next UK election, though neoliberalism.txt is working overtime to delegitimize him as an “antisemite”. A Corbyn government is likely to increase taxes and regulation, and also to nationalize some sectors of the economy (mainly rail, water, gas, and electricity).

    I am mostly a free market guy as well, but the Tories really deserve to get beaten.

    Despite skyrocketing crime they fired 20,000 police officers, and the bobbies still on the job are more concerned with arresting “racists” on Twitter than stopping Islamic grooming gangs. The UK has some of the most expensive housing in the world, yet housing construction is at its lowest level since the 1920s.

    May’s handling of Brexit negotiations with the EU has also been pathetic.

    Then there’s this embarrassing Skripal Affair they cooked up for some bizarre reason.

    A very, very badly governed island.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Randal

    I am mostly a free market guy as well, but the Tories really deserve to get beaten.

    Despite skyrocketing crime they fired 20,000 police officers, and the bobbies still on the job are more concerned with arresting “racists” on Twitter than stopping Islamic grooming gangs. The UK has some of the most expensive housing in the world, yet housing construction is at its lowest level since the 1920s.

    May’s handling of Brexit negotiations with the EU has also been pathetic.
     
    I agree with the first assertion about the Tories deserving to get beaten, but it's difficult to see how a Labour government (which will immediately become embroiled in endless infighting with the Blairite traitors still infesting its parliamentary party) will not make things worse in every single category you mention and several others, whilst providing the worst of the ideologues of the left a platform to indulge all their fantasies of revenge against the patriotic (Brexit) constituency.

    Then there’s this embarrassing Skripal Affair they cooked up for some bizarre reason.

    A very, very badly governed island.
     
    Spectacularly so. But that has been true at least since the Blairites openly took over in 1997, and there seems no escape from it via any of the mainstream parties.
    , @Dmitry

    Corbyn seems likely to win the next UK election, though neoliberalism.txt is working overtime to delegitimize him as an “antisemite”. A Corbyn government is likely to increase taxes and regulation, and also to nationalize some sectors of the economy (mainly rail, water, gas, and electricity).

    I am mostly a free market guy as well, but the Tories really deserve to get beaten.

    Despite skyrocketing crime they fired 20,000 police officers, and the bobbies still on the job are more concerned with arresting “racists” on Twitter than stopping Islamic grooming gangs. The UK has some of the most expensive housing in the world, yet housing construction is at its lowest level since the 1920s.

    May’s handling of Brexit negotiations with the EU has also been pathetic.

    Then there’s this embarrassing Skripal Affair they cooked up for some bizarre reason.

    A very, very badly governed island.
     

    Corbyn is the left-wing, socialist option? UK will be moving in the direction of the Islamic Socialist society.

    Whereas Conservatives, are like Merkel?

    In this case, I would vote for the UK Independence Party.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  12. @German_reader
    No, he's a f***ing idiot, and the time to make excuses for him is well past. These emotional Twitter outbursts over the deaths of foreigners (who are probably anti-Western anyway...why else would they be in a jihadi-controlled area? Why should we care if Assad gasses them, even when one assumes this isn't a false flag attack?) are the sign of a weak, immature and gullible mind, just pathetic.

    No, he’s a f***ing idiot, and the time to make excuses for him is well past. These emotional Twitter outbursts over the deaths of foreigners (who are probably anti-Western anyway…why else would they be in a jihadi-controlled area? Why should we care if Assad gasses them, even when one assumes this isn’t a false flag attack?) are the sign of a weak, immature and gullible mind, just pathetic.

    He’s not an idiot. The trouble is that to achieve his policy goals, he effectively needs to complete a revolution. He was not aware of that when running, since like most patriotic Americans he was surprised to learn that we are governed by evil people who hate us and want to destroy us.

    We elected one of our own, but he isn’t formidable enough to get the job done. He would’ve made an excellent President during the 1920s, when America was still largely governed by well-meaning patriots.

    That said, yes, Trump is a disappointment. But I would say he disappoints within the range of expectations. He has also played a very helpful educational and propaganda role. In 2015 the term “Deep State” was practically unknown in America, as was “chain migration”.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Randal

    He’s not an idiot.
     
    Then we must assume he knows full well that these "chemical attacks" are fakes, but nevertheless responds in ways that needlessly box him into following the neocon/militarist agenda that takes him towards disaster.

    Clearly the man is not an idiot in general terms (although he certainly is erratic), but I am starting to think it's becoming difficult to contest the suggestion that he is functionally an idiot in the areas of international affairs and military strategy. These are the areas for which his former life experience provided little or no preparation, and while that is the case for most Presidents it is arguable that Trump is particularly ill-prepared to learn on the job and particularly vulnerable to being "W'ed" by the lobby loyalists around him in the military and senior levels of the regime.
    , @German_reader

    The trouble is that to achieve his policy goals, he effectively needs to complete a revolution.
     
    Stating that Trump has "policy goals" (in the sense of a coherent programme) seems like wishful thinking to me.
    All I can see in Trump is some vague resentment that the US is being ripped off and no longer the great country it was in his youth. He seems incapable though of coming to a coherent understanding why this is so, what needs to be changed and what genuine US national interests should be.
    He hasn't built a coherent movement either, there's no pool of talented, principled Trump loyalists that could be used to fill political positions.
    Trump probably won't achieve anything of worth in domestic matters, opposition is just too strong...the natural impulse will be for him to focus his attention on foreign threats and nuisances...ungrateful "free-riding" Europeans, Iranians, Russians, Chinese. Flag-waving US patriotards will be happy, and the Jewish and Sunni Arab special interest lobbies that seem to be influential with him will have their wishes fulfilled.
    , @John Gruskos

    he disappoints within the range of expectations
     
    No, he is far more disappointing than I could have dreamed possible.

    He promised to strictly enforce the immigration laws and avoid unnecessary wars.

    Instead, he has conceded the morality of Obama's unconstitutional DACA amnesty, repeatedly bombed Syria, increased Obama's support for Saudi Arabia's war against Yemen, increased sanctions against Russia, funded the leftist parties of Hungary - and deliberately humiliated his most important supporters, people who took his campaign promises seriously such as Jeff Sessions and Steve Bannon.

    He needs to be replaced with someone better in the 2020 Republican Party primary election.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  13. Randal says:
    @Dmitry

    Haha, so much for “Trump is really smart and fighting the Deep state, don’t worry!”.

     

    He's not really smart (we can see the often idiotic use of language and lack of filter between brain and mouth), but neither is he as stupid as portrayed.

    He has developed his own set of principles and worldview (mercantilism in trade, support for business, aggressiveness/bullying to other countries to get concessions, etc) - and his policy is always consistent with them (he is not changing with the wind as some journalists claim).

    We did not see any surprising actions from him, that were not expected since 2016. The only surprise was the lack of tariffs for the first year - but now he is talking about these.

    We did not see any surprising actions from him, that were not expected since 2016.

    You say that, but I suspect that if challenged you will resort to claiming the things he has done or not done that were indeed not expected were actually “expected” based upon your own personal assumptions and understandings.

    In reality, while as I noted here a few days ago it’s difficult to really pin him down to clear commitments, it was generally expected that he would not join in the neocon/militarist regime change conspiracy over Syria, which in the event he clearly has, at the least, allowed to continue, and arguably, with gratuitous actions such as responding with needless hysteria to supposed “chemical weapons attacks” and making wholly unnecessary threats, he has significantly enabled.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Dmitry
    He hasn't done anything really inside Syria. He just does what he was saying in 2016 - about 'bombing ISIS' and that 'he doesn't like Assad, but he doesn't like the opposition'.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  14. @German_reader
    No, he's a f***ing idiot, and the time to make excuses for him is well past. These emotional Twitter outbursts over the deaths of foreigners (who are probably anti-Western anyway...why else would they be in a jihadi-controlled area? Why should we care if Assad gasses them, even when one assumes this isn't a false flag attack?) are the sign of a weak, immature and gullible mind, just pathetic.

    who are probably anti-Western anyway…why else would they be in a jihadi-controlled area

    You’re really bit a bit unfair there, a substantial portion (perhaps even a majority) of those in jihadi-controlled areas are effectively hostages forbidden from leaving. Those killed in “fake” chemical attacks are in fact most likely the children (there are never any “militants” killed in such attacks of course) of government-sympathisers.

    Read More
    • Agree: Randal
    • Replies: @German_reader
    I may be unfair, but this saccharine, hypocritical pseudo-humanitarianism disgusts me. The US has zero moral authority about those issues, especially at a time when it actively supports Saudi-Arabia's starvation of Yemen.
    Personally I don't even see why there's so much outrage about chemical weapons, they don't seem any more cruel to me than indiscriminate shelling or bombing.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  15. Randal says:
    @Thorfinnsson


    No, he’s a f***ing idiot, and the time to make excuses for him is well past. These emotional Twitter outbursts over the deaths of foreigners (who are probably anti-Western anyway…why else would they be in a jihadi-controlled area? Why should we care if Assad gasses them, even when one assumes this isn’t a false flag attack?) are the sign of a weak, immature and gullible mind, just pathetic.
     
    He's not an idiot. The trouble is that to achieve his policy goals, he effectively needs to complete a revolution. He was not aware of that when running, since like most patriotic Americans he was surprised to learn that we are governed by evil people who hate us and want to destroy us.

    We elected one of our own, but he isn't formidable enough to get the job done. He would've made an excellent President during the 1920s, when America was still largely governed by well-meaning patriots.

    That said, yes, Trump is a disappointment. But I would say he disappoints within the range of expectations. He has also played a very helpful educational and propaganda role. In 2015 the term "Deep State" was practically unknown in America, as was "chain migration".

    He’s not an idiot.

    Then we must assume he knows full well that these “chemical attacks” are fakes, but nevertheless responds in ways that needlessly box him into following the neocon/militarist agenda that takes him towards disaster.

    Clearly the man is not an idiot in general terms (although he certainly is erratic), but I am starting to think it’s becoming difficult to contest the suggestion that he is functionally an idiot in the areas of international affairs and military strategy. These are the areas for which his former life experience provided little or no preparation, and while that is the case for most Presidents it is arguable that Trump is particularly ill-prepared to learn on the job and particularly vulnerable to being “W’ed” by the lobby loyalists around him in the military and senior levels of the regime.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Thorfinnsson
    His approach to international affairs strikes me as superior to previous Presidents.

    The trouble is he has no idea how to wrestle the dweeb state into submission. Being actively subverted and suborned by your own subordinates for the first time in his life must be infuriating.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  16. @Thorfinnsson


    No, he’s a f***ing idiot, and the time to make excuses for him is well past. These emotional Twitter outbursts over the deaths of foreigners (who are probably anti-Western anyway…why else would they be in a jihadi-controlled area? Why should we care if Assad gasses them, even when one assumes this isn’t a false flag attack?) are the sign of a weak, immature and gullible mind, just pathetic.
     
    He's not an idiot. The trouble is that to achieve his policy goals, he effectively needs to complete a revolution. He was not aware of that when running, since like most patriotic Americans he was surprised to learn that we are governed by evil people who hate us and want to destroy us.

    We elected one of our own, but he isn't formidable enough to get the job done. He would've made an excellent President during the 1920s, when America was still largely governed by well-meaning patriots.

    That said, yes, Trump is a disappointment. But I would say he disappoints within the range of expectations. He has also played a very helpful educational and propaganda role. In 2015 the term "Deep State" was practically unknown in America, as was "chain migration".

    The trouble is that to achieve his policy goals, he effectively needs to complete a revolution.

    Stating that Trump has “policy goals” (in the sense of a coherent programme) seems like wishful thinking to me.
    All I can see in Trump is some vague resentment that the US is being ripped off and no longer the great country it was in his youth. He seems incapable though of coming to a coherent understanding why this is so, what needs to be changed and what genuine US national interests should be.
    He hasn’t built a coherent movement either, there’s no pool of talented, principled Trump loyalists that could be used to fill political positions.
    Trump probably won’t achieve anything of worth in domestic matters, opposition is just too strong…the natural impulse will be for him to focus his attention on foreign threats and nuisances…ungrateful “free-riding” Europeans, Iranians, Russians, Chinese. Flag-waving US patriotards will be happy, and the Jewish and Sunni Arab special interest lobbies that seem to be influential with him will have their wishes fulfilled.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Thorfinnsson


    Stating that Trump has “policy goals” (in the sense of a coherent programme) seems like wishful thinking to me.
    All I can see in Trump is some vague resentment that the US is being ripped off and no longer the great country it was in his youth. He seems incapable though of coming to a coherent understanding why this is so, what needs to be changed and what genuine US national interests should be.
     
    Yes, he has no detailed policy program, something that really upsets Hillary Clinton who still complains about it.

    He has three simple planks that he hammers on over and over

    1 - We are getting ripped off in international trade (true)
    2 - It is a joke that we can't control our borders
    3 - These foreign wars are stupid

    Getting into the specifics becomes a challenge for him given his lack of intellectualism. Only on number one is he able to be reasonably effective, and for that we can thank Wilbur Ross, Robert Lightizer, and Peter Navarro.

    He's actually much worse on immigration than people think, as evidenced by the fact he tried to get legislative amnesty for the DACA fags.

    He's good on number three but clearly just gets rolled by the dweeb state which thinks it can outlast him. They played this game with Donald Rumsfeld as well, who ordered the Army to abandoning its German vacation properties. They stonewalled and then he got fired. So the Army is still in Germany for no good reason.


    He hasn’t built a coherent movement either, there’s no pool of talented, principled Trump loyalists that could be used to fill political positions.
     
    Yes, this is the most serious problem. Trump's narcissism is the real problem here. He thinks everyone loves him (except the haters, losers, and fools) and is surprised by the idea that a movement is even needed.


    Trump probably won’t achieve anything of worth in domestic matters, opposition is just too strong…the natural impulse will be for him to focus his attention on foreign threats and nuisances…ungrateful “free-riding” Europeans, Iranians, Russians, Chinese. Flag-waving US patriotards will be happy, and the Jewish and Sunni Arab special interest lobbies that seem to be influential with him will have their wishes fulfilled.
     
    The corporate tax cut was quite important for American business, but otherwise you seem to be right.

    I think he's going to do something fairly dramatic on illegal immigration however.
    , @songbird
    I don't fault your analysis. It is probably the perennial problem of the US, rather than a Trump problem per say, but there's little doubt in my mind that, if it weren't for their own nukes, and American support, Russia could roll the whole of pozzed Western Europe in a very short time.

    I'm not implying that anyone in Russia wants to, or they wouldn't need to do a significant build up, but ultimately the rate of ground lost would be much higher than Poland experienced when it was attacked by two juggernauts in WW2. Why? Because the Poles were under-equipped and undermanned, not pozzed. Western Europe is now all three. They are not trench-fighters, the people who live there now. They'd buck at the idea of pushing dirt with a shovel.

    The German aversion to flags is truly deep-rooted and widespread. It is curious that you seem to feel it as strongly as Merkel. People hung US flags and waved them for decades when it was a "battleship in every cove." Don't misunderstand me, the flag has lost a lot of cachet to me, but that's not because of regular people waving it, it's because of politicians and the fact that America is being broken apart by said politicians, while they wave it. Imperialism doesn't come from flag waving, though flags can be a camouflage to it and many other things .
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  17. @Randal

    He’s not an idiot.
     
    Then we must assume he knows full well that these "chemical attacks" are fakes, but nevertheless responds in ways that needlessly box him into following the neocon/militarist agenda that takes him towards disaster.

    Clearly the man is not an idiot in general terms (although he certainly is erratic), but I am starting to think it's becoming difficult to contest the suggestion that he is functionally an idiot in the areas of international affairs and military strategy. These are the areas for which his former life experience provided little or no preparation, and while that is the case for most Presidents it is arguable that Trump is particularly ill-prepared to learn on the job and particularly vulnerable to being "W'ed" by the lobby loyalists around him in the military and senior levels of the regime.

    His approach to international affairs strikes me as superior to previous Presidents.

    The trouble is he has no idea how to wrestle the dweeb state into submission. Being actively subverted and suborned by your own subordinates for the first time in his life must be infuriating.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Randal
    You are making excuses for him. He wasn't forced to let Haley parade around making inane foreign policy statements for him, nor was he forced to respond like an 8 year old girl to allegations of "chemical weapons attacks" - more than once now.

    If he were competent the US military would be out of Syria by now.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  18. Randal says:
    @Thorfinnsson
    Corbyn seems likely to win the next UK election, though neoliberalism.txt is working overtime to delegitimize him as an "antisemite". A Corbyn government is likely to increase taxes and regulation, and also to nationalize some sectors of the economy (mainly rail, water, gas, and electricity).

    I am mostly a free market guy as well, but the Tories really deserve to get beaten.

    Despite skyrocketing crime they fired 20,000 police officers, and the bobbies still on the job are more concerned with arresting "racists" on Twitter than stopping Islamic grooming gangs. The UK has some of the most expensive housing in the world, yet housing construction is at its lowest level since the 1920s.

    May's handling of Brexit negotiations with the EU has also been pathetic.

    Then there's this embarrassing Skripal Affair they cooked up for some bizarre reason.

    A very, very badly governed island.

    I am mostly a free market guy as well, but the Tories really deserve to get beaten.

    Despite skyrocketing crime they fired 20,000 police officers, and the bobbies still on the job are more concerned with arresting “racists” on Twitter than stopping Islamic grooming gangs. The UK has some of the most expensive housing in the world, yet housing construction is at its lowest level since the 1920s.

    May’s handling of Brexit negotiations with the EU has also been pathetic.

    I agree with the first assertion about the Tories deserving to get beaten, but it’s difficult to see how a Labour government (which will immediately become embroiled in endless infighting with the Blairite traitors still infesting its parliamentary party) will not make things worse in every single category you mention and several others, whilst providing the worst of the ideologues of the left a platform to indulge all their fantasies of revenge against the patriotic (Brexit) constituency.

    Then there’s this embarrassing Skripal Affair they cooked up for some bizarre reason.

    A very, very badly governed island.

    Spectacularly so. But that has been true at least since the Blairites openly took over in 1997, and there seems no escape from it via any of the mainstream parties.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  19. @Randal

    Meanwhile, Egor Kholmogorov is on point, as usual: “I still don’t understand why Novorossiya wasn’t worth war, while a fake chemical chemical attack on Skripal and the bearded ones – was.
     
    This makes no sense, at least in isolation.

    We warned you that all attempts to “de-escalate” would lead to this.“
     
    I sympathise with the argument seemingly implicit to this position, that the US sphere is currently an unappeasable aggressor which must be confronted at some stage or it will keep pushing, but nevertheless it's an easy position to take when you do not have responsibility for actually going to war. Imo, the likelihood is that going to war in Ukraine in 2014 would have been a possibly terminal and certainly catastrophic disaster for Russia, for the reasons discussed at length previously. Anatoly and some others argue that there are reasons why it might have succeeded. Well, I think those reasons do not add up to the kind of case needed to justify going to war in the face of the downside risks, and it appears Putin agreed with me on that one.

    Regardless, no war has yet occurred. Are we to take it that the assumption now is that there will be a US military aggression against Russia in Syria? Because that has not yet occurred and there are plenty of voices here who have been very insistent that the US "would not dare" do so - at least if they do it would shut those people up, perhaps.

    It appears Trump has painted himself into a corner in which he has to attack Syrian government forces or be ridiculed for exactly what he ridiculed Obama for. But attacking Syrian forces is not attacking Russia forces. So we are still a long way and a lot of choices away from open war between the US and Russia.

    attacking Syrian forces is not attacking Russia forces

    But Russia has promised that they will not allow an American attack against their Syrian allies.

    Just letting you know, it awfully looks like a game of chicken.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Randal

    But Russia has promised that they will not allow an American attack against their Syrian allies.
     
    Iirc, the public promise was that attacks "that put Russian forces at risk" would be responded to. There's a lot of wiggle room there, regardless of how many embedded advisors there might be. I haven't seen a formal, open statement of military backing for Syrian government forces against US attacks. Please do let me know if I've missed one.

    Just letting you know, it awfully looks like a game of chicken.
     
    Indeed, and that's hardly news to me, but there's more than one way for a game of chicken to end.

    I'm not an advocate of US attacks on Russian or Syrian forces, so please do not paint me as one. I'm just pointing out that no attack has yet happened, and we do not know yet what the response will be if and when there is one.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  20. @for-the-record
    who are probably anti-Western anyway…why else would they be in a jihadi-controlled area

    You're really bit a bit unfair there, a substantial portion (perhaps even a majority) of those in jihadi-controlled areas are effectively hostages forbidden from leaving. Those killed in "fake" chemical attacks are in fact most likely the children (there are never any "militants" killed in such attacks of course) of government-sympathisers.

    I may be unfair, but this saccharine, hypocritical pseudo-humanitarianism disgusts me. The US has zero moral authority about those issues, especially at a time when it actively supports Saudi-Arabia’s starvation of Yemen.
    Personally I don’t even see why there’s so much outrage about chemical weapons, they don’t seem any more cruel to me than indiscriminate shelling or bombing.

    Read More
    • Replies: @for-the-record
    especially at a time when it actively supports Saudi-Arabia’s starvation of Yemen.

    . . . and when it has just vetoed a Security Council resolution (supported by the other 14 members) calling for an impartial investigation of the deaths of unarmed Palestinian demonstrators in Gaza.
    , @Thorfinnsson


    Personally I don’t even see why there’s so much outrage about chemical weapons, they don’t seem any more cruel to me than indiscriminate shelling or bombing.
     
    I don't get this either. Why is being blown up by high explosives less horrifying than being gassed?

    The dirty little secret of chemical weapons is they're not that effective, so great powers are fine with banning them.
    , @reiner Tor

    Personally I don’t even see why there’s so much outrage about chemical weapons, they don’t seem any more cruel to me than indiscriminate shelling or bombing.
     
    They are most useful against civilians, and are easy to deliver (as opposed to fire bombing a city, which requires air superiority). Hitting an empty field next to a city with a conventional missile produces zero casualties. Hitting it with a chemical warhead results in dozens or best case even hundreds of casualties. Some people fear that thousands of deaths or more could be the result in a worst case (for the civilians) scenario. You need to hit a target pretty well to achieve a similar number of casualties with a conventional warhead. Or use many many warheads.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  21. Randal says:
    @Thorfinnsson
    His approach to international affairs strikes me as superior to previous Presidents.

    The trouble is he has no idea how to wrestle the dweeb state into submission. Being actively subverted and suborned by your own subordinates for the first time in his life must be infuriating.

    You are making excuses for him. He wasn’t forced to let Haley parade around making inane foreign policy statements for him, nor was he forced to respond like an 8 year old girl to allegations of “chemical weapons attacks” – more than once now.

    If he were competent the US military would be out of Syria by now.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Thorfinnsson
    No disagreement.

    His personnel selection is appalling and baffling.

    His repeated attacks on Jeff Sessions are especially grating.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  22. @German_reader

    The trouble is that to achieve his policy goals, he effectively needs to complete a revolution.
     
    Stating that Trump has "policy goals" (in the sense of a coherent programme) seems like wishful thinking to me.
    All I can see in Trump is some vague resentment that the US is being ripped off and no longer the great country it was in his youth. He seems incapable though of coming to a coherent understanding why this is so, what needs to be changed and what genuine US national interests should be.
    He hasn't built a coherent movement either, there's no pool of talented, principled Trump loyalists that could be used to fill political positions.
    Trump probably won't achieve anything of worth in domestic matters, opposition is just too strong...the natural impulse will be for him to focus his attention on foreign threats and nuisances...ungrateful "free-riding" Europeans, Iranians, Russians, Chinese. Flag-waving US patriotards will be happy, and the Jewish and Sunni Arab special interest lobbies that seem to be influential with him will have their wishes fulfilled.

    Stating that Trump has “policy goals” (in the sense of a coherent programme) seems like wishful thinking to me.
    All I can see in Trump is some vague resentment that the US is being ripped off and no longer the great country it was in his youth. He seems incapable though of coming to a coherent understanding why this is so, what needs to be changed and what genuine US national interests should be.

    Yes, he has no detailed policy program, something that really upsets Hillary Clinton who still complains about it.

    He has three simple planks that he hammers on over and over

    1 – We are getting ripped off in international trade (true)
    2 – It is a joke that we can’t control our borders
    3 – These foreign wars are stupid

    Getting into the specifics becomes a challenge for him given his lack of intellectualism. Only on number one is he able to be reasonably effective, and for that we can thank Wilbur Ross, Robert Lightizer, and Peter Navarro.

    He’s actually much worse on immigration than people think, as evidenced by the fact he tried to get legislative amnesty for the DACA fags.

    He’s good on number three but clearly just gets rolled by the dweeb state which thinks it can outlast him. They played this game with Donald Rumsfeld as well, who ordered the Army to abandoning its German vacation properties. They stonewalled and then he got fired. So the Army is still in Germany for no good reason.

    He hasn’t built a coherent movement either, there’s no pool of talented, principled Trump loyalists that could be used to fill political positions.

    Yes, this is the most serious problem. Trump’s narcissism is the real problem here. He thinks everyone loves him (except the haters, losers, and fools) and is surprised by the idea that a movement is even needed.

    Trump probably won’t achieve anything of worth in domestic matters, opposition is just too strong…the natural impulse will be for him to focus his attention on foreign threats and nuisances…ungrateful “free-riding” Europeans, Iranians, Russians, Chinese. Flag-waving US patriotards will be happy, and the Jewish and Sunni Arab special interest lobbies that seem to be influential with him will have their wishes fulfilled.

    The corporate tax cut was quite important for American business, but otherwise you seem to be right.

    I think he’s going to do something fairly dramatic on illegal immigration however.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Randal

    Getting into the specifics becomes a challenge for him given his lack of intellectualism. .....He’s actually much worse on immigration than people think, as evidenced by the fact he tried to get legislative amnesty for the DACA fags..... clearly just gets rolled by the dweeb state which thinks it can outlast him..... Trump’s narcissism is the real problem here. He thinks everyone loves him (except the haters, losers, and fools) and is surprised by the idea that a movement is even needed.
     
    You make a pretty good case here that he is, in fact, an idiot.

    At least in the terms I put it above - functionally an idiot in the areas where he gets endlessly manipulated by the globalists. One of the most obvious ones is foreign policy.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  23. @German_reader
    I may be unfair, but this saccharine, hypocritical pseudo-humanitarianism disgusts me. The US has zero moral authority about those issues, especially at a time when it actively supports Saudi-Arabia's starvation of Yemen.
    Personally I don't even see why there's so much outrage about chemical weapons, they don't seem any more cruel to me than indiscriminate shelling or bombing.

    especially at a time when it actively supports Saudi-Arabia’s starvation of Yemen.

    . . . and when it has just vetoed a Security Council resolution (supported by the other 14 members) calling for an impartial investigation of the deaths of unarmed Palestinian demonstrators in Gaza.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  24. @Randal
    You are making excuses for him. He wasn't forced to let Haley parade around making inane foreign policy statements for him, nor was he forced to respond like an 8 year old girl to allegations of "chemical weapons attacks" - more than once now.

    If he were competent the US military would be out of Syria by now.

    No disagreement.

    His personnel selection is appalling and baffling.

    His repeated attacks on Jeff Sessions are especially grating.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  25. @German_reader
    I may be unfair, but this saccharine, hypocritical pseudo-humanitarianism disgusts me. The US has zero moral authority about those issues, especially at a time when it actively supports Saudi-Arabia's starvation of Yemen.
    Personally I don't even see why there's so much outrage about chemical weapons, they don't seem any more cruel to me than indiscriminate shelling or bombing.

    Personally I don’t even see why there’s so much outrage about chemical weapons, they don’t seem any more cruel to me than indiscriminate shelling or bombing.

    I don’t get this either. Why is being blown up by high explosives less horrifying than being gassed?

    The dirty little secret of chemical weapons is they’re not that effective, so great powers are fine with banning them.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Randal

    I don’t get this either. Why is being blown up by high explosives less horrifying than being gassed?

    The dirty little secret of chemical weapons is they’re not that effective, so great powers are fine with banning them.
     
    Absolutely correct on both counts. They are situationally useful, at best.

    Except in one particular area, where chemical weapons are far more effective and useful than conventional weapons - emotionally manipulative propaganda.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  26. Randal says:
    @reiner Tor

    attacking Syrian forces is not attacking Russia forces
     
    But Russia has promised that they will not allow an American attack against their Syrian allies.

    Just letting you know, it awfully looks like a game of chicken.

    But Russia has promised that they will not allow an American attack against their Syrian allies.

    Iirc, the public promise was that attacks “that put Russian forces at risk” would be responded to. There’s a lot of wiggle room there, regardless of how many embedded advisors there might be. I haven’t seen a formal, open statement of military backing for Syrian government forces against US attacks. Please do let me know if I’ve missed one.

    Just letting you know, it awfully looks like a game of chicken.

    Indeed, and that’s hardly news to me, but there’s more than one way for a game of chicken to end.

    I’m not an advocate of US attacks on Russian or Syrian forces, so please do not paint me as one. I’m just pointing out that no attack has yet happened, and we do not know yet what the response will be if and when there is one.

    Read More
    • Replies: @for-the-record
    Iirc, the public promise was that attacks “that put Russian forces at risk” would be responded to.

    That is also my understanding.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  27. Singh says:
    @Dmitry

    neoliberalism.txt will finally lay off the Russiagate conspiracy theory.
     

    The neocons surrounding Trump have locked him into a never-ending spiral of escalation towards Russia in a hopeless bid to “prove”
     
    There's little relation between neoliberalism and neoconservatism.

    Neoliberalism is an economic policy, based originally on Austrian economy, Friedrich Hayek and classical liberalism.

    Its ideas have been taken up by international bodies (World Bank and IMF), but largely because this is now standard good economic advice (to cut government spending, lower taxes, liberalize economy).

    Neoconservatism is a movement - which tries to give justification to foreign intervention as a way to 'spread democracy and freedom around the world' and because Western ideas are superior and should rule.

    Neoliberalism itself does not need democracy - in the case of its most famous neoliberal, Pinochet, it was combined with dictatorship.

    Putin himself combines moderate neoliberal economic policy and advisors, with a multi-vector foreign policy.

    If you look at Trump's case. He is neither fully neoliberal nor neoconservative. His domestic economic policy, involves elements of neoliberal agenda (cutting taxes), but also protectionism in trade, and talk about 'big infrastructure spending'.

    Likewise in foreign policy, we can see he has little interest in promoting democracy around the world or arguing about the superiority of Western ideals. He is open to conquering stuff if he thinks it will make America richer, as he says for Iraq. Otherwise, he is like Polemarchus in Plato's Republic, for who justice is "helping friends and harming enemies".

    Actually sir, Neo Liberalism & Neo Conservatism are branches of the Great Tree of Judaism।।

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  28. Singh says:

    Regarding others

    So what should Trump get on international stage and say the Jews are behind chemical weapons attacks?

    We can finally get out Pepe president but he’ll be in jail

    Other than that he hasn’t literally no non liberal advisors nor men really loyal to him in any state apparatus. The hope is that after winning midterms he’s starts purging on way to reelection.

    If he loses midterms then w/e west is fucked good for you for trying to push feminism on other countries for nigh on 2 centuries. You deserved Hillary

    Europe will survive due to Putin & anglo sphere can fuck itself. Pagan Anglos will just take refuge in Himalaya like before end of ice age।।

    Read More
    • Replies: @Daniel Chieh
    He could simply send it to the UN for it to be bogged into procedures. The Uneffectual Nonsense serves an incredible purpose for kicking cans into oblivion.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  29. @Dmitry

    neoliberalism.txt will finally lay off the Russiagate conspiracy theory.
     

    The neocons surrounding Trump have locked him into a never-ending spiral of escalation towards Russia in a hopeless bid to “prove”
     
    There's little relation between neoliberalism and neoconservatism.

    Neoliberalism is an economic policy, based originally on Austrian economy, Friedrich Hayek and classical liberalism.

    Its ideas have been taken up by international bodies (World Bank and IMF), but largely because this is now standard good economic advice (to cut government spending, lower taxes, liberalize economy).

    Neoconservatism is a movement - which tries to give justification to foreign intervention as a way to 'spread democracy and freedom around the world' and because Western ideas are superior and should rule.

    Neoliberalism itself does not need democracy - in the case of its most famous neoliberal, Pinochet, it was combined with dictatorship.

    Putin himself combines moderate neoliberal economic policy and advisors, with a multi-vector foreign policy.

    If you look at Trump's case. He is neither fully neoliberal nor neoconservative. His domestic economic policy, involves elements of neoliberal agenda (cutting taxes), but also protectionism in trade, and talk about 'big infrastructure spending'.

    Likewise in foreign policy, we can see he has little interest in promoting democracy around the world or arguing about the superiority of Western ideals. He is open to conquering stuff if he thinks it will make America richer, as he says for Iraq. Otherwise, he is like Polemarchus in Plato's Republic, for who justice is "helping friends and harming enemies".

    That’s a lot of hogwash. Neoconservatism is a first and foremost a Jewish movement that serves Jewish goals. There is plenty of Zionist Jews in the Trump’s administration (including his own son-in-law!), who are pushing Trump to confront Syria and Iran, because these countries are Israel’s enemies, and the Jews want them destroyed.

    For all practical purposes neocons = Zionist Jews. This is definitely a neoconservative administration.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Dmitry

    That’s a lot of hogwash. Neoconservatism is a first and foremost a Jewish movement that serves Jewish goals. There is plenty of Zionist Jews in the Trump’s administration (including his own son-in-law!), who are pushing Trump to confront Syria and Iran, because these countries are Israel’s enemies, and the Jews want them destroyed.

    For all practical purposes neocons = Zionist Jews. This is definitely a neoconservative administration.
     

    If your argument is about Zionist Jews, then just call them Zionist Jews.

    You don't need the label neo-conservative, which has a specific ideological meaning (US intervention to promote democracy abroad, clash of civilizations, Western ideological dominance, etc).

    But neoconservative ideology is very different to ideology in Israel (where they dream of Russia and China helping them, and try to make allies with dictatorships).

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  30. Randal says:
    @Thorfinnsson


    Stating that Trump has “policy goals” (in the sense of a coherent programme) seems like wishful thinking to me.
    All I can see in Trump is some vague resentment that the US is being ripped off and no longer the great country it was in his youth. He seems incapable though of coming to a coherent understanding why this is so, what needs to be changed and what genuine US national interests should be.
     
    Yes, he has no detailed policy program, something that really upsets Hillary Clinton who still complains about it.

    He has three simple planks that he hammers on over and over

    1 - We are getting ripped off in international trade (true)
    2 - It is a joke that we can't control our borders
    3 - These foreign wars are stupid

    Getting into the specifics becomes a challenge for him given his lack of intellectualism. Only on number one is he able to be reasonably effective, and for that we can thank Wilbur Ross, Robert Lightizer, and Peter Navarro.

    He's actually much worse on immigration than people think, as evidenced by the fact he tried to get legislative amnesty for the DACA fags.

    He's good on number three but clearly just gets rolled by the dweeb state which thinks it can outlast him. They played this game with Donald Rumsfeld as well, who ordered the Army to abandoning its German vacation properties. They stonewalled and then he got fired. So the Army is still in Germany for no good reason.


    He hasn’t built a coherent movement either, there’s no pool of talented, principled Trump loyalists that could be used to fill political positions.
     
    Yes, this is the most serious problem. Trump's narcissism is the real problem here. He thinks everyone loves him (except the haters, losers, and fools) and is surprised by the idea that a movement is even needed.


    Trump probably won’t achieve anything of worth in domestic matters, opposition is just too strong…the natural impulse will be for him to focus his attention on foreign threats and nuisances…ungrateful “free-riding” Europeans, Iranians, Russians, Chinese. Flag-waving US patriotards will be happy, and the Jewish and Sunni Arab special interest lobbies that seem to be influential with him will have their wishes fulfilled.
     
    The corporate tax cut was quite important for American business, but otherwise you seem to be right.

    I think he's going to do something fairly dramatic on illegal immigration however.

    Getting into the specifics becomes a challenge for him given his lack of intellectualism. …..He’s actually much worse on immigration than people think, as evidenced by the fact he tried to get legislative amnesty for the DACA fags….. clearly just gets rolled by the dweeb state which thinks it can outlast him….. Trump’s narcissism is the real problem here. He thinks everyone loves him (except the haters, losers, and fools) and is surprised by the idea that a movement is even needed.

    You make a pretty good case here that he is, in fact, an idiot.

    At least in the terms I put it above – functionally an idiot in the areas where he gets endlessly manipulated by the globalists. One of the most obvious ones is foreign policy.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Polish Perspective

    You make a pretty good case here that he is, in fact, an idiot.
     
    And it doesn't have to be more complicated than that. All these retarded 4D chess memes are just bizarre coping mechanisms for people who truly drank the kool-aid during the campaign and who are now trying to self-rationalise their choices to themselves as they watch the entire presidency unravel in lightspeed.

    If the GOP gets blown out in the midterms then he'll essentially be a lameduck president limping on to a brutal 2020 fight where the candidate isn't going to be a massive liability like Shillary. The only thing he'll be able to affect from then on will be foreign policy - but he already all but handed the keys to the neocons on that front.

    Trump is a dumb puppet and it's really his advisors/handlers who run the show; Deep State + Jewish neocons(or their shabbos goyim, like Bolton) on foreign policy - and GOP lobbyists/Wall Street insiders on economic policy.

    "Draining the swamp". Utter idiots.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  31. The complete collapse of the Trump cargo cult has been spectacularly fun to watch. People in the AR like Ricky Vaughn(to the extent he even is/was part of the AR) and others have been Trump’s fanboys in overdrive the past year. I’ve watched with barely suppressed laughter as the Daily Stormer went from Nazi LARPers to normie Trumptards over the past six months.

    The more they cucked for Trump, the more Trump cucked them back. First the omnibus disaster and now this. No wall. Neocon foreign policy. Massive tax cuts and more gibs to Israel.

    We essentially have Bush III as president at this stage. It’s long past people start internalising that. The Trumptards are the biggest idiots in the US and they deserve all the scorn they get.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Dmitry

    The complete collapse of the Trump cargo cult has been spectacularly fun to watch. People in the AR like Ricky Vaughn(to the extent he even is/was part of the AR) and others have
     
    As currently is the situation, Trump will be re-elected in 2020.

    We can talk in this again in 2020 and repost this page, if I'm right or wrong. But I'm sure his actions so far, are all very inline with what his electorate want - because it is all very similar to what I saw in his speeches in 2016 (the voters love that he is hated by the media, creates a kind of reality television spectacle, cuts taxes, promises trade tariffs, rants on Twitter about Mexicans and Chinese, or against Muslims, tries to build a wall, and that he is militaristic - which he has all fulfilled so far. along with economy growth in America which was around 2.3% last year).

    , @Anon
    I never liked the 1488ers much either, but I'm trying to figure out what these people hope to realistically hope to achieve with their new strategy. If the plan is, as I understand it, to suck up to Trump on the internet and wrap themselves in the American flag thinking it will give them clout to eventually infiltrate the GOP and turn it into a crypto-white nationalist party, it's pretty comically naive.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  32. Randal says:
    @Thorfinnsson


    Personally I don’t even see why there’s so much outrage about chemical weapons, they don’t seem any more cruel to me than indiscriminate shelling or bombing.
     
    I don't get this either. Why is being blown up by high explosives less horrifying than being gassed?

    The dirty little secret of chemical weapons is they're not that effective, so great powers are fine with banning them.

    I don’t get this either. Why is being blown up by high explosives less horrifying than being gassed?

    The dirty little secret of chemical weapons is they’re not that effective, so great powers are fine with banning them.

    Absolutely correct on both counts. They are situationally useful, at best.

    Except in one particular area, where chemical weapons are far more effective and useful than conventional weapons – emotionally manipulative propaganda.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  33. @Randal

    Getting into the specifics becomes a challenge for him given his lack of intellectualism. .....He’s actually much worse on immigration than people think, as evidenced by the fact he tried to get legislative amnesty for the DACA fags..... clearly just gets rolled by the dweeb state which thinks it can outlast him..... Trump’s narcissism is the real problem here. He thinks everyone loves him (except the haters, losers, and fools) and is surprised by the idea that a movement is even needed.
     
    You make a pretty good case here that he is, in fact, an idiot.

    At least in the terms I put it above - functionally an idiot in the areas where he gets endlessly manipulated by the globalists. One of the most obvious ones is foreign policy.

    You make a pretty good case here that he is, in fact, an idiot.

    And it doesn’t have to be more complicated than that. All these retarded 4D chess memes are just bizarre coping mechanisms for people who truly drank the kool-aid during the campaign and who are now trying to self-rationalise their choices to themselves as they watch the entire presidency unravel in lightspeed.

    If the GOP gets blown out in the midterms then he’ll essentially be a lameduck president limping on to a brutal 2020 fight where the candidate isn’t going to be a massive liability like Shillary. The only thing he’ll be able to affect from then on will be foreign policy – but he already all but handed the keys to the neocons on that front.

    Trump is a dumb puppet and it’s really his advisors/handlers who run the show; Deep State + Jewish neocons(or their shabbos goyim, like Bolton) on foreign policy – and GOP lobbyists/Wall Street insiders on economic policy.

    “Draining the swamp”. Utter idiots.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  34. @Randal

    But Russia has promised that they will not allow an American attack against their Syrian allies.
     
    Iirc, the public promise was that attacks "that put Russian forces at risk" would be responded to. There's a lot of wiggle room there, regardless of how many embedded advisors there might be. I haven't seen a formal, open statement of military backing for Syrian government forces against US attacks. Please do let me know if I've missed one.

    Just letting you know, it awfully looks like a game of chicken.
     
    Indeed, and that's hardly news to me, but there's more than one way for a game of chicken to end.

    I'm not an advocate of US attacks on Russian or Syrian forces, so please do not paint me as one. I'm just pointing out that no attack has yet happened, and we do not know yet what the response will be if and when there is one.

    Iirc, the public promise was that attacks “that put Russian forces at risk” would be responded to.

    That is also my understanding.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  35. songbird says:
    @German_reader

    The trouble is that to achieve his policy goals, he effectively needs to complete a revolution.
     
    Stating that Trump has "policy goals" (in the sense of a coherent programme) seems like wishful thinking to me.
    All I can see in Trump is some vague resentment that the US is being ripped off and no longer the great country it was in his youth. He seems incapable though of coming to a coherent understanding why this is so, what needs to be changed and what genuine US national interests should be.
    He hasn't built a coherent movement either, there's no pool of talented, principled Trump loyalists that could be used to fill political positions.
    Trump probably won't achieve anything of worth in domestic matters, opposition is just too strong...the natural impulse will be for him to focus his attention on foreign threats and nuisances...ungrateful "free-riding" Europeans, Iranians, Russians, Chinese. Flag-waving US patriotards will be happy, and the Jewish and Sunni Arab special interest lobbies that seem to be influential with him will have their wishes fulfilled.

    I don’t fault your analysis. It is probably the perennial problem of the US, rather than a Trump problem per say, but there’s little doubt in my mind that, if it weren’t for their own nukes, and American support, Russia could roll the whole of pozzed Western Europe in a very short time.

    I’m not implying that anyone in Russia wants to, or they wouldn’t need to do a significant build up, but ultimately the rate of ground lost would be much higher than Poland experienced when it was attacked by two juggernauts in WW2. Why? Because the Poles were under-equipped and undermanned, not pozzed. Western Europe is now all three. They are not trench-fighters, the people who live there now. They’d buck at the idea of pushing dirt with a shovel.

    The German aversion to flags is truly deep-rooted and widespread. It is curious that you seem to feel it as strongly as Merkel. People hung US flags and waved them for decades when it was a “battleship in every cove.” Don’t misunderstand me, the flag has lost a lot of cachet to me, but that’s not because of regular people waving it, it’s because of politicians and the fact that America is being broken apart by said politicians, while they wave it. Imperialism doesn’t come from flag waving, though flags can be a camouflage to it and many other things .

    Read More
    • Replies: @German_reader

    Russia could roll the whole of pozzed Western Europe in a very short time.
     
    I'm in favour of some common European security structure, with sufficiently strong armed forces (and preferably nuclear weapons as well) for credible deterrence against Russia. I agree Western Europe is pozzed and the general lack of genuine patriotism bothers me immensely.

    The German aversion to flags is truly deep-rooted and widespread.
     
    I don't feel any loyalty to the federal republic as a system, given what it has led to and what its "values" are, I spit on its flag.
    Anyway, my issue isn't with the sentimental attachment of many Americans to their flag, but with braindead jingoism. Bombing Syria or engineering a confrontation with Iran may be great for Israel and Saudi-Arabia, I'm unconvinced it will improve the life of most Trump voters.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  36. @songbird
    I don't fault your analysis. It is probably the perennial problem of the US, rather than a Trump problem per say, but there's little doubt in my mind that, if it weren't for their own nukes, and American support, Russia could roll the whole of pozzed Western Europe in a very short time.

    I'm not implying that anyone in Russia wants to, or they wouldn't need to do a significant build up, but ultimately the rate of ground lost would be much higher than Poland experienced when it was attacked by two juggernauts in WW2. Why? Because the Poles were under-equipped and undermanned, not pozzed. Western Europe is now all three. They are not trench-fighters, the people who live there now. They'd buck at the idea of pushing dirt with a shovel.

    The German aversion to flags is truly deep-rooted and widespread. It is curious that you seem to feel it as strongly as Merkel. People hung US flags and waved them for decades when it was a "battleship in every cove." Don't misunderstand me, the flag has lost a lot of cachet to me, but that's not because of regular people waving it, it's because of politicians and the fact that America is being broken apart by said politicians, while they wave it. Imperialism doesn't come from flag waving, though flags can be a camouflage to it and many other things .

    Russia could roll the whole of pozzed Western Europe in a very short time.

    I’m in favour of some common European security structure, with sufficiently strong armed forces (and preferably nuclear weapons as well) for credible deterrence against Russia. I agree Western Europe is pozzed and the general lack of genuine patriotism bothers me immensely.

    The German aversion to flags is truly deep-rooted and widespread.

    I don’t feel any loyalty to the federal republic as a system, given what it has led to and what its “values” are, I spit on its flag.
    Anyway, my issue isn’t with the sentimental attachment of many Americans to their flag, but with braindead jingoism. Bombing Syria or engineering a confrontation with Iran may be great for Israel and Saudi-Arabia, I’m unconvinced it will improve the life of most Trump voters.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  37. Dmitry says:
    @Felix Keverich
    That's a lot of hogwash. Neoconservatism is a first and foremost a Jewish movement that serves Jewish goals. There is plenty of Zionist Jews in the Trump's administration (including his own son-in-law!), who are pushing Trump to confront Syria and Iran, because these countries are Israel's enemies, and the Jews want them destroyed.

    For all practical purposes neocons = Zionist Jews. This is definitely a neoconservative administration.

    That’s a lot of hogwash. Neoconservatism is a first and foremost a Jewish movement that serves Jewish goals. There is plenty of Zionist Jews in the Trump’s administration (including his own son-in-law!), who are pushing Trump to confront Syria and Iran, because these countries are Israel’s enemies, and the Jews want them destroyed.

    For all practical purposes neocons = Zionist Jews. This is definitely a neoconservative administration.

    If your argument is about Zionist Jews, then just call them Zionist Jews.

    You don’t need the label neo-conservative, which has a specific ideological meaning (US intervention to promote democracy abroad, clash of civilizations, Western ideological dominance, etc).

    But neoconservative ideology is very different to ideology in Israel (where they dream of Russia and China helping them, and try to make allies with dictatorships).

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  38. Dmitry says:
    @Randal

    We did not see any surprising actions from him, that were not expected since 2016.
     
    You say that, but I suspect that if challenged you will resort to claiming the things he has done or not done that were indeed not expected were actually "expected" based upon your own personal assumptions and understandings.

    In reality, while as I noted here a few days ago it's difficult to really pin him down to clear commitments, it was generally expected that he would not join in the neocon/militarist regime change conspiracy over Syria, which in the event he clearly has, at the least, allowed to continue, and arguably, with gratuitous actions such as responding with needless hysteria to supposed "chemical weapons attacks" and making wholly unnecessary threats, he has significantly enabled.

    He hasn’t done anything really inside Syria. He just does what he was saying in 2016 – about ‘bombing ISIS’ and that ‘he doesn’t like Assad, but he doesn’t like the opposition’.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Randal

    He hasn’t done anything really inside Syria. He just does what he was saying in 2016 – about ‘bombing ISIS’ and that ‘he doesn’t like Assad, but he doesn’t like the opposition’.
     
    No, this is false. US military policy in Syria under Trump in practice has been to continue the attempt to salvage as much as possible of the failed regime change objective.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  39. Dmitry says:
    @German_reader
    No, he's a f***ing idiot, and the time to make excuses for him is well past. These emotional Twitter outbursts over the deaths of foreigners (who are probably anti-Western anyway...why else would they be in a jihadi-controlled area? Why should we care if Assad gasses them, even when one assumes this isn't a false flag attack?) are the sign of a weak, immature and gullible mind, just pathetic.

    No, he’s a f***ing idiot, and the time to make excuses for him is well past. These emotional Twitter outbursts over the deaths of foreigners (who are probably anti-Western anyway…why else would they be in a jihadi-controlled area? Why should we care if Assad gasses them, even when one assumes this isn’t a false flag attack?) are the sign of a weak, immature and gullible mind, just pathetic.

    We are aware he is not Putin – or subtle, and diplomatically spoken person.

    But he is in an American context, and this cowboy style is what Americans voted for (and I believe will continue to vote for in 2020).

    The Twitter rants are usually when he wants to apply pressure in some area, and then he will try to get a concession. It’s his style for doing things all his life.

    He rants about Canada, Mexico, China, or Syria, or Russia. It’s because he wants a concession from them in some area.

    When voters elect him, they all know this and it’s what they wanted. He was openly saying he doesn’t like the traditional way of negotiating (which usually means with subtle diplomats and avoidance of public statements).

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  40. Dmitry says:
    @Thorfinnsson
    Corbyn seems likely to win the next UK election, though neoliberalism.txt is working overtime to delegitimize him as an "antisemite". A Corbyn government is likely to increase taxes and regulation, and also to nationalize some sectors of the economy (mainly rail, water, gas, and electricity).

    I am mostly a free market guy as well, but the Tories really deserve to get beaten.

    Despite skyrocketing crime they fired 20,000 police officers, and the bobbies still on the job are more concerned with arresting "racists" on Twitter than stopping Islamic grooming gangs. The UK has some of the most expensive housing in the world, yet housing construction is at its lowest level since the 1920s.

    May's handling of Brexit negotiations with the EU has also been pathetic.

    Then there's this embarrassing Skripal Affair they cooked up for some bizarre reason.

    A very, very badly governed island.

    Corbyn seems likely to win the next UK election, though neoliberalism.txt is working overtime to delegitimize him as an “antisemite”. A Corbyn government is likely to increase taxes and regulation, and also to nationalize some sectors of the economy (mainly rail, water, gas, and electricity).

    I am mostly a free market guy as well, but the Tories really deserve to get beaten.

    Despite skyrocketing crime they fired 20,000 police officers, and the bobbies still on the job are more concerned with arresting “racists” on Twitter than stopping Islamic grooming gangs. The UK has some of the most expensive housing in the world, yet housing construction is at its lowest level since the 1920s.

    May’s handling of Brexit negotiations with the EU has also been pathetic.

    Then there’s this embarrassing Skripal Affair they cooked up for some bizarre reason.

    A very, very badly governed island.

    Corbyn is the left-wing, socialist option? UK will be moving in the direction of the Islamic Socialist society.

    Whereas Conservatives, are like Merkel?

    In this case, I would vote for the UK Independence Party.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Thorfinnsson


    Corbyn is the left-wing, socialist option? UK will be moving in the direction of the Islamic Socialist society.
     
    Yes. Corbyn could be compared to Grudinin perhaps. He promotes an old-fashioned focus on working class economic issues as opposed to SJW liberalism and interventionism as represented by Tony Blair.

    Labour does of course depend on the invader vote, but Corbyn's attention to working class issues means he might try to reduce immigrant inflow.

    Whereas Conservatives, are like Merkel?
     
    More or less. The Conservatives used to have very sound people in their party in a faction called the Conservative Monday Club, but they've mostly been pushed out of the party now. There is one left named Jacob Rees Mogg who is a throwback to the 19th century upper class. It's possible he could replace May in the future.


    In this case, I would vote for the UK Independence Party.
     
    UKIP isn't a real nationalist party. There are even UKIP members like Daniel Hannan who want more immigration. Despite the BREXIT win nationalism is a lot weaker in Britain than on the Continent. The UK government has also established a police state to try to squash its growth.

    BREXIT itself was a bit silly. The English right long had a bizarre obsession with hating the European Union which they blamed for all sorts of foolish things actually undertaken by their own government. The country became "multicultural" for instance largely because of "imperial backwash" and later the policies of Tony Blair. Absolutely zero to do with the EU.

    The loss of the country's leading manufacturing companies was down mainly to idiotically going socialist after the war.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  41. Dmitry says:
    @Polish Perspective
    The complete collapse of the Trump cargo cult has been spectacularly fun to watch. People in the AR like Ricky Vaughn(to the extent he even is/was part of the AR) and others have been Trump's fanboys in overdrive the past year. I've watched with barely suppressed laughter as the Daily Stormer went from Nazi LARPers to normie Trumptards over the past six months.

    The more they cucked for Trump, the more Trump cucked them back. First the omnibus disaster and now this. No wall. Neocon foreign policy. Massive tax cuts and more gibs to Israel.

    We essentially have Bush III as president at this stage. It's long past people start internalising that. The Trumptards are the biggest idiots in the US and they deserve all the scorn they get.

    The complete collapse of the Trump cargo cult has been spectacularly fun to watch. People in the AR like Ricky Vaughn(to the extent he even is/was part of the AR) and others have

    As currently is the situation, Trump will be re-elected in 2020.

    We can talk in this again in 2020 and repost this page, if I’m right or wrong. But I’m sure his actions so far, are all very inline with what his electorate want – because it is all very similar to what I saw in his speeches in 2016 (the voters love that he is hated by the media, creates a kind of reality television spectacle, cuts taxes, promises trade tariffs, rants on Twitter about Mexicans and Chinese, or against Muslims, tries to build a wall, and that he is militaristic – which he has all fulfilled so far. along with economy growth in America which was around 2.3% last year).

    Read More
    • Replies: @Thorfinnsson


    As currently is the situation, Trump will be re-elected in 2020.

    We can talk in this again in 2020 and repost this page, if I’m right or wrong. But I’m sure his actions so far, are all very inline with what his electorate want – because it is all very similar to what I saw in his speeches in 2016 (the voters love that he is hated by the media, creates a kind of reality television spectacle, cuts taxes, promises trade tariffs, rants on Twitter about Mexicans and Chinese, or against Muslims, tries to build a wall, and that he is militaristic – which he has all fulfilled so far. along with economy growth in America which was around 2.3% last year).
     
    I think you are correct provided the economy doesn't slide into recession before 2020. Given that it's now in the middle of 2018 and the yield curve is not inverted, it seems unlikely there will be a recession before the next election.

    This means Americans will feel broadly prosperous for the first time since the late 1990s.

    The last incumbent President to be defeated in a reelection campaign with a strong economy was Howard Taft in 1912.

    To defeat Trump in 2020 they could perhaps run a cuckservative like Zog Gaysick (John Kasich) as a third party candidate to split the GOP vote.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  42. @Dmitry

    Corbyn seems likely to win the next UK election, though neoliberalism.txt is working overtime to delegitimize him as an “antisemite”. A Corbyn government is likely to increase taxes and regulation, and also to nationalize some sectors of the economy (mainly rail, water, gas, and electricity).

    I am mostly a free market guy as well, but the Tories really deserve to get beaten.

    Despite skyrocketing crime they fired 20,000 police officers, and the bobbies still on the job are more concerned with arresting “racists” on Twitter than stopping Islamic grooming gangs. The UK has some of the most expensive housing in the world, yet housing construction is at its lowest level since the 1920s.

    May’s handling of Brexit negotiations with the EU has also been pathetic.

    Then there’s this embarrassing Skripal Affair they cooked up for some bizarre reason.

    A very, very badly governed island.
     

    Corbyn is the left-wing, socialist option? UK will be moving in the direction of the Islamic Socialist society.

    Whereas Conservatives, are like Merkel?

    In this case, I would vote for the UK Independence Party.

    Corbyn is the left-wing, socialist option? UK will be moving in the direction of the Islamic Socialist society.

    Yes. Corbyn could be compared to Grudinin perhaps. He promotes an old-fashioned focus on working class economic issues as opposed to SJW liberalism and interventionism as represented by Tony Blair.

    Labour does of course depend on the invader vote, but Corbyn’s attention to working class issues means he might try to reduce immigrant inflow.

    Whereas Conservatives, are like Merkel?

    More or less. The Conservatives used to have very sound people in their party in a faction called the Conservative Monday Club, but they’ve mostly been pushed out of the party now. There is one left named Jacob Rees Mogg who is a throwback to the 19th century upper class. It’s possible he could replace May in the future.

    In this case, I would vote for the UK Independence Party.

    UKIP isn’t a real nationalist party. There are even UKIP members like Daniel Hannan who want more immigration. Despite the BREXIT win nationalism is a lot weaker in Britain than on the Continent. The UK government has also established a police state to try to squash its growth.

    BREXIT itself was a bit silly. The English right long had a bizarre obsession with hating the European Union which they blamed for all sorts of foolish things actually undertaken by their own government. The country became “multicultural” for instance largely because of “imperial backwash” and later the policies of Tony Blair. Absolutely zero to do with the EU.

    The loss of the country’s leading manufacturing companies was down mainly to idiotically going socialist after the war.

    Read More
    • Replies: @DFH

    He promotes an old-fashioned focus on working class economic issues as opposed to SJW liberalism and interventionism as represented by Tony Blair.
     
    Not 'as opposed to' SJW ideas, he is as on board as you can be with all of those issues. Nothing at all to indicate he wants to reduce extra-European immigration.

    There are even UKIP members like Daniel Hannan who want more immigration
     
    Daniel Hannan isn't a UKIP member, he's a Conservative. UKIP are obviously far, far more anti-immigration than any other UK party which might get any elected representatives.
    , @Dmitry
    In my simplistic view.

    The Conservative Party would be good for economics, but maybe still bad for culture/immigration.

    The Corbyn would be bad for economics and bad for culture/immigration (the only way he might reduce Islamist sector is by turning the country into an economic recession that would scare everyone away, including native British people. Otherwise, he seems to even excuse the Islamist bombing in Ariana Grande Concert).

    The Liberal Democrat Party - according to Wikipedia - is based more on environmentalism and progressive taxation (it's not a classical liberal/neoliberal party). So a bad choice.

    The UK Independence Party seems closer to the classical liberal viewpoint.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UK_Independence_Party#Economic_policy

    So this is the Party I would be supportive.

    Obviously the UK is a country with a huge amount of potential, but they would need to make their policies more similar to Switzerland, with low tax, as well as not to endanger their investment climate with ridiculous policies (such as the hysteria against Russian investors in the UK).

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  43. @Dmitry

    The complete collapse of the Trump cargo cult has been spectacularly fun to watch. People in the AR like Ricky Vaughn(to the extent he even is/was part of the AR) and others have
     
    As currently is the situation, Trump will be re-elected in 2020.

    We can talk in this again in 2020 and repost this page, if I'm right or wrong. But I'm sure his actions so far, are all very inline with what his electorate want - because it is all very similar to what I saw in his speeches in 2016 (the voters love that he is hated by the media, creates a kind of reality television spectacle, cuts taxes, promises trade tariffs, rants on Twitter about Mexicans and Chinese, or against Muslims, tries to build a wall, and that he is militaristic - which he has all fulfilled so far. along with economy growth in America which was around 2.3% last year).

    As currently is the situation, Trump will be re-elected in 2020.

    We can talk in this again in 2020 and repost this page, if I’m right or wrong. But I’m sure his actions so far, are all very inline with what his electorate want – because it is all very similar to what I saw in his speeches in 2016 (the voters love that he is hated by the media, creates a kind of reality television spectacle, cuts taxes, promises trade tariffs, rants on Twitter about Mexicans and Chinese, or against Muslims, tries to build a wall, and that he is militaristic – which he has all fulfilled so far. along with economy growth in America which was around 2.3% last year).

    I think you are correct provided the economy doesn’t slide into recession before 2020. Given that it’s now in the middle of 2018 and the yield curve is not inverted, it seems unlikely there will be a recession before the next election.

    This means Americans will feel broadly prosperous for the first time since the late 1990s.

    The last incumbent President to be defeated in a reelection campaign with a strong economy was Howard Taft in 1912.

    To defeat Trump in 2020 they could perhaps run a cuckservative like Zog Gaysick (John Kasich) as a third party candidate to split the GOP vote.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  44. DFH says:
    @Thorfinnsson


    Corbyn is the left-wing, socialist option? UK will be moving in the direction of the Islamic Socialist society.
     
    Yes. Corbyn could be compared to Grudinin perhaps. He promotes an old-fashioned focus on working class economic issues as opposed to SJW liberalism and interventionism as represented by Tony Blair.

    Labour does of course depend on the invader vote, but Corbyn's attention to working class issues means he might try to reduce immigrant inflow.

    Whereas Conservatives, are like Merkel?
     
    More or less. The Conservatives used to have very sound people in their party in a faction called the Conservative Monday Club, but they've mostly been pushed out of the party now. There is one left named Jacob Rees Mogg who is a throwback to the 19th century upper class. It's possible he could replace May in the future.


    In this case, I would vote for the UK Independence Party.
     
    UKIP isn't a real nationalist party. There are even UKIP members like Daniel Hannan who want more immigration. Despite the BREXIT win nationalism is a lot weaker in Britain than on the Continent. The UK government has also established a police state to try to squash its growth.

    BREXIT itself was a bit silly. The English right long had a bizarre obsession with hating the European Union which they blamed for all sorts of foolish things actually undertaken by their own government. The country became "multicultural" for instance largely because of "imperial backwash" and later the policies of Tony Blair. Absolutely zero to do with the EU.

    The loss of the country's leading manufacturing companies was down mainly to idiotically going socialist after the war.

    He promotes an old-fashioned focus on working class economic issues as opposed to SJW liberalism and interventionism as represented by Tony Blair.

    Not ‘as opposed to’ SJW ideas, he is as on board as you can be with all of those issues. Nothing at all to indicate he wants to reduce extra-European immigration.

    There are even UKIP members like Daniel Hannan who want more immigration

    Daniel Hannan isn’t a UKIP member, he’s a Conservative. UKIP are obviously far, far more anti-immigration than any other UK party which might get any elected representatives.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Thorfinnsson


    Not ‘as opposed to’ SJW ideas, he is as on board as you can be with all of those issues. Nothing at all to indicate he wants to reduce extra-European immigration.
     
    Fair correction.

    None the less I think it's noteworthy how relentlessly he focuses on pocketbook matters.

    Compare to, say, Hillary Clinton:

    http://inthesetimes.com/images/made/images/Hillary_Clinton_Banks_Racism_Sexism_Wall_Street_Presidential_campaign_2016_850_593.jpg

    Corbyn just doesn't seem like he'd pull a Blair simply because it would harm workers, whom he genuinely does care about.

    Daniel Hannan isn’t a UKIP member, he’s a Conservative. UKIP are obviously far, far more anti-immigration than any other UK party which might get any elected representatives.
     
    Not sure why I got the idea he was UKIP, thanks.

    The "success" of BREXIT is sure to make UKIP more nationalist on other issues as well, as they can very well run on leaving the EU anymore.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  45. Dmitry says:
    @Thorfinnsson


    Corbyn is the left-wing, socialist option? UK will be moving in the direction of the Islamic Socialist society.
     
    Yes. Corbyn could be compared to Grudinin perhaps. He promotes an old-fashioned focus on working class economic issues as opposed to SJW liberalism and interventionism as represented by Tony Blair.

    Labour does of course depend on the invader vote, but Corbyn's attention to working class issues means he might try to reduce immigrant inflow.

    Whereas Conservatives, are like Merkel?
     
    More or less. The Conservatives used to have very sound people in their party in a faction called the Conservative Monday Club, but they've mostly been pushed out of the party now. There is one left named Jacob Rees Mogg who is a throwback to the 19th century upper class. It's possible he could replace May in the future.


    In this case, I would vote for the UK Independence Party.
     
    UKIP isn't a real nationalist party. There are even UKIP members like Daniel Hannan who want more immigration. Despite the BREXIT win nationalism is a lot weaker in Britain than on the Continent. The UK government has also established a police state to try to squash its growth.

    BREXIT itself was a bit silly. The English right long had a bizarre obsession with hating the European Union which they blamed for all sorts of foolish things actually undertaken by their own government. The country became "multicultural" for instance largely because of "imperial backwash" and later the policies of Tony Blair. Absolutely zero to do with the EU.

    The loss of the country's leading manufacturing companies was down mainly to idiotically going socialist after the war.

    In my simplistic view.

    The Conservative Party would be good for economics, but maybe still bad for culture/immigration.

    The Corbyn would be bad for economics and bad for culture/immigration (the only way he might reduce Islamist sector is by turning the country into an economic recession that would scare everyone away, including native British people. Otherwise, he seems to even excuse the Islamist bombing in Ariana Grande Concert).

    The Liberal Democrat Party – according to Wikipedia – is based more on environmentalism and progressive taxation (it’s not a classical liberal/neoliberal party). So a bad choice.

    The UK Independence Party seems closer to the classical liberal viewpoint.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UK_Independence_Party#Economic_policy

    So this is the Party I would be supportive.

    Obviously the UK is a country with a huge amount of potential, but they would need to make their policies more similar to Switzerland, with low tax, as well as not to endanger their investment climate with ridiculous policies (such as the hysteria against Russian investors in the UK).

    Read More
    • Replies: @Thorfinnsson


    In my simplistic view.

    The Conservative Party would be good for economics, but maybe still bad for culture/immigration.

    The Corbyn would be bad for economics and bad for culture/immigration (the only way he might reduce Islamist sector is by turning the country into an economic recession that would scare everyone away, including native British people. Otherwise, he seems to even excuse the Islamist bombing in Ariana Grande Concert).

    The Liberal Democrat Party – according to Wikipedia – is based more on environmentalism and progressive taxation (it’s not a classical liberal/neoliberal party). So a bad choice.

    The UK Independence Party seems closer to the classical liberal viewpoint.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UK_Independence_Party#Economic_policy

    So this is the Party I would be supportive.
     
    The benefits of liberal/neoliberal economics are a bit oversold. Notice that the UK, France, and Germany all have very similar per capita gross domestic products. The UK is much more neoliberal than Germany which is in turn more neoliberal than France.

    The Nordic countries have some of the highest tax rates in the world, but they are all very wealthy.

    Of course my personal class interests are in favor of low tax rates, so I favor them regardless. At any rate low taxes are not harmful, unless they're so low the state becomes fiscally unsustainable.

    Corbyn in theory could result in a short term economic boost simply because of the stimulative impact of government spending. In the long term he would be harmful, particularly if he follows through on threats to attack the City.

    Britain has two fundamental economic problems. One is that its manufacturing sector is too small. Two is that its labor productivity is too low--something like one quarter lower than France and Germany. They make up the difference by working more hours.

    Like America, Britain also runs a chronic balance of payments deficit. Hence why more and more of London is owned by foreigners, along with the entire automotive industry in the country.

    I don't see that any parties in Britain have a plan to tackle either of these problems.

    Obviously the UK is a country with a huge amount of potential, but they would need to make their policies more similar to Switzerland, with low tax, as well as not to endanger their investment climate with ridiculous policies (such as the hysteria against Russian investors in the UK).
     
    There is certainly a lot of potential. Britain's professional services sector is the best in Europe, and BREXIT provides an opportunity to make to increase its dominance.

    But there are risks as well if BREXIT is handled poorly or not capitalized on.

    Britain also has one of the better tech scenes in Europe.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  46. @DFH

    He promotes an old-fashioned focus on working class economic issues as opposed to SJW liberalism and interventionism as represented by Tony Blair.
     
    Not 'as opposed to' SJW ideas, he is as on board as you can be with all of those issues. Nothing at all to indicate he wants to reduce extra-European immigration.

    There are even UKIP members like Daniel Hannan who want more immigration
     
    Daniel Hannan isn't a UKIP member, he's a Conservative. UKIP are obviously far, far more anti-immigration than any other UK party which might get any elected representatives.

    Not ‘as opposed to’ SJW ideas, he is as on board as you can be with all of those issues. Nothing at all to indicate he wants to reduce extra-European immigration.

    Fair correction.

    None the less I think it’s noteworthy how relentlessly he focuses on pocketbook matters.

    Compare to, say, Hillary Clinton:

    Corbyn just doesn’t seem like he’d pull a Blair simply because it would harm workers, whom he genuinely does care about.

    Daniel Hannan isn’t a UKIP member, he’s a Conservative. UKIP are obviously far, far more anti-immigration than any other UK party which might get any elected representatives.

    Not sure why I got the idea he was UKIP, thanks.

    The “success” of BREXIT is sure to make UKIP more nationalist on other issues as well, as they can very well run on leaving the EU anymore.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  47. @Dmitry
    In my simplistic view.

    The Conservative Party would be good for economics, but maybe still bad for culture/immigration.

    The Corbyn would be bad for economics and bad for culture/immigration (the only way he might reduce Islamist sector is by turning the country into an economic recession that would scare everyone away, including native British people. Otherwise, he seems to even excuse the Islamist bombing in Ariana Grande Concert).

    The Liberal Democrat Party - according to Wikipedia - is based more on environmentalism and progressive taxation (it's not a classical liberal/neoliberal party). So a bad choice.

    The UK Independence Party seems closer to the classical liberal viewpoint.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UK_Independence_Party#Economic_policy

    So this is the Party I would be supportive.

    Obviously the UK is a country with a huge amount of potential, but they would need to make their policies more similar to Switzerland, with low tax, as well as not to endanger their investment climate with ridiculous policies (such as the hysteria against Russian investors in the UK).

    In my simplistic view.

    The Conservative Party would be good for economics, but maybe still bad for culture/immigration.

    The Corbyn would be bad for economics and bad for culture/immigration (the only way he might reduce Islamist sector is by turning the country into an economic recession that would scare everyone away, including native British people. Otherwise, he seems to even excuse the Islamist bombing in Ariana Grande Concert).

    The Liberal Democrat Party – according to Wikipedia – is based more on environmentalism and progressive taxation (it’s not a classical liberal/neoliberal party). So a bad choice.

    The UK Independence Party seems closer to the classical liberal viewpoint.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UK_Independence_Party#Economic_policy

    So this is the Party I would be supportive.

    The benefits of liberal/neoliberal economics are a bit oversold. Notice that the UK, France, and Germany all have very similar per capita gross domestic products. The UK is much more neoliberal than Germany which is in turn more neoliberal than France.

    The Nordic countries have some of the highest tax rates in the world, but they are all very wealthy.

    Of course my personal class interests are in favor of low tax rates, so I favor them regardless. At any rate low taxes are not harmful, unless they’re so low the state becomes fiscally unsustainable.

    Corbyn in theory could result in a short term economic boost simply because of the stimulative impact of government spending. In the long term he would be harmful, particularly if he follows through on threats to attack the City.

    Britain has two fundamental economic problems. One is that its manufacturing sector is too small. Two is that its labor productivity is too low–something like one quarter lower than France and Germany. They make up the difference by working more hours.

    Like America, Britain also runs a chronic balance of payments deficit. Hence why more and more of London is owned by foreigners, along with the entire automotive industry in the country.

    I don’t see that any parties in Britain have a plan to tackle either of these problems.

    Obviously the UK is a country with a huge amount of potential, but they would need to make their policies more similar to Switzerland, with low tax, as well as not to endanger their investment climate with ridiculous policies (such as the hysteria against Russian investors in the UK).

    There is certainly a lot of potential. Britain’s professional services sector is the best in Europe, and BREXIT provides an opportunity to make to increase its dominance.

    But there are risks as well if BREXIT is handled poorly or not capitalized on.

    Britain also has one of the better tech scenes in Europe.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Dmitry

    The benefits of liberal/neoliberal economics are a bit oversold. Notice that the UK, France, and Germany all have very similar per capita gross domestic products. The UK is much more neoliberal than Germany which is in turn more neoliberal than France.

     

    There's very strong evidence that tax cuts lead to lasting economic growth

    There is also an international component of competition in areas like corporate tax - a large part of Ireland's economic miracle is simply due to their having lowest corporate taxes in the EU region.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  48. LondonBob says:

    My expectations for Trump were low, he is basically on his own. Perhaps ten percent of the Senate and thirty percent of the House support him, the media despise him, the lobbyists detest him and we have the unprecedented Obama spying shenanigans. He is a lame duck who has done some good things whilst not doing a lot of dumb stuff others would have.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  49. Anon[205] • Disclaimer says:
    @Polish Perspective
    The complete collapse of the Trump cargo cult has been spectacularly fun to watch. People in the AR like Ricky Vaughn(to the extent he even is/was part of the AR) and others have been Trump's fanboys in overdrive the past year. I've watched with barely suppressed laughter as the Daily Stormer went from Nazi LARPers to normie Trumptards over the past six months.

    The more they cucked for Trump, the more Trump cucked them back. First the omnibus disaster and now this. No wall. Neocon foreign policy. Massive tax cuts and more gibs to Israel.

    We essentially have Bush III as president at this stage. It's long past people start internalising that. The Trumptards are the biggest idiots in the US and they deserve all the scorn they get.

    I never liked the 1488ers much either, but I’m trying to figure out what these people hope to realistically hope to achieve with their new strategy. If the plan is, as I understand it, to suck up to Trump on the internet and wrap themselves in the American flag thinking it will give them clout to eventually infiltrate the GOP and turn it into a crypto-white nationalist party, it’s pretty comically naive.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  50. @German_reader
    No, he's a f***ing idiot, and the time to make excuses for him is well past. These emotional Twitter outbursts over the deaths of foreigners (who are probably anti-Western anyway...why else would they be in a jihadi-controlled area? Why should we care if Assad gasses them, even when one assumes this isn't a false flag attack?) are the sign of a weak, immature and gullible mind, just pathetic.

    Senility hit him hard.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  51. @Singh
    Regarding others

    So what should Trump get on international stage and say the Jews are behind chemical weapons attacks?

    We can finally get out Pepe president but he'll be in jail

    Other than that he hasn't literally no non liberal advisors nor men really loyal to him in any state apparatus. The hope is that after winning midterms he's starts purging on way to reelection.

    If he loses midterms then w/e west is fucked good for you for trying to push feminism on other countries for nigh on 2 centuries. You deserved Hillary

    Europe will survive due to Putin & anglo sphere can fuck itself. Pagan Anglos will just take refuge in Himalaya like before end of ice age।।

    He could simply send it to the UN for it to be bogged into procedures. The Uneffectual Nonsense serves an incredible purpose for kicking cans into oblivion.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  52. Mr. Hack says:

    Meanwhile, Egor Kholmogorov is on point, as usual: “I still don’t understand why Novorossiya wasn’t worth war, while a fake chemical chemical attack on Skripal and the bearded ones – was. We warned you that all attempts to “de-escalate” would lead to this.“

    on point

    Anatoly?

    On rare occasion you reveal your own unmeasured disdain and disrespect for Ukraine and its people! Putin got what he could, and no more. The ‘Novorossija’ project had very little support in the South Eastern parts of Ukraine, where it should have garnered much greater support in order to prevail. Attempts were made to stir things up there against the Kyivan center – all to no avail. The ‘Novorossija’ project fizzled out without a whimper. It’s time for you to part ways with your listless dreams and face reality.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anatoly Karlin
    Putin got the worst of all worlds - no territorial expansion and assuredly increasing sanctions from the West every time he launches a chemical weapons attaq against the Last Hospital In Syria (TM).

    Had the Novorossiya project been actually implemented, Putin would be as popular/domestically secure as he is today, and East/South Ukraine would be Russian, with enthusiasm ranging from very high in Donbass, Kharkov, and Odessa, to 50/50 (but still more so than, say, amongst the Chechens and Crimean Tatars) in Dnepropetrovsk and Zaporozhye.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  53. @Mr. Hack

    Meanwhile, Egor Kholmogorov is on point, as usual: “I still don’t understand why Novorossiya wasn’t worth war, while a fake chemical chemical attack on Skripal and the bearded ones – was. We warned you that all attempts to “de-escalate” would lead to this.“
     

    on point
     
    Anatoly?

    On rare occasion you reveal your own unmeasured disdain and disrespect for Ukraine and its people! Putin got what he could, and no more. The 'Novorossija' project had very little support in the South Eastern parts of Ukraine, where it should have garnered much greater support in order to prevail. Attempts were made to stir things up there against the Kyivan center - all to no avail. The 'Novorossija' project fizzled out without a whimper. It's time for you to part ways with your listless dreams and face reality.

    Putin got the worst of all worlds – no territorial expansion and assuredly increasing sanctions from the West every time he launches a chemical weapons attaq against the Last Hospital In Syria (TM).

    Had the Novorossiya project been actually implemented, Putin would be as popular/domestically secure as he is today, and East/South Ukraine would be Russian, with enthusiasm ranging from very high in Donbass, Kharkov, and Odessa, to 50/50 (but still more so than, say, amongst the Chechens and Crimean Tatars) in Dnepropetrovsk and Zaporozhye.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Mr. Hack

    Had the Novorossiya project been actually implemented, Putin would be as popular/domestically secure as he is today, and East/South Ukraine would be Russian, with enthusiasm ranging from very high in Donbass, Kharkov, and Odessa, to 50/50 (but still more so than, say, amongst the Chechens and Crimean Tatars) in Dnepropetrovsk and Zaporozhye.
     
    Total nonsense. You'd need the support of more than older, unemployed sovok types to successfully carry through such an operation. As far as Putin not acquiring more territory, your views reflect the thinking of somebody still caught up in a 19th century timewarp. Great powers today dominate smaller ones economically and culturally. Military conquest only works if you have the softpower to suport it, and it appears that Russia didn't have what it takes in 2014. It's 2018, the Novorosija project is more dormant than ever. Read: http://www.unz.com/akarlin/ukrotriumph/

    To examine the level of support for this secessionist imaginary in the targeted oblasts, our large scientific poll in December 2014 revealed the Novorossiya project had minority support, between 20 and 25% of the population. About half of the sample believed that the concept of Novorossiya was a “historical myth” and that its resuscitation and promotion was the result of “Russian political technologies.” Analysis of the responses by socio-demographic categories indicated that for ethnic Russians, residents of the oblasts of Kharkiv and Odesa, for older and poorer residents, and especially for those who retain a nostalgic positive opinion about the Soviet Union, the motivations and aims of the Novorossiya project had significant support.
     
    https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/1060586X.2016.1146452
    , @Dmitry

    Had the Novorossiya project been actually implemented, Putin would be as popular/domestically secure as he is today, and East/South Ukraine would be Russian, with enthusiasm ranging from very high in Donbass, Kharkov, and Odessa, to 50/50 (but still more so than, say, amongst the Chechens and Crimean Tatars) in Dnepropetrovsk and Zaporozhye.
     
    Assuming this is true - then the question moves to would the money/economic costs and dead would be worth it? I doubt it.

    I'd just focus on the economic opportunity costs. Every government project has an opportunity cost, and the opportunity cost for this kind of extravagant venture is not really reconcilable with wanting more investment in universities and science that we were talking about earlier.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  54. Mr. Hack says:
    @Anatoly Karlin
    Putin got the worst of all worlds - no territorial expansion and assuredly increasing sanctions from the West every time he launches a chemical weapons attaq against the Last Hospital In Syria (TM).

    Had the Novorossiya project been actually implemented, Putin would be as popular/domestically secure as he is today, and East/South Ukraine would be Russian, with enthusiasm ranging from very high in Donbass, Kharkov, and Odessa, to 50/50 (but still more so than, say, amongst the Chechens and Crimean Tatars) in Dnepropetrovsk and Zaporozhye.

    Had the Novorossiya project been actually implemented, Putin would be as popular/domestically secure as he is today, and East/South Ukraine would be Russian, with enthusiasm ranging from very high in Donbass, Kharkov, and Odessa, to 50/50 (but still more so than, say, amongst the Chechens and Crimean Tatars) in Dnepropetrovsk and Zaporozhye.

    Total nonsense. You’d need the support of more than older, unemployed sovok types to successfully carry through such an operation. As far as Putin not acquiring more territory, your views reflect the thinking of somebody still caught up in a 19th century timewarp. Great powers today dominate smaller ones economically and culturally. Military conquest only works if you have the softpower to suport it, and it appears that Russia didn’t have what it takes in 2014. It’s 2018, the Novorosija project is more dormant than ever. Read: http://www.unz.com/akarlin/ukrotriumph/

    To examine the level of support for this secessionist imaginary in the targeted oblasts, our large scientific poll in December 2014 revealed the Novorossiya project had minority support, between 20 and 25% of the population. About half of the sample believed that the concept of Novorossiya was a “historical myth” and that its resuscitation and promotion was the result of “Russian political technologies.” Analysis of the responses by socio-demographic categories indicated that for ethnic Russians, residents of the oblasts of Kharkiv and Odesa, for older and poorer residents, and especially for those who retain a nostalgic positive opinion about the Soviet Union, the motivations and aims of the Novorossiya project had significant support.

    https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/1060586X.2016.1146452

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  55. @German_reader
    Haha, so much for "Trump is really smart and fighting the Deep state, don't worry!".

    what do you want Trump to do? He at least said he wants to leave. With anybody else the US would already have 50k troops in Syria by now.

    This is the first time I’ve ever bought the “false flag” thing. The timing is just too convenient for the rebels and too horrible for Assad.

    The Deep State definitely taught Trump a lesson on this one. That’s for sure.

    note: I have never predicted a US withdrawal from Syria. Only that the US wouldn’t attack Iran.

    Read More
    • Replies: @German_reader

    what do you want Trump to do?
     
    Keep his stupid mouth shut and not twitter such imbecile nonsense about "animal" Assad gassing innocent little kiddoes, let alone threaten military action that might end in a military confrontation with Russia? We avoided that for 50 years when the Red army occupied half of Europe, how fucking grotesque is it that one can risk something like this over Syria which is of ZERO importance to any sane European or American? Compared with this idiocy the people who made the decisions in 1914 look downright rational to me, and we know how that ended.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  56. @Greasy William
    what do you want Trump to do? He at least said he wants to leave. With anybody else the US would already have 50k troops in Syria by now.

    ...

    This is the first time I've ever bought the "false flag" thing. The timing is just too convenient for the rebels and too horrible for Assad.

    The Deep State definitely taught Trump a lesson on this one. That's for sure.

    note: I have never predicted a US withdrawal from Syria. Only that the US wouldn't attack Iran.

    what do you want Trump to do?

    Keep his stupid mouth shut and not twitter such imbecile nonsense about “animal” Assad gassing innocent little kiddoes, let alone threaten military action that might end in a military confrontation with Russia? We avoided that for 50 years when the Red army occupied half of Europe, how fucking grotesque is it that one can risk something like this over Syria which is of ZERO importance to any sane European or American? Compared with this idiocy the people who made the decisions in 1914 look downright rational to me, and we know how that ended.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Greasy William
    Do you want Assad to stay in power? That ONLY happens with Trump in office.

    ANY other US President and Assad is gone, and Russia will not be able to prevent it.


    When America is destroyed in 20 years then you can worry about mean tweets. But for now Trump is the best you are gonna do.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  57. @German_reader

    what do you want Trump to do?
     
    Keep his stupid mouth shut and not twitter such imbecile nonsense about "animal" Assad gassing innocent little kiddoes, let alone threaten military action that might end in a military confrontation with Russia? We avoided that for 50 years when the Red army occupied half of Europe, how fucking grotesque is it that one can risk something like this over Syria which is of ZERO importance to any sane European or American? Compared with this idiocy the people who made the decisions in 1914 look downright rational to me, and we know how that ended.

    Do you want Assad to stay in power? That ONLY happens with Trump in office.

    ANY other US President and Assad is gone, and Russia will not be able to prevent it.

    When America is destroyed in 20 years then you can worry about mean tweets. But for now Trump is the best you are gonna do.

    Read More
    • Replies: @German_reader

    When America is destroyed in 20 years then you can worry about mean tweets.
     
    Trump can write his stupid tweets about domestic opponents, when he threatens other countries (including a great power with enough nukes to blow up the planet) with a "big price to pay", it stops being funny.
    And given the people he's surrounded himself with, and the general lunacy of other prominent US politicians (e.g. Tom Cotton: "As the sparrow cannot fall without the Father, so too Assad cannot launch chemical attacks without Iran and Russia. All three should pay for their barbarism") it's not like there will be any constraints on him when he orders military strikes, quite the opposite.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  58. @Greasy William
    Do you want Assad to stay in power? That ONLY happens with Trump in office.

    ANY other US President and Assad is gone, and Russia will not be able to prevent it.


    When America is destroyed in 20 years then you can worry about mean tweets. But for now Trump is the best you are gonna do.

    When America is destroyed in 20 years then you can worry about mean tweets.

    Trump can write his stupid tweets about domestic opponents, when he threatens other countries (including a great power with enough nukes to blow up the planet) with a “big price to pay”, it stops being funny.
    And given the people he’s surrounded himself with, and the general lunacy of other prominent US politicians (e.g. Tom Cotton: “As the sparrow cannot fall without the Father, so too Assad cannot launch chemical attacks without Iran and Russia. All three should pay for their barbarism“) it’s not like there will be any constraints on him when he orders military strikes, quite the opposite.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Greasy William
    Yes Trump is an idiot and he is making things worse with his non stop idiotic statements. What do you think us in America have been dealing with the for last 3 years?

    The real question is: what do you want? I want to stop immigration. You want to prevent regime change in Syria.

    Well just like Trump is my best hope of getting rid of the immigrants, Trump is your best hope, your ONLY hope of keeping Assad in power. In fact, things might be so bad that he is your only hope of avoiding WWIII.

    Here's the deal: there is one man in the US government/deep state now who doesn't want to remove Assad and that is Donald Trump. The CIA wants Assad out, the military wants Assad out, the Senate wants Assad out, the US media wants Assad out, the Western European governments want Assad out and the US allies in the region want Assad out. Trump is one man taking on massive powerful forces.

    The tougher Trump talks, the more breathing room he has not to do something stupid. Even though it's early, I think that Douma was a false flag in retaliation for what Trump said about pulling the US out of the Kurdish regions. As dumb as Trump is, he understands that this was a false flag and he understands exactly why it happened. So Trump spouted off to show that he got the message.

    There are basically two options going forward:

    1. Trump stays on and manages to deescalate the situation.

    2. Somebody else takes over and the US immediately launches "Operation Iraqi Freedom II: Syrian Version."

    A pro Syrian/Russian President is simply an impossibility in the 2018 USA. We need to take what we can get.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  59. @German_reader

    When America is destroyed in 20 years then you can worry about mean tweets.
     
    Trump can write his stupid tweets about domestic opponents, when he threatens other countries (including a great power with enough nukes to blow up the planet) with a "big price to pay", it stops being funny.
    And given the people he's surrounded himself with, and the general lunacy of other prominent US politicians (e.g. Tom Cotton: "As the sparrow cannot fall without the Father, so too Assad cannot launch chemical attacks without Iran and Russia. All three should pay for their barbarism") it's not like there will be any constraints on him when he orders military strikes, quite the opposite.

    Yes Trump is an idiot and he is making things worse with his non stop idiotic statements. What do you think us in America have been dealing with the for last 3 years?

    The real question is: what do you want? I want to stop immigration. You want to prevent regime change in Syria.

    Well just like Trump is my best hope of getting rid of the immigrants, Trump is your best hope, your ONLY hope of keeping Assad in power. In fact, things might be so bad that he is your only hope of avoiding WWIII.

    Here’s the deal: there is one man in the US government/deep state now who doesn’t want to remove Assad and that is Donald Trump. The CIA wants Assad out, the military wants Assad out, the Senate wants Assad out, the US media wants Assad out, the Western European governments want Assad out and the US allies in the region want Assad out. Trump is one man taking on massive powerful forces.

    The tougher Trump talks, the more breathing room he has not to do something stupid. Even though it’s early, I think that Douma was a false flag in retaliation for what Trump said about pulling the US out of the Kurdish regions. As dumb as Trump is, he understands that this was a false flag and he understands exactly why it happened. So Trump spouted off to show that he got the message.

    There are basically two options going forward:

    1. Trump stays on and manages to deescalate the situation.

    2. Somebody else takes over and the US immediately launches “Operation Iraqi Freedom II: Syrian Version.”

    A pro Syrian/Russian President is simply an impossibility in the 2018 USA. We need to take what we can get.

    Read More
    • Replies: @German_reader

    Trump is one man taking on massive powerful forces.
     
    That's just fantasy and wishful thinking.

    The tougher Trump talks, the more breathing room he has not to do something stupid.
     
    How is that supposed to work? If he doesn't follow up on his dumb Twitter threats, he's looking weak, and that's obviously one of the things he fears the most.

    A pro Syrian/Russian President is simply an impossibility in the 2018 USA
     
    .

    Who's even suggesting the US president should be "pro-Syrian" or "pro-Russian"? Merely taking an attitude of "Syria is a mess, let's not get involved any deeper, escalating tensions with Russia over non-essential issues is dumb and dangerous" would be enough.
    , @Dmitry
    Trump policy on Syria not really different to Obama policy on Syria, and Iraq - i.e. no real policy.

    Also Putin doesn't really have a long term strategy or thinking.

    Probably, Iran and Turkey are the ones which are most intelligent in this area, which we will see a decade from now. They're Middle Easterners and don't plan on leaving.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  60. Bliss says:

    If the chemical attack was a false flag how did they do it and get away with it?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Thorfinnsson
    A $700 billion "defense" budget, 16 or so intelligence agencies, over one million people with top secret clearance, and God knows what stockpiles of black money can pay for quite a lot of trickery with little to no oversight. This is the same Pentagon that can't account for something like $3 trillion in expenditures. Unearthing dweeb state shenanigans generally requires an expensive, time consuming investigation pushed by an outraged Congress.

    The Iran Contra Scandal is a good example here. Was only unearthed after a cargo aircraft carrying arms for Iran accidentally strayed into Soviet airspace. Woops.

    There are even more disturbing aborted examples such as Operation Northwoods, when the Joint Chiefs of Staff seriously proposed to President Kennedy that false flag terrorist attacks be carried out in America to justify an invasion of Cuba.

    We already have it on record that the State Department for instance, at the beginning of the Trump Administration, used leaks to the enemy media and Congress in order to sabotage the Administration's goal for detente with Russia. Certainly not implausible that their counterparts in the Pentagon or CIA would do the same to sabotage efforts to leave Syria.

    And that's just in the USA. The USA has a vast network of allies and client states around the world. Many of these countries have little to no transparency in government actions, and quite a few don't even have elections or a free press. Saudi Arabia and the UAE for instance have plenty of money and few internal political constraints on regime actions.

    The chemical weapons employed in these attacks are not sophisticated and can generally be made in many countries, and some chemical weapons are available as civilian products (for instance, chlorine). It's quite possible that chemical weapons possessed by the USA during the Cold War and allegedly destroyed were in fact diverted to secret stockpiles. Who knows.

    Then you just need to get it in theater, and that's easy enough: Israel. Get some mercenaries with ex-Soviet equipment to do the deed, and after that just fire up the propaganda machine.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  61. @Greasy William
    Yes Trump is an idiot and he is making things worse with his non stop idiotic statements. What do you think us in America have been dealing with the for last 3 years?

    The real question is: what do you want? I want to stop immigration. You want to prevent regime change in Syria.

    Well just like Trump is my best hope of getting rid of the immigrants, Trump is your best hope, your ONLY hope of keeping Assad in power. In fact, things might be so bad that he is your only hope of avoiding WWIII.

    Here's the deal: there is one man in the US government/deep state now who doesn't want to remove Assad and that is Donald Trump. The CIA wants Assad out, the military wants Assad out, the Senate wants Assad out, the US media wants Assad out, the Western European governments want Assad out and the US allies in the region want Assad out. Trump is one man taking on massive powerful forces.

    The tougher Trump talks, the more breathing room he has not to do something stupid. Even though it's early, I think that Douma was a false flag in retaliation for what Trump said about pulling the US out of the Kurdish regions. As dumb as Trump is, he understands that this was a false flag and he understands exactly why it happened. So Trump spouted off to show that he got the message.

    There are basically two options going forward:

    1. Trump stays on and manages to deescalate the situation.

    2. Somebody else takes over and the US immediately launches "Operation Iraqi Freedom II: Syrian Version."

    A pro Syrian/Russian President is simply an impossibility in the 2018 USA. We need to take what we can get.

    Trump is one man taking on massive powerful forces.

    That’s just fantasy and wishful thinking.

    The tougher Trump talks, the more breathing room he has not to do something stupid.

    How is that supposed to work? If he doesn’t follow up on his dumb Twitter threats, he’s looking weak, and that’s obviously one of the things he fears the most.

    A pro Syrian/Russian President is simply an impossibility in the 2018 USA

    .

    Who’s even suggesting the US president should be “pro-Syrian” or “pro-Russian”? Merely taking an attitude of “Syria is a mess, let’s not get involved any deeper, escalating tensions with Russia over non-essential issues is dumb and dangerous” would be enough.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Excal


    Trump is one man taking on massive powerful forces.
     
    That’s just fantasy and wishful thinking.

     

    It's what Trump has done his whole life. He's always been the Tasmanian devil attacking much larger creatures, and he's always been laughed at. He's been lucky, maybe skilled, enough to survive. Old New Yorkers have to be tough. They don't care if you laugh at them.


    The tougher Trump talks, the more breathing room he has not to do something stupid.

     

    How is that supposed to work? If he doesn’t follow up on his dumb Twitter threats, he’s looking weak, and that’s obviously one of the things he fears the most.
     
    I think Greasy may be overstating things a little bit, but this is a standard negotiation tactic (some actually call it Russian style!). It does not require following up on stupid threats. Sometimes it works anyway.


    A pro Syrian/Russian President is simply an impossibility in the 2018 USA.
     
    Who’s even suggesting the US president should be “pro-Syrian” or “pro-Russian”? Merely taking an attitude of “Syria is a mess, let’s not get involved any deeper, escalating tensions with Russia over non-essential issues is dumb and dangerous” would be enough.
     
    If Mrs Clinton had won, the world would likely be in the midst of a horrible war right now. It could still happen, but it's at least less likely with Trump.

    I am hoping that Trump doesn't take the Syria bait. I don't think he will, in the end, but Bolton is a wildcard.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  62. @Bliss
    If the chemical attack was a false flag how did they do it and get away with it?

    A $700 billion “defense” budget, 16 or so intelligence agencies, over one million people with top secret clearance, and God knows what stockpiles of black money can pay for quite a lot of trickery with little to no oversight. This is the same Pentagon that can’t account for something like $3 trillion in expenditures. Unearthing dweeb state shenanigans generally requires an expensive, time consuming investigation pushed by an outraged Congress.

    The Iran Contra Scandal is a good example here. Was only unearthed after a cargo aircraft carrying arms for Iran accidentally strayed into Soviet airspace. Woops.

    There are even more disturbing aborted examples such as Operation Northwoods, when the Joint Chiefs of Staff seriously proposed to President Kennedy that false flag terrorist attacks be carried out in America to justify an invasion of Cuba.

    We already have it on record that the State Department for instance, at the beginning of the Trump Administration, used leaks to the enemy media and Congress in order to sabotage the Administration’s goal for detente with Russia. Certainly not implausible that their counterparts in the Pentagon or CIA would do the same to sabotage efforts to leave Syria.

    And that’s just in the USA. The USA has a vast network of allies and client states around the world. Many of these countries have little to no transparency in government actions, and quite a few don’t even have elections or a free press. Saudi Arabia and the UAE for instance have plenty of money and few internal political constraints on regime actions.

    The chemical weapons employed in these attacks are not sophisticated and can generally be made in many countries, and some chemical weapons are available as civilian products (for instance, chlorine). It’s quite possible that chemical weapons possessed by the USA during the Cold War and allegedly destroyed were in fact diverted to secret stockpiles. Who knows.

    Then you just need to get it in theater, and that’s easy enough: Israel. Get some mercenaries with ex-Soviet equipment to do the deed, and after that just fire up the propaganda machine.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  63. Dmitry says:
    @Greasy William
    Yes Trump is an idiot and he is making things worse with his non stop idiotic statements. What do you think us in America have been dealing with the for last 3 years?

    The real question is: what do you want? I want to stop immigration. You want to prevent regime change in Syria.

    Well just like Trump is my best hope of getting rid of the immigrants, Trump is your best hope, your ONLY hope of keeping Assad in power. In fact, things might be so bad that he is your only hope of avoiding WWIII.

    Here's the deal: there is one man in the US government/deep state now who doesn't want to remove Assad and that is Donald Trump. The CIA wants Assad out, the military wants Assad out, the Senate wants Assad out, the US media wants Assad out, the Western European governments want Assad out and the US allies in the region want Assad out. Trump is one man taking on massive powerful forces.

    The tougher Trump talks, the more breathing room he has not to do something stupid. Even though it's early, I think that Douma was a false flag in retaliation for what Trump said about pulling the US out of the Kurdish regions. As dumb as Trump is, he understands that this was a false flag and he understands exactly why it happened. So Trump spouted off to show that he got the message.

    There are basically two options going forward:

    1. Trump stays on and manages to deescalate the situation.

    2. Somebody else takes over and the US immediately launches "Operation Iraqi Freedom II: Syrian Version."

    A pro Syrian/Russian President is simply an impossibility in the 2018 USA. We need to take what we can get.

    Trump policy on Syria not really different to Obama policy on Syria, and Iraq – i.e. no real policy.

    Also Putin doesn’t really have a long term strategy or thinking.

    Probably, Iran and Turkey are the ones which are most intelligent in this area, which we will see a decade from now. They’re Middle Easterners and don’t plan on leaving.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  64. Dmitry says:
    @Anatoly Karlin
    Putin got the worst of all worlds - no territorial expansion and assuredly increasing sanctions from the West every time he launches a chemical weapons attaq against the Last Hospital In Syria (TM).

    Had the Novorossiya project been actually implemented, Putin would be as popular/domestically secure as he is today, and East/South Ukraine would be Russian, with enthusiasm ranging from very high in Donbass, Kharkov, and Odessa, to 50/50 (but still more so than, say, amongst the Chechens and Crimean Tatars) in Dnepropetrovsk and Zaporozhye.

    Had the Novorossiya project been actually implemented, Putin would be as popular/domestically secure as he is today, and East/South Ukraine would be Russian, with enthusiasm ranging from very high in Donbass, Kharkov, and Odessa, to 50/50 (but still more so than, say, amongst the Chechens and Crimean Tatars) in Dnepropetrovsk and Zaporozhye.

    Assuming this is true – then the question moves to would the money/economic costs and dead would be worth it? I doubt it.

    I’d just focus on the economic opportunity costs. Every government project has an opportunity cost, and the opportunity cost for this kind of extravagant venture is not really reconcilable with wanting more investment in universities and science that we were talking about earlier.

    Read More
    • Agree: Mr. Hack
    • Replies: @Anatoly Karlin
    There would have been *fewer* deaths that way.

    There would have also been much fewer deaths had Russia avoided interfering in 2014 at all.

    The route actually taken - getting the Donbass to fight a war of attrition with the Ukraine - produced the most deaths, impacting most heavily (per capita) on the most pro-Russian areas.

    Donetsk and Kharkov would have become net contributors in no time at all, eventually so would Odessa and Zaporozhye.

    It is (1) low IQ ethnic minority regions and (2) derelict northern areas settled during the USSR for non-economic reasons that suck up Russian resources. Novorossiya does not fit that profile.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  65. For those fence-sitters out there (if any remain), the definitive proof has now been revealed of Russian authorship of the Salisbury crime, the evidence being so overwhelming that when shared with the “allies” they were immediately convinced as well. Note also the sinister connection with Syria.

    REVEALED: The bombshell Russian message intercepted on DAY of Skripal poisonings

    AN ELECTRONIC message to Moscow sent on the day former Russian spy Sergei Skripal and his daughter Yulia were poisoned with a nerve agent in Salisbury included the phrase “the package has been delivered”.

    It also said two named individuals had made a successful departure.

    This and an earlier intercept form a key part of Britain’s intelligence evidence against Russia over the Skripal poisonings, sources said last night.

    Insiders said the two messages were intercepted by RAF analysts stationed at a listening post in southern Cyprus.

    On the day of the poisonings, March 4, one was sent from a location near Damascus in Syria to “an official” in Moscow including the phrase ‘the package has been delivered” and saying that two individuals had “made a successful egress”.

    This prompted a young Flight Lieutenant to recall a separate message that had been intercepted and discounted on the previous day.

    What it said has not been revealed but sources say it became relevant once the Skripals were attacked . . .

    https://www.express.co.uk/news/world/942903/Sergei-Skripal-russian-spy-poisoning-russian-message-intercepted.

    Read More
    • Replies: @German_reader

    On the day of the poisonings, March 4, one was sent from a location near Damascus in Syria
     
    Why would Russians in Syria be involved in organizing an assassination attempt in Britain?
    Even if one doesn't rule out Russian culpability in the Skripal poisoning, this is just dumb.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  66. Talha says:

    To be followed by Duma and Dumberer?

    The timing of all this seems very suspicious, especially since it seems Israel had either been given the green light or has taken the initiative to lob more missiles into Syria. I think this time it was from Lebanese airspace.

    Hey Russians, where are those S-400s when you need them? Maybe they weren’t expecting any threat to come from that direction…?

    Peace.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  67. @for-the-record
    For those fence-sitters out there (if any remain), the definitive proof has now been revealed of Russian authorship of the Salisbury crime, the evidence being so overwhelming that when shared with the "allies" they were immediately convinced as well. Note also the sinister connection with Syria.

    REVEALED: The bombshell Russian message intercepted on DAY of Skripal poisonings

    AN ELECTRONIC message to Moscow sent on the day former Russian spy Sergei Skripal and his daughter Yulia were poisoned with a nerve agent in Salisbury included the phrase “the package has been delivered”.

    It also said two named individuals had made a successful departure.

    This and an earlier intercept form a key part of Britain’s intelligence evidence against Russia over the Skripal poisonings, sources said last night.

    Insiders said the two messages were intercepted by RAF analysts stationed at a listening post in southern Cyprus.

    On the day of the poisonings, March 4, one was sent from a location near Damascus in Syria to “an official” in Moscow including the phrase ‘the package has been delivered” and saying that two individuals had “made a successful egress”.

    This prompted a young Flight Lieutenant to recall a separate message that had been intercepted and discounted on the previous day.

    What it said has not been revealed but sources say it became relevant once the Skripals were attacked . . .

    https://www.express.co.uk/news/world/942903/Sergei-Skripal-russian-spy-poisoning-russian-message-intercepted.
     

    On the day of the poisonings, March 4, one was sent from a location near Damascus in Syria

    Why would Russians in Syria be involved in organizing an assassination attempt in Britain?
    Even if one doesn’t rule out Russian culpability in the Skripal poisoning, this is just dumb.

    Read More
    • Replies: @for-the-record
    Why would Russians in Syria be involved in organizing an assassination attempt in Britain?

    Clearly the command post for the Salisbury operation was in Syria -- have you not noticed that "Salisbury" contains "Syria"?

    It also offered economy of scale, as the planning for both gas attacks (Salisbury and Douma) could be carried out by the same team.
    , @reiner Tor

    this is just dumb
     
    What do you expect of those Russkies? They are just that dumb. And evil. Like Assad.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  68. @German_reader

    On the day of the poisonings, March 4, one was sent from a location near Damascus in Syria
     
    Why would Russians in Syria be involved in organizing an assassination attempt in Britain?
    Even if one doesn't rule out Russian culpability in the Skripal poisoning, this is just dumb.

    Why would Russians in Syria be involved in organizing an assassination attempt in Britain?

    Clearly the command post for the Salisbury operation was in Syria — have you not noticed that “Salisbury” contains “Syria”?

    It also offered economy of scale, as the planning for both gas attacks (Salisbury and Douma) could be carried out by the same team.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Randal

    It also offered economy of scale, as the planning for both gas attacks (Salisbury and Douma) could be carried out by the same team.
     
    Many a true word spoken in jest....

    Meanwhile, I see Trump has doubled down on his public idiocy on the Syria "chemical attack", which seems to be further committing himself to some sort of dangerous foolery:

    Trump promises 'major decision' on Syria chemical attack

    Whatever he decides to do, the Russian government can hardly claim not to have been forewarned. A big public announcement or action by the Russians and/or Chinese that would force a Pentagon rethink right about now would be very timely.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  69. @Dmitry

    Had the Novorossiya project been actually implemented, Putin would be as popular/domestically secure as he is today, and East/South Ukraine would be Russian, with enthusiasm ranging from very high in Donbass, Kharkov, and Odessa, to 50/50 (but still more so than, say, amongst the Chechens and Crimean Tatars) in Dnepropetrovsk and Zaporozhye.
     
    Assuming this is true - then the question moves to would the money/economic costs and dead would be worth it? I doubt it.

    I'd just focus on the economic opportunity costs. Every government project has an opportunity cost, and the opportunity cost for this kind of extravagant venture is not really reconcilable with wanting more investment in universities and science that we were talking about earlier.

    There would have been *fewer* deaths that way.

    There would have also been much fewer deaths had Russia avoided interfering in 2014 at all.

    The route actually taken – getting the Donbass to fight a war of attrition with the Ukraine – produced the most deaths, impacting most heavily (per capita) on the most pro-Russian areas.

    Donetsk and Kharkov would have become net contributors in no time at all, eventually so would Odessa and Zaporozhye.

    It is (1) low IQ ethnic minority regions and (2) derelict northern areas settled during the USSR for non-economic reasons that suck up Russian resources. Novorossiya does not fit that profile.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Dmitry

    It is (1) low IQ ethnic minority regions and (2) derelict northern areas settled during the USSR for non-economic reasons that suck up Russian resources. Novorossiya does not fit that profile.

     

    Before 2014, were higher income regions of Ukraine. Not that great though - no oil/gas reserves.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  70. Randal says:
    @for-the-record
    Why would Russians in Syria be involved in organizing an assassination attempt in Britain?

    Clearly the command post for the Salisbury operation was in Syria -- have you not noticed that "Salisbury" contains "Syria"?

    It also offered economy of scale, as the planning for both gas attacks (Salisbury and Douma) could be carried out by the same team.

    It also offered economy of scale, as the planning for both gas attacks (Salisbury and Douma) could be carried out by the same team.

    Many a true word spoken in jest….

    Meanwhile, I see Trump has doubled down on his public idiocy on the Syria “chemical attack”, which seems to be further committing himself to some sort of dangerous foolery:

    Trump promises ‘major decision’ on Syria chemical attack

    Whatever he decides to do, the Russian government can hardly claim not to have been forewarned. A big public announcement or action by the Russians and/or Chinese that would force a Pentagon rethink right about now would be very timely.

    Read More
    • Replies: @for-the-record
    A big public announcement or action by the Russians and/or Chinese that would force a Pentagon rethink right about now would be very timely.

    Agree, but it is very unlikely unfortunately as they will almost certainly continue with their casuistic position that the US and Israel have a free hand to strike Syria, so long as Russian personnel are not endangered.

    They obviously have far more patience than I would. I suspect also that they are unwilling to do anything too "drastic" before the World Cup, which they desperately want to be a "success". Conversely, it seems to me that the Empire and friends are doing everything possible to provoke a response from Russia which can then be used to torpedo the World Cup. From their point of view the World Cup cannot be seen to be a success (all those people returning to their home countries with stories of how "normal" Russia is).
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  71. Randal says:
    @Dmitry
    He hasn't done anything really inside Syria. He just does what he was saying in 2016 - about 'bombing ISIS' and that 'he doesn't like Assad, but he doesn't like the opposition'.

    He hasn’t done anything really inside Syria. He just does what he was saying in 2016 – about ‘bombing ISIS’ and that ‘he doesn’t like Assad, but he doesn’t like the opposition’.

    No, this is false. US military policy in Syria under Trump in practice has been to continue the attempt to salvage as much as possible of the failed regime change objective.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  72. @German_reader

    On the day of the poisonings, March 4, one was sent from a location near Damascus in Syria
     
    Why would Russians in Syria be involved in organizing an assassination attempt in Britain?
    Even if one doesn't rule out Russian culpability in the Skripal poisoning, this is just dumb.

    this is just dumb

    What do you expect of those Russkies? They are just that dumb. And evil. Like Assad.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  73. @Randal

    It also offered economy of scale, as the planning for both gas attacks (Salisbury and Douma) could be carried out by the same team.
     
    Many a true word spoken in jest....

    Meanwhile, I see Trump has doubled down on his public idiocy on the Syria "chemical attack", which seems to be further committing himself to some sort of dangerous foolery:

    Trump promises 'major decision' on Syria chemical attack

    Whatever he decides to do, the Russian government can hardly claim not to have been forewarned. A big public announcement or action by the Russians and/or Chinese that would force a Pentagon rethink right about now would be very timely.

    A big public announcement or action by the Russians and/or Chinese that would force a Pentagon rethink right about now would be very timely.

    Agree, but it is very unlikely unfortunately as they will almost certainly continue with their casuistic position that the US and Israel have a free hand to strike Syria, so long as Russian personnel are not endangered.

    They obviously have far more patience than I would. I suspect also that they are unwilling to do anything too “drastic” before the World Cup, which they desperately want to be a “success”. Conversely, it seems to me that the Empire and friends are doing everything possible to provoke a response from Russia which can then be used to torpedo the World Cup. From their point of view the World Cup cannot be seen to be a success (all those people returning to their home countries with stories of how “normal” Russia is).

    Read More
    • Replies: @Randal

    Agree, but it is very unlikely unfortunately as they will almost certainly continue with their casuistic position that the US and Israel have a free hand to strike Syria, so long as Russian personnel are not endangered.
     
    I agree that it is unlikely, though I have rather more sympathy for the Russian position. There's a tendency around here to exaggerate Russian military and diplomatic strength, I think, and while those doing so make (in some cases, at least) a good case up to a point, nevertheless I think things look a lot less certain when you are in the hotseat in Moscow having to make the decisions.

    I would put inaction down to sensible caution and an inclination to endure wherever possible rather than to take potentially terminal risks. Your point about the World Cup is also a legitimate one, of course.

    And I wouldn't characterise the position as casuistry. At the end of the day, Russia owes nothing more to Syria than the general support of an ally, which does not extend to waging war in response to attacks upon that ally unless there is a clear NATO-style treaty commitment to do so. It is in Russia's interest to support Syria as much as possible, but not necessarily to go to war with either Israel or the US over it. And Putin's responsibility is wholly to the Russian people and not at all to the Syrian people or government.

    Hopefully restraint will prevail at some point. At the moment I'd say there's a high likelihood of a very dangerous (and criminal, obviously, but that is pretty much par for the US regime) act being perpetrated by the US in the next few days, and a low but non-zero possibility of that resulting in serious escalation. But who can really say? Show me a man who claims to know the outcome and I'll show you a liar.
    , @Dmitry

    Agree, but it is very unlikely unfortunately as they will almost certainly continue with their casuistic position that the US and Israel have a free hand to strike Syria, so long as Russian personnel are not endangered.

     

    It's all ways consensus.

    Turkey has free hand to strike, as long as they don't hit US/Russia/Israel.

    Israel has free hand to strike, as long as they don't hit US/Russia/Turkey.

    Russia has free hand to strike, as long as they don't hit US/Turkey/Israel.

    US has free hand to strike, as long as they don't hit Turkey/Russia/Israel.

    The one which is currently missing from the rules are Iran, which Israel is sometimes striking.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  74. utu says:
    @Dmitry

    neoliberalism.txt will finally lay off the Russiagate conspiracy theory.
     

    The neocons surrounding Trump have locked him into a never-ending spiral of escalation towards Russia in a hopeless bid to “prove”
     
    There's little relation between neoliberalism and neoconservatism.

    Neoliberalism is an economic policy, based originally on Austrian economy, Friedrich Hayek and classical liberalism.

    Its ideas have been taken up by international bodies (World Bank and IMF), but largely because this is now standard good economic advice (to cut government spending, lower taxes, liberalize economy).

    Neoconservatism is a movement - which tries to give justification to foreign intervention as a way to 'spread democracy and freedom around the world' and because Western ideas are superior and should rule.

    Neoliberalism itself does not need democracy - in the case of its most famous neoliberal, Pinochet, it was combined with dictatorship.

    Putin himself combines moderate neoliberal economic policy and advisors, with a multi-vector foreign policy.

    If you look at Trump's case. He is neither fully neoliberal nor neoconservative. His domestic economic policy, involves elements of neoliberal agenda (cutting taxes), but also protectionism in trade, and talk about 'big infrastructure spending'.

    Likewise in foreign policy, we can see he has little interest in promoting democracy around the world or arguing about the superiority of Western ideals. He is open to conquering stuff if he thinks it will make America richer, as he says for Iraq. Otherwise, he is like Polemarchus in Plato's Republic, for who justice is "helping friends and harming enemies".

    There’s little relation between neoliberalism and neoconservatism.

    They differ only on where the capitol of the NWO Empire will be. Neocons want to do the shortcut and place it in Jerusalem from the day one but neoliberals would prefer to keep it in London or New York at least until the final conquest of the world. Neocons do not mind to be outed as suprematist Jews while neoliberals prefer to keep appearances that’s why they use leftist rhetoric of diversity, etc.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  75. @German_reader
    I may be unfair, but this saccharine, hypocritical pseudo-humanitarianism disgusts me. The US has zero moral authority about those issues, especially at a time when it actively supports Saudi-Arabia's starvation of Yemen.
    Personally I don't even see why there's so much outrage about chemical weapons, they don't seem any more cruel to me than indiscriminate shelling or bombing.

    Personally I don’t even see why there’s so much outrage about chemical weapons, they don’t seem any more cruel to me than indiscriminate shelling or bombing.

    They are most useful against civilians, and are easy to deliver (as opposed to fire bombing a city, which requires air superiority). Hitting an empty field next to a city with a conventional missile produces zero casualties. Hitting it with a chemical warhead results in dozens or best case even hundreds of casualties. Some people fear that thousands of deaths or more could be the result in a worst case (for the civilians) scenario. You need to hit a target pretty well to achieve a similar number of casualties with a conventional warhead. Or use many many warheads.

    Read More
    • Replies: @reiner Tor
    The hysteria about them is of course blown out of all proportions, though it probably started out as a bottom up thing during WW1, when being killed by gases seemed more horrendous to soldiers than to be killed by fast moving metal pieces or bayonets. Then later there was a lot of additional propaganda, especially the recent hysterical stories about Saddam and Assad.
    , @for-the-record
    They are most useful against civilians

    Are you sure of this? I had always understood that they were primarily a battlefield weapon.

    In any event, the only "evidence" that I am aware of relating to the latest "outrage" is a report and video produced by the "neutral" White Helmets. I assume that everyone here is familiar with their origin and funding?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  76. @reiner Tor

    Personally I don’t even see why there’s so much outrage about chemical weapons, they don’t seem any more cruel to me than indiscriminate shelling or bombing.
     
    They are most useful against civilians, and are easy to deliver (as opposed to fire bombing a city, which requires air superiority). Hitting an empty field next to a city with a conventional missile produces zero casualties. Hitting it with a chemical warhead results in dozens or best case even hundreds of casualties. Some people fear that thousands of deaths or more could be the result in a worst case (for the civilians) scenario. You need to hit a target pretty well to achieve a similar number of casualties with a conventional warhead. Or use many many warheads.

    The hysteria about them is of course blown out of all proportions, though it probably started out as a bottom up thing during WW1, when being killed by gases seemed more horrendous to soldiers than to be killed by fast moving metal pieces or bayonets. Then later there was a lot of additional propaganda, especially the recent hysterical stories about Saddam and Assad.

    Read More
    • Replies: @German_reader

    when being killed by gases seemed more horrendous to soldiers than to be killed by fast moving metal pieces or bayonets
     
    But even in WW1 vastly more casualties were caused by artillery fire...and having limbs torn off by shrapnel doesn't seem any more pleasant to me than having one's lungs destroyed by gas. Both are pretty bad.
    I just don't get this selective outrage...the Syrian civil war is a brutal conflict, and all sides are committing atrocities. It seems bizarre to me how people can feel such moral indignation over a foreign conflict...especially so since Assad's dictatorship is probably the lesser evil, given the Islamist nature of much of the opposition and the track record of Islamist movements in the Islamic world.
    Maybe it's me (I may be rather uncaring about such issues), but all those normies buying this atrocity propaganda seem pretty stupid to me.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  77. Randal says:
    @for-the-record
    A big public announcement or action by the Russians and/or Chinese that would force a Pentagon rethink right about now would be very timely.

    Agree, but it is very unlikely unfortunately as they will almost certainly continue with their casuistic position that the US and Israel have a free hand to strike Syria, so long as Russian personnel are not endangered.

    They obviously have far more patience than I would. I suspect also that they are unwilling to do anything too "drastic" before the World Cup, which they desperately want to be a "success". Conversely, it seems to me that the Empire and friends are doing everything possible to provoke a response from Russia which can then be used to torpedo the World Cup. From their point of view the World Cup cannot be seen to be a success (all those people returning to their home countries with stories of how "normal" Russia is).

    Agree, but it is very unlikely unfortunately as they will almost certainly continue with their casuistic position that the US and Israel have a free hand to strike Syria, so long as Russian personnel are not endangered.

    I agree that it is unlikely, though I have rather more sympathy for the Russian position. There’s a tendency around here to exaggerate Russian military and diplomatic strength, I think, and while those doing so make (in some cases, at least) a good case up to a point, nevertheless I think things look a lot less certain when you are in the hotseat in Moscow having to make the decisions.

    I would put inaction down to sensible caution and an inclination to endure wherever possible rather than to take potentially terminal risks. Your point about the World Cup is also a legitimate one, of course.

    And I wouldn’t characterise the position as casuistry. At the end of the day, Russia owes nothing more to Syria than the general support of an ally, which does not extend to waging war in response to attacks upon that ally unless there is a clear NATO-style treaty commitment to do so. It is in Russia’s interest to support Syria as much as possible, but not necessarily to go to war with either Israel or the US over it. And Putin’s responsibility is wholly to the Russian people and not at all to the Syrian people or government.

    Hopefully restraint will prevail at some point. At the moment I’d say there’s a high likelihood of a very dangerous (and criminal, obviously, but that is pretty much par for the US regime) act being perpetrated by the US in the next few days, and a low but non-zero possibility of that resulting in serious escalation. But who can really say? Show me a man who claims to know the outcome and I’ll show you a liar.

    Read More
    • Replies: @reiner Tor
    I agree that the main problem might be that they don’t know if their weapons would work against what the Americans have. (If I understood correctly your point.)

    Which is the reason why I previously wrote that escalation will have to be relatively forceful both to inflict serious casualties in case of serious failure and to prove determination to go to the wall. Once Russians are shooting at Americans they will have to do that with all determination and burning all bridges.

    It’s wise not to go there as long as possible. But I often feel the Americans are crazy. I really think they think the Russians will fold forever, and they will be so outraged when it turns out that at one point they won’t, that they will start WW3 without thinking much about it. And they will think it was the Russians who are responsible, because they, wicked as they are, defended themselves when attacked.
    , @Dmitry

    I agree that it is unlikely, though I have rather more sympathy for the Russian position. There’s a tendency around here to exaggerate Russian military and diplomatic strength, I think, and while those doing so make (in some cases, at least) a good case up to a point, nevertheless I think things look a lot less certain when you are in the hotseat in Moscow having to make the decisions.

     

    I'm not a personal fan of the operation (what is even the end goal - strategic, as opposed to tactical?), but it has generally been very successful and surprisingly competent exercise for Russian aviation.

    A lot of the success of the operation in Syria so far, has been no getting dragged into offtopic areas, or not even getting dragged too much into the conflict (it's been mainly confined to the air-strikes), and also keeping the costs low (both economic and diplomatic).

    It's not important crisis or region for the public like Ukraine, and vast majority of people don't care, or want some large commitment in Syria - but if Kremlin leadership can keep it as a high success/cost ratio, then it is sellable to the public (it's not that much worse than an expensive training exercise so far).

    Getting dragged into distant regional conflicts, or losing diplomatic status/influence over it, would defeat that justification for intervention, or for at least minimal intervention which is the current policy (and which I can currently argue good sides of, even if it doesn't particularly appeal to me), .

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  78. @reiner Tor

    Personally I don’t even see why there’s so much outrage about chemical weapons, they don’t seem any more cruel to me than indiscriminate shelling or bombing.
     
    They are most useful against civilians, and are easy to deliver (as opposed to fire bombing a city, which requires air superiority). Hitting an empty field next to a city with a conventional missile produces zero casualties. Hitting it with a chemical warhead results in dozens or best case even hundreds of casualties. Some people fear that thousands of deaths or more could be the result in a worst case (for the civilians) scenario. You need to hit a target pretty well to achieve a similar number of casualties with a conventional warhead. Or use many many warheads.

    They are most useful against civilians

    Are you sure of this? I had always understood that they were primarily a battlefield weapon.

    In any event, the only “evidence” that I am aware of relating to the latest “outrage” is a report and video produced by the “neutral” White Helmets. I assume that everyone here is familiar with their origin and funding?

    Read More
    • Replies: @reiner Tor
    In the First World War there were claims that they were totally useless. Their effect greatly depends on things difficult to control, especially the wind. They might kill people on your side, too. The easiest way to use it is to use against dense targets far away from the frontline. At least that’s my understanding.
    , @reiner Tor

    In any event, the only “evidence” that I am aware of relating to the latest “outrage” is a report and video produced by the “neutral” White Helmets.
     
    Well, in view of Assad’s history of using chemical weapons whenever it was convenient for the warmongers in the US is further proof - if any such is needed - that they are culpable. Let’s not forget that there is no other plausible explanation. They are also allied to Russia. Which makes it even more likely to be committed by Assad. It also bears the fingerprints of the Syrian chemical unit all over, for example it targeted children, which is a typical method of the Syrians. The Syrian response to the accusations further proves their guilt.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  79. @Randal

    Agree, but it is very unlikely unfortunately as they will almost certainly continue with their casuistic position that the US and Israel have a free hand to strike Syria, so long as Russian personnel are not endangered.
     
    I agree that it is unlikely, though I have rather more sympathy for the Russian position. There's a tendency around here to exaggerate Russian military and diplomatic strength, I think, and while those doing so make (in some cases, at least) a good case up to a point, nevertheless I think things look a lot less certain when you are in the hotseat in Moscow having to make the decisions.

    I would put inaction down to sensible caution and an inclination to endure wherever possible rather than to take potentially terminal risks. Your point about the World Cup is also a legitimate one, of course.

    And I wouldn't characterise the position as casuistry. At the end of the day, Russia owes nothing more to Syria than the general support of an ally, which does not extend to waging war in response to attacks upon that ally unless there is a clear NATO-style treaty commitment to do so. It is in Russia's interest to support Syria as much as possible, but not necessarily to go to war with either Israel or the US over it. And Putin's responsibility is wholly to the Russian people and not at all to the Syrian people or government.

    Hopefully restraint will prevail at some point. At the moment I'd say there's a high likelihood of a very dangerous (and criminal, obviously, but that is pretty much par for the US regime) act being perpetrated by the US in the next few days, and a low but non-zero possibility of that resulting in serious escalation. But who can really say? Show me a man who claims to know the outcome and I'll show you a liar.

    I agree that the main problem might be that they don’t know if their weapons would work against what the Americans have. (If I understood correctly your point.)

    Which is the reason why I previously wrote that escalation will have to be relatively forceful both to inflict serious casualties in case of serious failure and to prove determination to go to the wall. Once Russians are shooting at Americans they will have to do that with all determination and burning all bridges.

    It’s wise not to go there as long as possible. But I often feel the Americans are crazy. I really think they think the Russians will fold forever, and they will be so outraged when it turns out that at one point they won’t, that they will start WW3 without thinking much about it. And they will think it was the Russians who are responsible, because they, wicked as they are, defended themselves when attacked.

    Read More
    • Replies: @German_reader

    But I often feel the Americans are crazy
     
    They are, they have a completely warped view of reality (and not just "elites", a significant part of the general population as well) and believe a lot of absurd myths about their inherent goodness and the complete wickedness of their opponents. Also a dangerously selective view of history (always Munich in 1938...never July 1914), which seems to have gotten much worse since the passing of the generation that actually lived through WW2. And a lot of triumphalism over their "victory" in the Cold war which they apparently feel uppity Russia is trying to take away from them again.
    When you look at the frankly insane statements by prominent US politicians like Tom Cotton or Lindsey Graham (and also at the anti-Russian hysteria whipped up by the Democrats), one can only conclude that these people aren't rational and that the US, at least on its present course, ought to be isolated and contained. But that reality is apparently too much for most people in Europe to fully understand.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  80. @reiner Tor
    The hysteria about them is of course blown out of all proportions, though it probably started out as a bottom up thing during WW1, when being killed by gases seemed more horrendous to soldiers than to be killed by fast moving metal pieces or bayonets. Then later there was a lot of additional propaganda, especially the recent hysterical stories about Saddam and Assad.

    when being killed by gases seemed more horrendous to soldiers than to be killed by fast moving metal pieces or bayonets

    But even in WW1 vastly more casualties were caused by artillery fire…and having limbs torn off by shrapnel doesn’t seem any more pleasant to me than having one’s lungs destroyed by gas. Both are pretty bad.
    I just don’t get this selective outrage…the Syrian civil war is a brutal conflict, and all sides are committing atrocities. It seems bizarre to me how people can feel such moral indignation over a foreign conflict…especially so since Assad’s dictatorship is probably the lesser evil, given the Islamist nature of much of the opposition and the track record of Islamist movements in the Islamic world.
    Maybe it’s me (I may be rather uncaring about such issues), but all those normies buying this atrocity propaganda seem pretty stupid to me.

    Read More
    • Replies: @reiner Tor
    Yes, it makes no sense, neither the differential treatment of chemical attacks and other atrocities, nor the outrage over this conflict in general, not even the way Assad is singled out.

    Have these normies never heard of the Iraq War or Libya or something? I even know a few guys who were strongly against the Iraq War but support the anti-Assad propaganda.
    , @Dmitry

    But even in WW1 vastly more casualties were caused by artillery fire…and having limbs torn off by shrapnel doesn’t seem any more pleasant to me than having one’s lungs destroyed by gas. Both are pretty bad.
     
    From the rational point of view, what you say is correct.

    But the WW1 chemical experience has a kind of traumatizing effect on European psychology in relation to the words 'chemical weapons'.

    In the United Kingdom, many famous poems written about mustard gas (Yperite).

    Some quite beautiful in describing its gruesome effect.

    https://www.poetryfoundation.org/poems/46560/dulce-et-decorum-est

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  81. @for-the-record
    They are most useful against civilians

    Are you sure of this? I had always understood that they were primarily a battlefield weapon.

    In any event, the only "evidence" that I am aware of relating to the latest "outrage" is a report and video produced by the "neutral" White Helmets. I assume that everyone here is familiar with their origin and funding?

    In the First World War there were claims that they were totally useless. Their effect greatly depends on things difficult to control, especially the wind. They might kill people on your side, too. The easiest way to use it is to use against dense targets far away from the frontline. At least that’s my understanding.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Dmitry
    It's clearly useful for urban war as well. You can just clear an area like this without risking your soldiers in door to door fighting.

    Of course very gruesome - the experience WW1, has created a lasting horror of it.

    But imagine how much easier the Berlin Offensive Operation or Battle of Stalingrad (on German side initially) would have been if they had just covered the city with mustard gas by shellling, before sending in soldiers.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  82. @German_reader

    when being killed by gases seemed more horrendous to soldiers than to be killed by fast moving metal pieces or bayonets
     
    But even in WW1 vastly more casualties were caused by artillery fire...and having limbs torn off by shrapnel doesn't seem any more pleasant to me than having one's lungs destroyed by gas. Both are pretty bad.
    I just don't get this selective outrage...the Syrian civil war is a brutal conflict, and all sides are committing atrocities. It seems bizarre to me how people can feel such moral indignation over a foreign conflict...especially so since Assad's dictatorship is probably the lesser evil, given the Islamist nature of much of the opposition and the track record of Islamist movements in the Islamic world.
    Maybe it's me (I may be rather uncaring about such issues), but all those normies buying this atrocity propaganda seem pretty stupid to me.

    Yes, it makes no sense, neither the differential treatment of chemical attacks and other atrocities, nor the outrage over this conflict in general, not even the way Assad is singled out.

    Have these normies never heard of the Iraq War or Libya or something? I even know a few guys who were strongly against the Iraq War but support the anti-Assad propaganda.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  83. anon[272] • Disclaimer says:

    And now Trump announced he is going to make “major decision”. The usual bullshit, or something bigger?

    http://www.bbc.com/news/av/world-us-canada-43705128/trump-promises-major-decision-on-syria-chemical-attack

    Read More
    • Replies: @reiner Tor
    He now has to do something more forceful than the few dozens of Tomahawks he sent the last time.
    , @for-the-record
    The usual bullshit, or something bigger?

    He is going to have to follow through, right now everyone (CNN, senators and reps from his own party) are saying that Assad was "emboldened" to do this because of Trump's statement last week that the US would pull out of Syria. There is no way now that he can not follow through and do something "tough". In his press conference (or statement, I'm not sure which) he even said that Putin himself was going to pay a "price", a "very big" price.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  84. @reiner Tor
    I agree that the main problem might be that they don’t know if their weapons would work against what the Americans have. (If I understood correctly your point.)

    Which is the reason why I previously wrote that escalation will have to be relatively forceful both to inflict serious casualties in case of serious failure and to prove determination to go to the wall. Once Russians are shooting at Americans they will have to do that with all determination and burning all bridges.

    It’s wise not to go there as long as possible. But I often feel the Americans are crazy. I really think they think the Russians will fold forever, and they will be so outraged when it turns out that at one point they won’t, that they will start WW3 without thinking much about it. And they will think it was the Russians who are responsible, because they, wicked as they are, defended themselves when attacked.

    But I often feel the Americans are crazy

    They are, they have a completely warped view of reality (and not just “elites”, a significant part of the general population as well) and believe a lot of absurd myths about their inherent goodness and the complete wickedness of their opponents. Also a dangerously selective view of history (always Munich in 1938…never July 1914), which seems to have gotten much worse since the passing of the generation that actually lived through WW2. And a lot of triumphalism over their “victory” in the Cold war which they apparently feel uppity Russia is trying to take away from them again.
    When you look at the frankly insane statements by prominent US politicians like Tom Cotton or Lindsey Graham (and also at the anti-Russian hysteria whipped up by the Democrats), one can only conclude that these people aren’t rational and that the US, at least on its present course, ought to be isolated and contained. But that reality is apparently too much for most people in Europe to fully understand.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Randal

    When you look at the frankly insane statements by prominent US politicians like Tom Cotton or Lindsey Graham
     
    Here's what the US elected senator Lindsey Graham calmly and rationally proposes as a response to the latest rumours of a supposed Syrian chemical weapons attack:


    "To me, I would destroy Assad's air force," the South Carolina Republican said on ABC's "This Week." "I would create safe zones in Syria where people can come back to their country from the surrounding area and live a better life. Train up Syrians to take on Assad so we can negotiate in Geneva from a position of strength."
     
    https://edition.cnn.com/2018/04/08/politics/john-mccain-congress-donald-trump-syria/index.html

    Lindsey Graham: re-elected as senator by American voters with a thumping 55-38% margin after two previous warmongering terms that left no American voter with the slightest excuse for not being fully aware of his tendencies.

    Let's just bear in mind here as well that all this enthusiastic momentum for the worst warmongering voices and lobbies in US politics and media is entirely the fault of Donald Trump, and the result of gratuitous words and actions by Donald Trump. He was under no compulsion to start responding to rumours of supposed chemical attacks like an emotionally incontinent girl-child, and thereby creating expectations that the US military could be pushed into action by the warmongers every time such a pretext was manufactured.

    Donald Trump created this situation. May he choke on it.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  85. @anon
    And now Trump announced he is going to make "major decision". The usual bullshit, or something bigger?

    http://www.bbc.com/news/av/world-us-canada-43705128/trump-promises-major-decision-on-syria-chemical-attack

    He now has to do something more forceful than the few dozens of Tomahawks he sent the last time.

    Read More
    • Replies: @for-the-record
    He now has to do something more forceful than the few dozens of Tomahawks he sent the last time.

    And presumably the Russians, for reasons discussed above, will not react, which will only serve to further inflate the "ego" of the US (not that it needs any further encouragement).
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  86. @anon
    And now Trump announced he is going to make "major decision". The usual bullshit, or something bigger?

    http://www.bbc.com/news/av/world-us-canada-43705128/trump-promises-major-decision-on-syria-chemical-attack

    The usual bullshit, or something bigger?

    He is going to have to follow through, right now everyone (CNN, senators and reps from his own party) are saying that Assad was “emboldened” to do this because of Trump’s statement last week that the US would pull out of Syria. There is no way now that he can not follow through and do something “tough”. In his press conference (or statement, I’m not sure which) he even said that Putin himself was going to pay a “price”, a “very big” price.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  87. @reiner Tor
    He now has to do something more forceful than the few dozens of Tomahawks he sent the last time.

    He now has to do something more forceful than the few dozens of Tomahawks he sent the last time.

    And presumably the Russians, for reasons discussed above, will not react, which will only serve to further inflate the “ego” of the US (not that it needs any further encouragement).

    Read More
    • Replies: @reiner Tor
    It’s somewhat frightening. The more Putin folds, the more convinced they will be that he will fold the next time. I fail to see how Putin can avoid a world war without total capitulation. But I can understand why he tries to delay the inevitable as much as possible.
    , @Randal

    And presumably the Russians, for reasons discussed above, will not react
     
    They will likely react if the US regime misjudges the scale of their action, or there is an error in execution. It's a risky business.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  88. @for-the-record
    They are most useful against civilians

    Are you sure of this? I had always understood that they were primarily a battlefield weapon.

    In any event, the only "evidence" that I am aware of relating to the latest "outrage" is a report and video produced by the "neutral" White Helmets. I assume that everyone here is familiar with their origin and funding?

    In any event, the only “evidence” that I am aware of relating to the latest “outrage” is a report and video produced by the “neutral” White Helmets.

    Well, in view of Assad’s history of using chemical weapons whenever it was convenient for the warmongers in the US is further proof – if any such is needed – that they are culpable. Let’s not forget that there is no other plausible explanation. They are also allied to Russia. Which makes it even more likely to be committed by Assad. It also bears the fingerprints of the Syrian chemical unit all over, for example it targeted children, which is a typical method of the Syrians. The Syrian response to the accusations further proves their guilt.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Randal
    That's good stuff, rT. You could get a job writing for the Guardian with that. Or the Times, the Telegraph, the BBC, etc.....

    The situation really is that bad - that you actually cannot parody the establishment media sufficiently absurdly as not to read as though you are parroting it.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  89. @for-the-record
    He now has to do something more forceful than the few dozens of Tomahawks he sent the last time.

    And presumably the Russians, for reasons discussed above, will not react, which will only serve to further inflate the "ego" of the US (not that it needs any further encouragement).

    It’s somewhat frightening. The more Putin folds, the more convinced they will be that he will fold the next time. I fail to see how Putin can avoid a world war without total capitulation. But I can understand why he tries to delay the inevitable as much as possible.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Swedish Family

    It’s somewhat frightening. The more Putin folds, the more convinced they will be that he will fold the next time. I fail to see how Putin can avoid a world war without total capitulation. But I can understand why he tries to delay the inevitable as much as possible.
     
    I join in the pessimism expressed here and in other posts in this thread. But is total capitulation truly Russia's only option? Attacking naval ships and military bases is a no-go, yes, but could they not respond to a serious attack by attacking US servicemen embedded with militias? Or by handing out MANPADS to the Syrian army? And where is China on this? They are surely next on the chopping block if the warmongers get their way.

    Either way, let's hope cooler heads prevail and that we won't see a Franz Fredinand moment.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  90. Randal says:
    @reiner Tor

    In any event, the only “evidence” that I am aware of relating to the latest “outrage” is a report and video produced by the “neutral” White Helmets.
     
    Well, in view of Assad’s history of using chemical weapons whenever it was convenient for the warmongers in the US is further proof - if any such is needed - that they are culpable. Let’s not forget that there is no other plausible explanation. They are also allied to Russia. Which makes it even more likely to be committed by Assad. It also bears the fingerprints of the Syrian chemical unit all over, for example it targeted children, which is a typical method of the Syrians. The Syrian response to the accusations further proves their guilt.

    That’s good stuff, rT. You could get a job writing for the Guardian with that. Or the Times, the Telegraph, the BBC, etc…..

    The situation really is that bad – that you actually cannot parody the establishment media sufficiently absurdly as not to read as though you are parroting it.

    Read More
    • Replies: @anon

    The situation really is that bad – that you actually cannot parody the establishment media sufficiently absurdly as not to read as though you are parroting it.

     

    Well, when I searched for "neocon" on twitter, this guy came up.

    https://twitter.com/markhumphrys/status/983293489965359105

    https://twitter.com/markhumphrys/status/983292425841061888


    Self proclaimed neoconservative, admirer of GWB, cheerleading for the Iraq War like it was year 2003.

    http://markhumphrys.com/bushisms.html

    Seems to be totally sincere, not a parody account. To be fair, too dumb to be part of any establishment, even our current maximally dumbed out one.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  91. Randal says:
    @for-the-record
    He now has to do something more forceful than the few dozens of Tomahawks he sent the last time.

    And presumably the Russians, for reasons discussed above, will not react, which will only serve to further inflate the "ego" of the US (not that it needs any further encouragement).

    And presumably the Russians, for reasons discussed above, will not react

    They will likely react if the US regime misjudges the scale of their action, or there is an error in execution. It’s a risky business.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  92. anon[901] • Disclaimer says:

    In his press conference (or statement, I’m not sure which) he even said that Putin himself was going to pay a “price”, a “very big” price.

    Boycott World Cup? This will sound very tough and decisive. We know that US team never qualified, but average US voter have no idea, and will be impressed.

    Read More
    • Replies: @for-the-record
    Boycott World Cup?

    The US has already warned about travel to Russia for the World Cup because of reduced consular service (!).

    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/apr/08/trump-official-football-fans-russia-world-cup
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  93. g2k says:

    The best scenario, in the absence of a non “human sacrifice ” style strike like last year’s would be that Assad goes and is replaced by another Alawaite a couple of notches down the food chain. Atlanticist propaganda seems to clingto the strongman view if history and could possibily be partially neutralized by replacing the guy it the top by someone else who perseues exactlybthe same policies.

    On the other hand, in 80 years we’re all dead anyway so a Kennedy style ultimatum may or may not be preferable for Russians to us satrapy (ak?)

    The unity is quite depressing though. As someone who remembers the build up to the Iraq war; France and Germany opposed this and there was a decent, if ineffective segment of the UK and US elite who were openly sceptical of the, even then, transparently exaggerated pretext. This seems to have totally evaporated even as they were proved right.

    Read More
    • Replies: @reiner Tor

    Assad goes and is replaced by another Alawaite a couple of notches down the food chain
     
    Not so easy. Assad has some cousin or uncle or something who is understood to be the current president-in-waiting (until one of Assad’s sons becomes eligible), and cannot simply be sidelined, and is for some reason unacceptable to a big part of the elite. I read about it a few years ago and that’s all I remember. But I’m sure it’s not a simple task to replace a reigning monarchy in a monarchy whose rules of succession are governed by unwritten rules with very few precedents (because it’s nominally a republic, and there was only one example of a king succeeded by someone, a son).

    The unity is quite depressing though. As someone who remembers the build up to the Iraq war; France and Germany opposed this and there was a decent, if ineffective segment of the UK and US elite who were openly sceptical of the, even then, transparently exaggerated pretext. This seems to have totally evaporated even as they were proved right.
     
    Horrible. This is probably a reason why the propaganda is so much more effective: “all democracies and democratic politicians agree, as well as all the press and media, left or right.”
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  94. Randal says:
    @German_reader

    But I often feel the Americans are crazy
     
    They are, they have a completely warped view of reality (and not just "elites", a significant part of the general population as well) and believe a lot of absurd myths about their inherent goodness and the complete wickedness of their opponents. Also a dangerously selective view of history (always Munich in 1938...never July 1914), which seems to have gotten much worse since the passing of the generation that actually lived through WW2. And a lot of triumphalism over their "victory" in the Cold war which they apparently feel uppity Russia is trying to take away from them again.
    When you look at the frankly insane statements by prominent US politicians like Tom Cotton or Lindsey Graham (and also at the anti-Russian hysteria whipped up by the Democrats), one can only conclude that these people aren't rational and that the US, at least on its present course, ought to be isolated and contained. But that reality is apparently too much for most people in Europe to fully understand.

    When you look at the frankly insane statements by prominent US politicians like Tom Cotton or Lindsey Graham

    Here’s what the US elected senator Lindsey Graham calmly and rationally proposes as a response to the latest rumours of a supposed Syrian chemical weapons attack:

    “To me, I would destroy Assad’s air force,” the South Carolina Republican said on ABC’s “This Week.” “I would create safe zones in Syria where people can come back to their country from the surrounding area and live a better life. Train up Syrians to take on Assad so we can negotiate in Geneva from a position of strength.”

    https://edition.cnn.com/2018/04/08/politics/john-mccain-congress-donald-trump-syria/index.html

    Lindsey Graham: re-elected as senator by American voters with a thumping 55-38% margin after two previous warmongering terms that left no American voter with the slightest excuse for not being fully aware of his tendencies.

    Let’s just bear in mind here as well that all this enthusiastic momentum for the worst warmongering voices and lobbies in US politics and media is entirely the fault of Donald Trump, and the result of gratuitous words and actions by Donald Trump. He was under no compulsion to start responding to rumours of supposed chemical attacks like an emotionally incontinent girl-child, and thereby creating expectations that the US military could be pushed into action by the warmongers every time such a pretext was manufactured.

    Donald Trump created this situation. May he choke on it.

    Read More
    • Replies: @for-the-record
    He was under no compulsion to start responding to rumours of supposed chemical attacks like an emotionally incontinent girl-child,

    I can't go along with you on this. The situation was already de facto (look at what your own eminences are saying) and Trump was simply trying to get in front, to protect himself against the charge that it was all his fault (due to last week's statement about withdrawal).
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  95. @anon

    In his press conference (or statement, I’m not sure which) he even said that Putin himself was going to pay a “price”, a “very big” price.
     
    Boycott World Cup? This will sound very tough and decisive. We know that US team never qualified, but average US voter have no idea, and will be impressed.

    Boycott World Cup?

    The US has already warned about travel to Russia for the World Cup because of reduced consular service (!).

    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/apr/08/trump-official-football-fans-russia-world-cup

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  96. @g2k
    The best scenario, in the absence of a non "human sacrifice " style strike like last year's would be that Assad goes and is replaced by another Alawaite a couple of notches down the food chain. Atlanticist propaganda seems to clingto the strongman view if history and could possibily be partially neutralized by replacing the guy it the top by someone else who perseues exactlybthe same policies.

    On the other hand, in 80 years we're all dead anyway so a Kennedy style ultimatum may or may not be preferable for Russians to us satrapy (ak?)

    The unity is quite depressing though. As someone who remembers the build up to the Iraq war; France and Germany opposed this and there was a decent, if ineffective segment of the UK and US elite who were openly sceptical of the, even then, transparently exaggerated pretext. This seems to have totally evaporated even as they were proved right.

    Assad goes and is replaced by another Alawaite a couple of notches down the food chain

    Not so easy. Assad has some cousin or uncle or something who is understood to be the current president-in-waiting (until one of Assad’s sons becomes eligible), and cannot simply be sidelined, and is for some reason unacceptable to a big part of the elite. I read about it a few years ago and that’s all I remember. But I’m sure it’s not a simple task to replace a reigning monarchy in a monarchy whose rules of succession are governed by unwritten rules with very few precedents (because it’s nominally a republic, and there was only one example of a king succeeded by someone, a son).

    The unity is quite depressing though. As someone who remembers the build up to the Iraq war; France and Germany opposed this and there was a decent, if ineffective segment of the UK and US elite who were openly sceptical of the, even then, transparently exaggerated pretext. This seems to have totally evaporated even as they were proved right.

    Horrible. This is probably a reason why the propaganda is so much more effective: “all democracies and democratic politicians agree, as well as all the press and media, left or right.”

    Read More
    • Replies: @g2k
    Well maybe this is Darwinism in action. In the event of a full on US attack and Russia not starting WWIII in response it's a credible get out clause. The alternative is for almost all non Sunnis to be stabbed, shot tortured etc. to death along with a renewed refugee wave to Europe. Almost all of the propaganda thus far has focussed on Assad this, Assad that. A change of face , without a change of policy gives them a get out. Russia is similar in this respect (PutinSatan but that's as sophisticated as the argument gets in 90 percent of news reports). The US is where it is partially due to its ability to pull off this menourvre. They've gone from Clinton to Bush to Obama to Trump without a tangible change in policy. The Europeans, for some reason, hated Bush and baulked at his stupid schemes, but had no problem blindly following Obama administration when it did exactly the same thing and activity encourage the Trump administration when it doesn't.
    , @g2k

    Horrible. This is probably a reason why the propaganda is so much more effective: “all democracies and democratic politicians agree, as well as all the press and media, left or right.”
     
    I suspect it's representative of a generational shift away from the WWII and silent generation and towards the Boomers and Xers, so maybe a sanguine John Dolan-esque longing for a nucrear exchange isn't so irrational. Once the milleanials start to become seniour statesmen, we'll probably have one anyway over a even more stupid and emotional issue.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  97. @Randal

    When you look at the frankly insane statements by prominent US politicians like Tom Cotton or Lindsey Graham
     
    Here's what the US elected senator Lindsey Graham calmly and rationally proposes as a response to the latest rumours of a supposed Syrian chemical weapons attack:


    "To me, I would destroy Assad's air force," the South Carolina Republican said on ABC's "This Week." "I would create safe zones in Syria where people can come back to their country from the surrounding area and live a better life. Train up Syrians to take on Assad so we can negotiate in Geneva from a position of strength."
     
    https://edition.cnn.com/2018/04/08/politics/john-mccain-congress-donald-trump-syria/index.html

    Lindsey Graham: re-elected as senator by American voters with a thumping 55-38% margin after two previous warmongering terms that left no American voter with the slightest excuse for not being fully aware of his tendencies.

    Let's just bear in mind here as well that all this enthusiastic momentum for the worst warmongering voices and lobbies in US politics and media is entirely the fault of Donald Trump, and the result of gratuitous words and actions by Donald Trump. He was under no compulsion to start responding to rumours of supposed chemical attacks like an emotionally incontinent girl-child, and thereby creating expectations that the US military could be pushed into action by the warmongers every time such a pretext was manufactured.

    Donald Trump created this situation. May he choke on it.

    He was under no compulsion to start responding to rumours of supposed chemical attacks like an emotionally incontinent girl-child,

    I can’t go along with you on this. The situation was already de facto (look at what your own eminences are saying) and Trump was simply trying to get in front, to protect himself against the charge that it was all his fault (due to last week’s statement about withdrawal).

    Read More
    • Replies: @reiner Tor
    I think Randal’s point was that the situation was created by Trump last year, when he started saying that the use of chemical weapons was a red line for him and he would respond by force. It was a declaration that he’d fall for the next false flag as well. By not investigating the last time, he cannot demand investigations now. Etc.
    , @Randal
    As rT wrote, I was referring to his past responses that created this precedent and expectation that alleged chemical weapons attacks are, first, something to make a big public fuss about, and second, a justification for military aggression. Notably, it was "me too'ed" by the loathsome French Blairite Macron some time back.

    Perhaps he was too stupid and/or ignorant to see where it would lead.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  98. @for-the-record
    He was under no compulsion to start responding to rumours of supposed chemical attacks like an emotionally incontinent girl-child,

    I can't go along with you on this. The situation was already de facto (look at what your own eminences are saying) and Trump was simply trying to get in front, to protect himself against the charge that it was all his fault (due to last week's statement about withdrawal).

    I think Randal’s point was that the situation was created by Trump last year, when he started saying that the use of chemical weapons was a red line for him and he would respond by force. It was a declaration that he’d fall for the next false flag as well. By not investigating the last time, he cannot demand investigations now. Etc.

    Read More
    • Replies: @reiner Tor
    Trump cannot even admit the possibility that it could have been a false flag. The rabbit hole it’d open would run much too deep, for example people would start questioning his decision not to investigate last year. After all, if it could be a false flag now, then it could’ve been last year as well.

    Now with Trump’s lawyer raided by the FBI, he’s not in a position to wage a war against both the deep state and the political elite. Not to forget his own former self.

    We might fittingly get a world war as a result of a warmonger elite which pushes for war without understanding the risks or feeling responsibility and a weak president desperate to look tough or not be impeached for being soft. A fittingly stupid ending of our civilization.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  99. g2k says:
    @reiner Tor

    Assad goes and is replaced by another Alawaite a couple of notches down the food chain
     
    Not so easy. Assad has some cousin or uncle or something who is understood to be the current president-in-waiting (until one of Assad’s sons becomes eligible), and cannot simply be sidelined, and is for some reason unacceptable to a big part of the elite. I read about it a few years ago and that’s all I remember. But I’m sure it’s not a simple task to replace a reigning monarchy in a monarchy whose rules of succession are governed by unwritten rules with very few precedents (because it’s nominally a republic, and there was only one example of a king succeeded by someone, a son).

    The unity is quite depressing though. As someone who remembers the build up to the Iraq war; France and Germany opposed this and there was a decent, if ineffective segment of the UK and US elite who were openly sceptical of the, even then, transparently exaggerated pretext. This seems to have totally evaporated even as they were proved right.
     
    Horrible. This is probably a reason why the propaganda is so much more effective: “all democracies and democratic politicians agree, as well as all the press and media, left or right.”

    Well maybe this is Darwinism in action. In the event of a full on US attack and Russia not starting WWIII in response it’s a credible get out clause. The alternative is for almost all non Sunnis to be stabbed, shot tortured etc. to death along with a renewed refugee wave to Europe. Almost all of the propaganda thus far has focussed on Assad this, Assad that. A change of face , without a change of policy gives them a get out. Russia is similar in this respect (PutinSatan but that’s as sophisticated as the argument gets in 90 percent of news reports). The US is where it is partially due to its ability to pull off this menourvre. They’ve gone from Clinton to Bush to Obama to Trump without a tangible change in policy. The Europeans, for some reason, hated Bush and baulked at his stupid schemes, but had no problem blindly following Obama administration when it did exactly the same thing and activity encourage the Trump administration when it doesn’t.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  100. anon[279] • Disclaimer says:
    @Randal
    That's good stuff, rT. You could get a job writing for the Guardian with that. Or the Times, the Telegraph, the BBC, etc.....

    The situation really is that bad - that you actually cannot parody the establishment media sufficiently absurdly as not to read as though you are parroting it.

    The situation really is that bad – that you actually cannot parody the establishment media sufficiently absurdly as not to read as though you are parroting it.

    Well, when I searched for “neocon” on twitter, this guy came up.

    Self proclaimed neoconservative, admirer of GWB, cheerleading for the Iraq War like it was year 2003.

    http://markhumphrys.com/bushisms.html

    Seems to be totally sincere, not a parody account. To be fair, too dumb to be part of any establishment, even our current maximally dumbed out one.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Randal
    Comical. But equally, profoundly depressing.

    We (I mean voices of reason on war) beat the pants off his type in the online debates in the runup to the defeat of the British and later US government's attempt to generate political cover for the intended attack on Syria in 2013, and I firmly believe that played a part in creating the political pressure that defeated that attempt. The result was a huge increase in the pressure to close or censor establishment media comment forums, and a big push for the propaganda line about "Russian trolls" etc intended to be used to discredit future dissent, in exactly the way your neocon used it.
    , @Swedish Family
    Note how the the question was about rationality and the instinct of survival and how the neocon somehow made that into one of autocrats not sharing our Western values -- which they don't, of course, but suicidally irrational they seldom are, not even Kim Jong-Un.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  101. @reiner Tor
    I think Randal’s point was that the situation was created by Trump last year, when he started saying that the use of chemical weapons was a red line for him and he would respond by force. It was a declaration that he’d fall for the next false flag as well. By not investigating the last time, he cannot demand investigations now. Etc.

    Trump cannot even admit the possibility that it could have been a false flag. The rabbit hole it’d open would run much too deep, for example people would start questioning his decision not to investigate last year. After all, if it could be a false flag now, then it could’ve been last year as well.

    Now with Trump’s lawyer raided by the FBI, he’s not in a position to wage a war against both the deep state and the political elite. Not to forget his own former self.

    We might fittingly get a world war as a result of a warmonger elite which pushes for war without understanding the risks or feeling responsibility and a weak president desperate to look tough or not be impeached for being soft. A fittingly stupid ending of our civilization.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Dmitry

    Trump cannot even admit the possibility that it could have been a false flag. The rabbit hole it’d open would run much too deep, for example people would start questioning his decision not to investigate last year. After all, if it could be a false flag now, then it could’ve been last year as well.

     

    You assume that he would care? But why would he care if it is false flag or not.

    The incident gives Trump (the US) more power, as it gives an excuse to throw their weight around and demand concessions.

    (And when countries don't have this excuse, that's why they do false flags to begin with - Gleiwitz incident, Mukden Incident, etc.)
    , @LondonBob
    That is nonsense, Trump has consistently underestimated his own strength and his enemies intentions. He could and should have fired Rosenstein and Mueller a year ago, no one would impeach him for that, absolutely empty threat. He could declare on twitter tomorrow that there is no evidence of a chemical attack by Assad, there isn't as the White House admits. He promised action and so he can blame the rebels and declare his response would be an immediate withdrawl. Trump can declassify intelligence and he is the C in C.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  102. g2k says:
    @reiner Tor

    Assad goes and is replaced by another Alawaite a couple of notches down the food chain
     
    Not so easy. Assad has some cousin or uncle or something who is understood to be the current president-in-waiting (until one of Assad’s sons becomes eligible), and cannot simply be sidelined, and is for some reason unacceptable to a big part of the elite. I read about it a few years ago and that’s all I remember. But I’m sure it’s not a simple task to replace a reigning monarchy in a monarchy whose rules of succession are governed by unwritten rules with very few precedents (because it’s nominally a republic, and there was only one example of a king succeeded by someone, a son).

    The unity is quite depressing though. As someone who remembers the build up to the Iraq war; France and Germany opposed this and there was a decent, if ineffective segment of the UK and US elite who were openly sceptical of the, even then, transparently exaggerated pretext. This seems to have totally evaporated even as they were proved right.
     
    Horrible. This is probably a reason why the propaganda is so much more effective: “all democracies and democratic politicians agree, as well as all the press and media, left or right.”

    Horrible. This is probably a reason why the propaganda is so much more effective: “all democracies and democratic politicians agree, as well as all the press and media, left or right.”

    I suspect it’s representative of a generational shift away from the WWII and silent generation and towards the Boomers and Xers, so maybe a sanguine John Dolan-esque longing for a nucrear exchange isn’t so irrational. Once the milleanials start to become seniour statesmen, we’ll probably have one anyway over a even more stupid and emotional issue.

    Read More
    • Replies: @reiner Tor
    Depressing, but I’m having similar thoughts myself.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  103. Randal says:
    @for-the-record
    He was under no compulsion to start responding to rumours of supposed chemical attacks like an emotionally incontinent girl-child,

    I can't go along with you on this. The situation was already de facto (look at what your own eminences are saying) and Trump was simply trying to get in front, to protect himself against the charge that it was all his fault (due to last week's statement about withdrawal).

    As rT wrote, I was referring to his past responses that created this precedent and expectation that alleged chemical weapons attacks are, first, something to make a big public fuss about, and second, a justification for military aggression. Notably, it was “me too’ed” by the loathsome French Blairite Macron some time back.

    Perhaps he was too stupid and/or ignorant to see where it would lead.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  104. @g2k

    Horrible. This is probably a reason why the propaganda is so much more effective: “all democracies and democratic politicians agree, as well as all the press and media, left or right.”
     
    I suspect it's representative of a generational shift away from the WWII and silent generation and towards the Boomers and Xers, so maybe a sanguine John Dolan-esque longing for a nucrear exchange isn't so irrational. Once the milleanials start to become seniour statesmen, we'll probably have one anyway over a even more stupid and emotional issue.

    Depressing, but I’m having similar thoughts myself.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Randal

    Depressing, but I’m having similar thoughts myself.

     

    You're probably only just recovering from all that "intimidation" and "xenophobic rhetoric" that was used to manipulate you into re-electing the universally hated dictator Orban.

    International observers have delivered a damning verdict on the parliamentary election in Hungary, complaining of “intimidating and xenophobic rhetoric, media bias and opaque campaign financing”.
     
    I read that they even went to the lengths of posting up the very same brutally xenophobic picture that got UKIP reported to the police when they used it in the UK election. Evil knows no national borders, it seems.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  105. anon[233] • Disclaimer says:

    Nikki Haley is now banging her big boot in the UN Security Council.

    https://www.cbsnews.com/news/u-n-security-council-holds-emergency-meeting-suspected-chemical-attack-syria-today-2018-04-09-live-stream

    Read More
    • Replies: @Daniel Chieh
    She described the victims in graphic terms.

    "I could hold up pictures of babies lying dead next to their mothers, in their diapers, all lying together, dead, ashen blue, open eyed and lifeless, white foam bubbling from their mouths and noses."

     

    Oh boy, this is subtle. Not at all like a parody of THINK OF THE CHILDREN!!!
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  106. @anon
    Nikki Haley is now banging her big boot in the UN Security Council.

    https://www.cbsnews.com/news/u-n-security-council-holds-emergency-meeting-suspected-chemical-attack-syria-today-2018-04-09-live-stream

    https://twitter.com/StateDept/status/983441555020238852

    https://twitter.com/Charlie_Edward/status/983439771027562496

    Why not? After GWB, BHO and DJT, anything is possible. If there still are any United States in 7 years.

    She described the victims in graphic terms.

    “I could hold up pictures of babies lying dead next to their mothers, in their diapers, all lying together, dead, ashen blue, open eyed and lifeless, white foam bubbling from their mouths and noses.”

    Oh boy, this is subtle. Not at all like a parody of THINK OF THE CHILDREN!!!

    Read More
    • Replies: @ussr andy
    Dalrymple made a point (in Spoilt Rotten, I think) sentimentality went hand in hand with brutality.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  107. Randal says:
    @anon

    The situation really is that bad – that you actually cannot parody the establishment media sufficiently absurdly as not to read as though you are parroting it.

     

    Well, when I searched for "neocon" on twitter, this guy came up.

    https://twitter.com/markhumphrys/status/983293489965359105

    https://twitter.com/markhumphrys/status/983292425841061888


    Self proclaimed neoconservative, admirer of GWB, cheerleading for the Iraq War like it was year 2003.

    http://markhumphrys.com/bushisms.html

    Seems to be totally sincere, not a parody account. To be fair, too dumb to be part of any establishment, even our current maximally dumbed out one.

    Comical. But equally, profoundly depressing.

    We (I mean voices of reason on war) beat the pants off his type in the online debates in the runup to the defeat of the British and later US government’s attempt to generate political cover for the intended attack on Syria in 2013, and I firmly believe that played a part in creating the political pressure that defeated that attempt. The result was a huge increase in the pressure to close or censor establishment media comment forums, and a big push for the propaganda line about “Russian trolls” etc intended to be used to discredit future dissent, in exactly the way your neocon used it.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  108. @reiner Tor
    It’s somewhat frightening. The more Putin folds, the more convinced they will be that he will fold the next time. I fail to see how Putin can avoid a world war without total capitulation. But I can understand why he tries to delay the inevitable as much as possible.

    It’s somewhat frightening. The more Putin folds, the more convinced they will be that he will fold the next time. I fail to see how Putin can avoid a world war without total capitulation. But I can understand why he tries to delay the inevitable as much as possible.

    I join in the pessimism expressed here and in other posts in this thread. But is total capitulation truly Russia’s only option? Attacking naval ships and military bases is a no-go, yes, but could they not respond to a serious attack by attacking US servicemen embedded with militias? Or by handing out MANPADS to the Syrian army? And where is China on this? They are surely next on the chopping block if the warmongers get their way.

    Either way, let’s hope cooler heads prevail and that we won’t see a Franz Fredinand moment.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  109. Randal says:
    @reiner Tor
    Depressing, but I’m having similar thoughts myself.

    Depressing, but I’m having similar thoughts myself.

    You’re probably only just recovering from all that “intimidation” and “xenophobic rhetoric” that was used to manipulate you into re-electing the universally hated dictator Orban.

    International observers have delivered a damning verdict on the parliamentary election in Hungary, complaining of “intimidating and xenophobic rhetoric, media bias and opaque campaign financing”.

    I read that they even went to the lengths of posting up the very same brutally xenophobic picture that got UKIP reported to the police when they used it in the UK election. Evil knows no national borders, it seems.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  110. @anon

    The situation really is that bad – that you actually cannot parody the establishment media sufficiently absurdly as not to read as though you are parroting it.

     

    Well, when I searched for "neocon" on twitter, this guy came up.

    https://twitter.com/markhumphrys/status/983293489965359105

    https://twitter.com/markhumphrys/status/983292425841061888


    Self proclaimed neoconservative, admirer of GWB, cheerleading for the Iraq War like it was year 2003.

    http://markhumphrys.com/bushisms.html

    Seems to be totally sincere, not a parody account. To be fair, too dumb to be part of any establishment, even our current maximally dumbed out one.

    Note how the the question was about rationality and the instinct of survival and how the neocon somehow made that into one of autocrats not sharing our Western values — which they don’t, of course, but suicidally irrational they seldom are, not even Kim Jong-Un.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  111. Dmitry says:
    @Anatoly Karlin
    There would have been *fewer* deaths that way.

    There would have also been much fewer deaths had Russia avoided interfering in 2014 at all.

    The route actually taken - getting the Donbass to fight a war of attrition with the Ukraine - produced the most deaths, impacting most heavily (per capita) on the most pro-Russian areas.

    Donetsk and Kharkov would have become net contributors in no time at all, eventually so would Odessa and Zaporozhye.

    It is (1) low IQ ethnic minority regions and (2) derelict northern areas settled during the USSR for non-economic reasons that suck up Russian resources. Novorossiya does not fit that profile.

    It is (1) low IQ ethnic minority regions and (2) derelict northern areas settled during the USSR for non-economic reasons that suck up Russian resources. Novorossiya does not fit that profile.

    Before 2014, were higher income regions of Ukraine. Not that great though – no oil/gas reserves.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anatoly Karlin
    Donetsk has coal, and generated something like 25% of the Ukraine's foreign currency earnings and as well as a disproportionate share of gov't revenue. Kharkov is the Ukraine's second hi-tech/science city after Kiev, as well as a major industrial center. These two regions would have become net donors immediately to within a couple of years.

    Odessa (main Ukrainian port), Zaporozhye (Motor Sich), Nikolaev (shipbuilding), and Dnepropetrovsk (industrial) would have started off as recipients but could have been expected to transition to net donors after a few years of convergence.

    Lugansk and Kherson would have probably remained net recipients indefinitely.

    Still, 6/8 is a great deal. Much better, say, than the North Caucasus ethnic minority republics (0/7).
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  112. Dmitry says:
    @for-the-record
    A big public announcement or action by the Russians and/or Chinese that would force a Pentagon rethink right about now would be very timely.

    Agree, but it is very unlikely unfortunately as they will almost certainly continue with their casuistic position that the US and Israel have a free hand to strike Syria, so long as Russian personnel are not endangered.

    They obviously have far more patience than I would. I suspect also that they are unwilling to do anything too "drastic" before the World Cup, which they desperately want to be a "success". Conversely, it seems to me that the Empire and friends are doing everything possible to provoke a response from Russia which can then be used to torpedo the World Cup. From their point of view the World Cup cannot be seen to be a success (all those people returning to their home countries with stories of how "normal" Russia is).

    Agree, but it is very unlikely unfortunately as they will almost certainly continue with their casuistic position that the US and Israel have a free hand to strike Syria, so long as Russian personnel are not endangered.

    It’s all ways consensus.

    Turkey has free hand to strike, as long as they don’t hit US/Russia/Israel.

    Israel has free hand to strike, as long as they don’t hit US/Russia/Turkey.

    Russia has free hand to strike, as long as they don’t hit US/Turkey/Israel.

    US has free hand to strike, as long as they don’t hit Turkey/Russia/Israel.

    The one which is currently missing from the rules are Iran, which Israel is sometimes striking.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  113. Dmitry says:
    @reiner Tor
    Trump cannot even admit the possibility that it could have been a false flag. The rabbit hole it’d open would run much too deep, for example people would start questioning his decision not to investigate last year. After all, if it could be a false flag now, then it could’ve been last year as well.

    Now with Trump’s lawyer raided by the FBI, he’s not in a position to wage a war against both the deep state and the political elite. Not to forget his own former self.

    We might fittingly get a world war as a result of a warmonger elite which pushes for war without understanding the risks or feeling responsibility and a weak president desperate to look tough or not be impeached for being soft. A fittingly stupid ending of our civilization.

    Trump cannot even admit the possibility that it could have been a false flag. The rabbit hole it’d open would run much too deep, for example people would start questioning his decision not to investigate last year. After all, if it could be a false flag now, then it could’ve been last year as well.

    You assume that he would care? But why would he care if it is false flag or not.

    The incident gives Trump (the US) more power, as it gives an excuse to throw their weight around and demand concessions.

    (And when countries don’t have this excuse, that’s why they do false flags to begin with – Gleiwitz incident, Mukden Incident, etc.)

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  114. Dmitry says:
    @reiner Tor
    In the First World War there were claims that they were totally useless. Their effect greatly depends on things difficult to control, especially the wind. They might kill people on your side, too. The easiest way to use it is to use against dense targets far away from the frontline. At least that’s my understanding.

    It’s clearly useful for urban war as well. You can just clear an area like this without risking your soldiers in door to door fighting.

    Of course very gruesome – the experience WW1, has created a lasting horror of it.

    But imagine how much easier the Berlin Offensive Operation or Battle of Stalingrad (on German side initially) would have been if they had just covered the city with mustard gas by shellling, before sending in soldiers.

    Read More
    • Replies: @reiner Tor
    Soldiers are more likely to receive hazmat suits or even proper medical treatment and antidotes, but even if not, due to the high population densities the vast majority of casualties will be civilians. Chemical weapons are not very civilian-friendly, to put it mildly.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  115. Dmitry says:
    @German_reader

    when being killed by gases seemed more horrendous to soldiers than to be killed by fast moving metal pieces or bayonets
     
    But even in WW1 vastly more casualties were caused by artillery fire...and having limbs torn off by shrapnel doesn't seem any more pleasant to me than having one's lungs destroyed by gas. Both are pretty bad.
    I just don't get this selective outrage...the Syrian civil war is a brutal conflict, and all sides are committing atrocities. It seems bizarre to me how people can feel such moral indignation over a foreign conflict...especially so since Assad's dictatorship is probably the lesser evil, given the Islamist nature of much of the opposition and the track record of Islamist movements in the Islamic world.
    Maybe it's me (I may be rather uncaring about such issues), but all those normies buying this atrocity propaganda seem pretty stupid to me.

    But even in WW1 vastly more casualties were caused by artillery fire…and having limbs torn off by shrapnel doesn’t seem any more pleasant to me than having one’s lungs destroyed by gas. Both are pretty bad.

    From the rational point of view, what you say is correct.

    But the WW1 chemical experience has a kind of traumatizing effect on European psychology in relation to the words ‘chemical weapons’.

    In the United Kingdom, many famous poems written about mustard gas (Yperite).

    Some quite beautiful in describing its gruesome effect.

    https://www.poetryfoundation.org/poems/46560/dulce-et-decorum-est

    Read More
    • Replies: @German_reader

    But the WW1 chemical experience has a kind of traumatizing effect on European psychology in relation to the words ‘chemical weapons’.
     
    Maybe in Britain and France where memories of WW1 trench fighting are still part of the national mythology. I'm not even sure though if chemical weapons were of much significance on the Eastern front in WW1 (after all their original purpose was to break up the stalemate of trench fighting and make a war of movement possible again...conditions in the east were different. The Bolsheviks used gas against Russian peasants though in the early 1920s iirc). And in Germany WW1 is largely forgotten nowadays, completely eclipsed by WW2. Must be similar for many other European countries.
    I wonder how it is in Spain and Italy since they used chemical weapons in North Africa and Abyssinia. But I guess Europeans weren't traumatized by that since the victims weren't Europeans.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  116. Dmitry says:
    @Randal

    Agree, but it is very unlikely unfortunately as they will almost certainly continue with their casuistic position that the US and Israel have a free hand to strike Syria, so long as Russian personnel are not endangered.
     
    I agree that it is unlikely, though I have rather more sympathy for the Russian position. There's a tendency around here to exaggerate Russian military and diplomatic strength, I think, and while those doing so make (in some cases, at least) a good case up to a point, nevertheless I think things look a lot less certain when you are in the hotseat in Moscow having to make the decisions.

    I would put inaction down to sensible caution and an inclination to endure wherever possible rather than to take potentially terminal risks. Your point about the World Cup is also a legitimate one, of course.

    And I wouldn't characterise the position as casuistry. At the end of the day, Russia owes nothing more to Syria than the general support of an ally, which does not extend to waging war in response to attacks upon that ally unless there is a clear NATO-style treaty commitment to do so. It is in Russia's interest to support Syria as much as possible, but not necessarily to go to war with either Israel or the US over it. And Putin's responsibility is wholly to the Russian people and not at all to the Syrian people or government.

    Hopefully restraint will prevail at some point. At the moment I'd say there's a high likelihood of a very dangerous (and criminal, obviously, but that is pretty much par for the US regime) act being perpetrated by the US in the next few days, and a low but non-zero possibility of that resulting in serious escalation. But who can really say? Show me a man who claims to know the outcome and I'll show you a liar.

    I agree that it is unlikely, though I have rather more sympathy for the Russian position. There’s a tendency around here to exaggerate Russian military and diplomatic strength, I think, and while those doing so make (in some cases, at least) a good case up to a point, nevertheless I think things look a lot less certain when you are in the hotseat in Moscow having to make the decisions.

    I’m not a personal fan of the operation (what is even the end goal – strategic, as opposed to tactical?), but it has generally been very successful and surprisingly competent exercise for Russian aviation.

    A lot of the success of the operation in Syria so far, has been no getting dragged into offtopic areas, or not even getting dragged too much into the conflict (it’s been mainly confined to the air-strikes), and also keeping the costs low (both economic and diplomatic).

    It’s not important crisis or region for the public like Ukraine, and vast majority of people don’t care, or want some large commitment in Syria – but if Kremlin leadership can keep it as a high success/cost ratio, then it is sellable to the public (it’s not that much worse than an expensive training exercise so far).

    Getting dragged into distant regional conflicts, or losing diplomatic status/influence over it, would defeat that justification for intervention, or for at least minimal intervention which is the current policy (and which I can currently argue good sides of, even if it doesn’t particularly appeal to me), .

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  117. Dmitry says:
    @Thorfinnsson


    In my simplistic view.

    The Conservative Party would be good for economics, but maybe still bad for culture/immigration.

    The Corbyn would be bad for economics and bad for culture/immigration (the only way he might reduce Islamist sector is by turning the country into an economic recession that would scare everyone away, including native British people. Otherwise, he seems to even excuse the Islamist bombing in Ariana Grande Concert).

    The Liberal Democrat Party – according to Wikipedia – is based more on environmentalism and progressive taxation (it’s not a classical liberal/neoliberal party). So a bad choice.

    The UK Independence Party seems closer to the classical liberal viewpoint.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UK_Independence_Party#Economic_policy

    So this is the Party I would be supportive.
     
    The benefits of liberal/neoliberal economics are a bit oversold. Notice that the UK, France, and Germany all have very similar per capita gross domestic products. The UK is much more neoliberal than Germany which is in turn more neoliberal than France.

    The Nordic countries have some of the highest tax rates in the world, but they are all very wealthy.

    Of course my personal class interests are in favor of low tax rates, so I favor them regardless. At any rate low taxes are not harmful, unless they're so low the state becomes fiscally unsustainable.

    Corbyn in theory could result in a short term economic boost simply because of the stimulative impact of government spending. In the long term he would be harmful, particularly if he follows through on threats to attack the City.

    Britain has two fundamental economic problems. One is that its manufacturing sector is too small. Two is that its labor productivity is too low--something like one quarter lower than France and Germany. They make up the difference by working more hours.

    Like America, Britain also runs a chronic balance of payments deficit. Hence why more and more of London is owned by foreigners, along with the entire automotive industry in the country.

    I don't see that any parties in Britain have a plan to tackle either of these problems.

    Obviously the UK is a country with a huge amount of potential, but they would need to make their policies more similar to Switzerland, with low tax, as well as not to endanger their investment climate with ridiculous policies (such as the hysteria against Russian investors in the UK).
     
    There is certainly a lot of potential. Britain's professional services sector is the best in Europe, and BREXIT provides an opportunity to make to increase its dominance.

    But there are risks as well if BREXIT is handled poorly or not capitalized on.

    Britain also has one of the better tech scenes in Europe.

    The benefits of liberal/neoliberal economics are a bit oversold. Notice that the UK, France, and Germany all have very similar per capita gross domestic products. The UK is much more neoliberal than Germany which is in turn more neoliberal than France.

    There’s very strong evidence that tax cuts lead to lasting economic growth

    There is also an international component of competition in areas like corporate tax – a large part of Ireland’s economic miracle is simply due to their having lowest corporate taxes in the EU region.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Mitleser

    There’s very strong evidence that tax cuts lead to lasting economic growth
     
    Who benefits from it?

    a large part of Ireland’s economic miracle is simply due to their having lowest corporate taxes in the EU region.
     
    At the expense of the rest of the EU.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  118. @Dmitry

    But even in WW1 vastly more casualties were caused by artillery fire…and having limbs torn off by shrapnel doesn’t seem any more pleasant to me than having one’s lungs destroyed by gas. Both are pretty bad.
     
    From the rational point of view, what you say is correct.

    But the WW1 chemical experience has a kind of traumatizing effect on European psychology in relation to the words 'chemical weapons'.

    In the United Kingdom, many famous poems written about mustard gas (Yperite).

    Some quite beautiful in describing its gruesome effect.

    https://www.poetryfoundation.org/poems/46560/dulce-et-decorum-est

    But the WW1 chemical experience has a kind of traumatizing effect on European psychology in relation to the words ‘chemical weapons’.

    Maybe in Britain and France where memories of WW1 trench fighting are still part of the national mythology. I’m not even sure though if chemical weapons were of much significance on the Eastern front in WW1 (after all their original purpose was to break up the stalemate of trench fighting and make a war of movement possible again…conditions in the east were different. The Bolsheviks used gas against Russian peasants though in the early 1920s iirc). And in Germany WW1 is largely forgotten nowadays, completely eclipsed by WW2. Must be similar for many other European countries.
    I wonder how it is in Spain and Italy since they used chemical weapons in North Africa and Abyssinia. But I guess Europeans weren’t traumatized by that since the victims weren’t Europeans.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  119. Mitleser says:
    @Dmitry

    The benefits of liberal/neoliberal economics are a bit oversold. Notice that the UK, France, and Germany all have very similar per capita gross domestic products. The UK is much more neoliberal than Germany which is in turn more neoliberal than France.

     

    There's very strong evidence that tax cuts lead to lasting economic growth

    There is also an international component of competition in areas like corporate tax - a large part of Ireland's economic miracle is simply due to their having lowest corporate taxes in the EU region.

    There’s very strong evidence that tax cuts lead to lasting economic growth

    Who benefits from it?

    a large part of Ireland’s economic miracle is simply due to their having lowest corporate taxes in the EU region.

    At the expense of the rest of the EU.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  120. @Dmitry

    It is (1) low IQ ethnic minority regions and (2) derelict northern areas settled during the USSR for non-economic reasons that suck up Russian resources. Novorossiya does not fit that profile.

     

    Before 2014, were higher income regions of Ukraine. Not that great though - no oil/gas reserves.

    Donetsk has coal, and generated something like 25% of the Ukraine’s foreign currency earnings and as well as a disproportionate share of gov’t revenue. Kharkov is the Ukraine’s second hi-tech/science city after Kiev, as well as a major industrial center. These two regions would have become net donors immediately to within a couple of years.

    Odessa (main Ukrainian port), Zaporozhye (Motor Sich), Nikolaev (shipbuilding), and Dnepropetrovsk (industrial) would have started off as recipients but could have been expected to transition to net donors after a few years of convergence.

    Lugansk and Kherson would have probably remained net recipients indefinitely.

    Still, 6/8 is a great deal. Much better, say, than the North Caucasus ethnic minority republics (0/7).

    Read More
    • Replies: @Mr. Hack
    With somewhere between 75% & 80% of Ukrainians not buying into the staged 'NovoRosiyan' scenario, it's certain that a Crimean result was not in the offing. But who knows, Hitler got away with a similar anschluss in the Sudetenland with comparable support of 23%. It all seems a moot point today, however, unless you see something that I don't?...
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  121. @Thorfinnsson


    No, he’s a f***ing idiot, and the time to make excuses for him is well past. These emotional Twitter outbursts over the deaths of foreigners (who are probably anti-Western anyway…why else would they be in a jihadi-controlled area? Why should we care if Assad gasses them, even when one assumes this isn’t a false flag attack?) are the sign of a weak, immature and gullible mind, just pathetic.
     
    He's not an idiot. The trouble is that to achieve his policy goals, he effectively needs to complete a revolution. He was not aware of that when running, since like most patriotic Americans he was surprised to learn that we are governed by evil people who hate us and want to destroy us.

    We elected one of our own, but he isn't formidable enough to get the job done. He would've made an excellent President during the 1920s, when America was still largely governed by well-meaning patriots.

    That said, yes, Trump is a disappointment. But I would say he disappoints within the range of expectations. He has also played a very helpful educational and propaganda role. In 2015 the term "Deep State" was practically unknown in America, as was "chain migration".

    he disappoints within the range of expectations

    No, he is far more disappointing than I could have dreamed possible.

    He promised to strictly enforce the immigration laws and avoid unnecessary wars.

    Instead, he has conceded the morality of Obama’s unconstitutional DACA amnesty, repeatedly bombed Syria, increased Obama’s support for Saudi Arabia’s war against Yemen, increased sanctions against Russia, funded the leftist parties of Hungary – and deliberately humiliated his most important supporters, people who took his campaign promises seriously such as Jeff Sessions and Steve Bannon.

    He needs to be replaced with someone better in the 2020 Republican Party primary election.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  122. Mr. Hack says:
    @Anatoly Karlin
    Donetsk has coal, and generated something like 25% of the Ukraine's foreign currency earnings and as well as a disproportionate share of gov't revenue. Kharkov is the Ukraine's second hi-tech/science city after Kiev, as well as a major industrial center. These two regions would have become net donors immediately to within a couple of years.

    Odessa (main Ukrainian port), Zaporozhye (Motor Sich), Nikolaev (shipbuilding), and Dnepropetrovsk (industrial) would have started off as recipients but could have been expected to transition to net donors after a few years of convergence.

    Lugansk and Kherson would have probably remained net recipients indefinitely.

    Still, 6/8 is a great deal. Much better, say, than the North Caucasus ethnic minority republics (0/7).

    With somewhere between 75% & 80% of Ukrainians not buying into the staged ‘NovoRosiyan’ scenario, it’s certain that a Crimean result was not in the offing. But who knows, Hitler got away with a similar anschluss in the Sudetenland with comparable support of 23%. It all seems a moot point today, however, unless you see something that I don’t?…

    Read More
    • Replies: @reiner Tor

    Hitler got away with a similar anschluss in the Sudetenland with comparable support of 23%
     
    Well, I think at least nearly half of the population in both Austria and the Sudetenland supported joining Germany. It would probably have gone up to near 100% if it wasn’t a Nazi Germany. Nazism decreased the appeal of Germany to people like social democratic trade union members.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  123. @Mr. Hack
    With somewhere between 75% & 80% of Ukrainians not buying into the staged 'NovoRosiyan' scenario, it's certain that a Crimean result was not in the offing. But who knows, Hitler got away with a similar anschluss in the Sudetenland with comparable support of 23%. It all seems a moot point today, however, unless you see something that I don't?...

    Hitler got away with a similar anschluss in the Sudetenland with comparable support of 23%

    Well, I think at least nearly half of the population in both Austria and the Sudetenland supported joining Germany. It would probably have gone up to near 100% if it wasn’t a Nazi Germany. Nazism decreased the appeal of Germany to people like social democratic trade union members.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Greasy William

    Nazism decreased the appeal of Germany to people like social democratic trade union members.
     
    And yet the Nazi's strongest base of support was always the workers. It was the farmers and entrepreneurs who hated the Nazis.

    Nazism was a very strange movement.

    What I never understood is how Hitler got so much support from big business. In the US, big business are die hard believers in free market capitalism.
    , @Mr. Hack

    Well, I think at least nearly half of the population in both Austria and the Sudetenland supported joining Germany.
     
    Well, there were nowhere as many people in Ukraine that supported unification with Russia (outside of Crimea) in 2014, and there certainly aren't today. I don't know what science fiction books Karlin reads that seem to fuel his imagination? Perhaps, one of these beauts: :-)

    https://nobsrussia.com/2016/12/31/an-awesome-new-year/

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  124. @reiner Tor

    Hitler got away with a similar anschluss in the Sudetenland with comparable support of 23%
     
    Well, I think at least nearly half of the population in both Austria and the Sudetenland supported joining Germany. It would probably have gone up to near 100% if it wasn’t a Nazi Germany. Nazism decreased the appeal of Germany to people like social democratic trade union members.

    Nazism decreased the appeal of Germany to people like social democratic trade union members.

    And yet the Nazi’s strongest base of support was always the workers. It was the farmers and entrepreneurs who hated the Nazis.

    Nazism was a very strange movement.

    What I never understood is how Hitler got so much support from big business. In the US, big business are die hard believers in free market capitalism.

    Read More
    • Replies: @reiner Tor
    No, workers never supported Nazis that much. It was the lower middle class and small town inhabitants who supported them the most. Many worker districts in big cities like Berlin were no go zones for Nazis still in March 1933. I’ve seen photos of streets full of communist banners and posters ahead of the March 1933 election. These were broken a couple months later, but they never became reliable Nazi supporting areas.
    , @reiner Tor
    Well, first, he didn’t receive that much support from big business. Some support, yes, but the much smaller DNVP received more money than the Nazis. Then Germany had always had a lot of government meddling in the economy. I guess it wasn’t perceived as very bad, since that’s how Germany became a first world country.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  125. @Greasy William

    Nazism decreased the appeal of Germany to people like social democratic trade union members.
     
    And yet the Nazi's strongest base of support was always the workers. It was the farmers and entrepreneurs who hated the Nazis.

    Nazism was a very strange movement.

    What I never understood is how Hitler got so much support from big business. In the US, big business are die hard believers in free market capitalism.

    No, workers never supported Nazis that much. It was the lower middle class and small town inhabitants who supported them the most. Many worker districts in big cities like Berlin were no go zones for Nazis still in March 1933. I’ve seen photos of streets full of communist banners and posters ahead of the March 1933 election. These were broken a couple months later, but they never became reliable Nazi supporting areas.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Greasy William
    Are you saying that the factory workers didn't support the Nazis?

    Mises wrote in his commentary on the Nazi economy that Nazism really was great for the workers, just not so great for everybody else. And he certainly had no reason to lie.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  126. @Greasy William

    Nazism decreased the appeal of Germany to people like social democratic trade union members.
     
    And yet the Nazi's strongest base of support was always the workers. It was the farmers and entrepreneurs who hated the Nazis.

    Nazism was a very strange movement.

    What I never understood is how Hitler got so much support from big business. In the US, big business are die hard believers in free market capitalism.

    Well, first, he didn’t receive that much support from big business. Some support, yes, but the much smaller DNVP received more money than the Nazis. Then Germany had always had a lot of government meddling in the economy. I guess it wasn’t perceived as very bad, since that’s how Germany became a first world country.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  127. @reiner Tor
    No, workers never supported Nazis that much. It was the lower middle class and small town inhabitants who supported them the most. Many worker districts in big cities like Berlin were no go zones for Nazis still in March 1933. I’ve seen photos of streets full of communist banners and posters ahead of the March 1933 election. These were broken a couple months later, but they never became reliable Nazi supporting areas.

    Are you saying that the factory workers didn’t support the Nazis?

    Mises wrote in his commentary on the Nazi economy that Nazism really was great for the workers, just not so great for everybody else. And he certainly had no reason to lie.

    Read More
    • Replies: @reiner Tor
    Because the loyalty of the workers couldn’t be taken for granted, they increased their wages. The middle class was seen as more loyal and less likely to cause trouble.

    The Nazis were correct: as Richard J. Evans points out, right after the war the social democratic and communist parties reformed and had roughly the same level of support they had before Nazism. Obviously they didn’t lose the core of their support during Nazi times if they could so easily regain their following subsequently.
    , @Anatoly Karlin
    It wasn't. Despite the economic recovery, average Germans would not regain their late 1920s material living standards until the 1950s.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  128. Mr. Hack says:
    @reiner Tor

    Hitler got away with a similar anschluss in the Sudetenland with comparable support of 23%
     
    Well, I think at least nearly half of the population in both Austria and the Sudetenland supported joining Germany. It would probably have gone up to near 100% if it wasn’t a Nazi Germany. Nazism decreased the appeal of Germany to people like social democratic trade union members.

    Well, I think at least nearly half of the population in both Austria and the Sudetenland supported joining Germany.

    Well, there were nowhere as many people in Ukraine that supported unification with Russia (outside of Crimea) in 2014, and there certainly aren’t today. I don’t know what science fiction books Karlin reads that seem to fuel his imagination? Perhaps, one of these beauts: :-)

    https://nobsrussia.com/2016/12/31/an-awesome-new-year/

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  129. @Greasy William
    Are you saying that the factory workers didn't support the Nazis?

    Mises wrote in his commentary on the Nazi economy that Nazism really was great for the workers, just not so great for everybody else. And he certainly had no reason to lie.

    Because the loyalty of the workers couldn’t be taken for granted, they increased their wages. The middle class was seen as more loyal and less likely to cause trouble.

    The Nazis were correct: as Richard J. Evans points out, right after the war the social democratic and communist parties reformed and had roughly the same level of support they had before Nazism. Obviously they didn’t lose the core of their support during Nazi times if they could so easily regain their following subsequently.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  130. Oh man, it looks like the US and it’s Euro vassals really are going to launch some sort of attack on Syria. This is really bad. These things can take on a life of their own.

    I’m kinda freaking out here. The only good news is that Russia isn’t sounding hysterical like they normally do before the US does something retarded so hopefully everything has been cleared with Russia in advance.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Daniel Chieh
    So we might not have that civil war after all. Its not civil war when its Immortan Joe in the deserts of fallout, right?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  131. @Greasy William
    Oh man, it looks like the US and it's Euro vassals really are going to launch some sort of attack on Syria. This is really bad. These things can take on a life of their own.

    I'm kinda freaking out here. The only good news is that Russia isn't sounding hysterical like they normally do before the US does something retarded so hopefully everything has been cleared with Russia in advance.

    So we might not have that civil war after all. Its not civil war when its Immortan Joe in the deserts of fallout, right?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Greasy William
    I know that there won't be WWIII because G-d won't allow it, but that doesn't mean there can't be a huge mess.

    What we really need is for the UK, France and Germany to take a more independent line in the interest of making sure the US and Russia can deescalate. I'm not saying they should take Russia's side or even stay neutral, but they should announce that they won't participate directly in any attacks against Assad and that their first interest is in deescalation. Even if Assad really did use gas, I'm not seeing any demand from the Western publics to retaliate so Western Europe can end this if they want to.

    What needs to happen is for UK/France/Germany to publicly state that any solution in Syria must include Russia and Assad. Trump can't say that because of domestic political reasons but the Euros can. They should do so before we all get dragged into a war with no clear end.

    But in answer to your question, The American Civil War II is very much still on. Most Americans don't even know anything is going on in Syria and politically engaged Americans are way more interested in Mueller's latest antics than those of Assad and Co.

    ...

    But now that you mention it, I did always think that the life portrayed in Fallout looked kinda fun. I just have to hope I'm one of the survivors if it comes to that.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  132. Excal says:
    @German_reader

    Trump is one man taking on massive powerful forces.
     
    That's just fantasy and wishful thinking.

    The tougher Trump talks, the more breathing room he has not to do something stupid.
     
    How is that supposed to work? If he doesn't follow up on his dumb Twitter threats, he's looking weak, and that's obviously one of the things he fears the most.

    A pro Syrian/Russian President is simply an impossibility in the 2018 USA
     
    .

    Who's even suggesting the US president should be "pro-Syrian" or "pro-Russian"? Merely taking an attitude of "Syria is a mess, let's not get involved any deeper, escalating tensions with Russia over non-essential issues is dumb and dangerous" would be enough.

    Trump is one man taking on massive powerful forces.

    That’s just fantasy and wishful thinking.

    It’s what Trump has done his whole life. He’s always been the Tasmanian devil attacking much larger creatures, and he’s always been laughed at. He’s been lucky, maybe skilled, enough to survive. Old New Yorkers have to be tough. They don’t care if you laugh at them.

    The tougher Trump talks, the more breathing room he has not to do something stupid.

    How is that supposed to work? If he doesn’t follow up on his dumb Twitter threats, he’s looking weak, and that’s obviously one of the things he fears the most.

    I think Greasy may be overstating things a little bit, but this is a standard negotiation tactic (some actually call it Russian style!). It does not require following up on stupid threats. Sometimes it works anyway.

    A pro Syrian/Russian President is simply an impossibility in the 2018 USA.

    Who’s even suggesting the US president should be “pro-Syrian” or “pro-Russian”? Merely taking an attitude of “Syria is a mess, let’s not get involved any deeper, escalating tensions with Russia over non-essential issues is dumb and dangerous” would be enough.

    If Mrs Clinton had won, the world would likely be in the midst of a horrible war right now. It could still happen, but it’s at least less likely with Trump.

    I am hoping that Trump doesn’t take the Syria bait. I don’t think he will, in the end, but Bolton is a wildcard.

    Read More
    • Replies: @reiner Tor

    If Mrs Clinton had won, the world would likely be in the midst of a horrible war right now.
     
    If she followed through her campaign promise of instituting no-fly zones in Syria. But how likely is that? Especially if Russia gave $50,000,000 to the Clinton Foundation?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  133. @Daniel Chieh
    So we might not have that civil war after all. Its not civil war when its Immortan Joe in the deserts of fallout, right?

    I know that there won’t be WWIII because G-d won’t allow it, but that doesn’t mean there can’t be a huge mess.

    What we really need is for the UK, France and Germany to take a more independent line in the interest of making sure the US and Russia can deescalate. I’m not saying they should take Russia’s side or even stay neutral, but they should announce that they won’t participate directly in any attacks against Assad and that their first interest is in deescalation. Even if Assad really did use gas, I’m not seeing any demand from the Western publics to retaliate so Western Europe can end this if they want to.

    What needs to happen is for UK/France/Germany to publicly state that any solution in Syria must include Russia and Assad. Trump can’t say that because of domestic political reasons but the Euros can. They should do so before we all get dragged into a war with no clear end.

    But in answer to your question, The American Civil War II is very much still on. Most Americans don’t even know anything is going on in Syria and politically engaged Americans are way more interested in Mueller’s latest antics than those of Assad and Co.

    But now that you mention it, I did always think that the life portrayed in Fallout looked kinda fun. I just have to hope I’m one of the survivors if it comes to that.

    Read More
    • Replies: @German_reader

    What we really need is for the UK, France and Germany to take a more independent line in the interest of making sure the US and Russia can deescalate.
     
    France and the UK are fully on board with this "bomb Syria" scheme. Germany won't participate (not least due to the rotten state of its armed forces), but Merkel's government has already lent verbal support and had its spokesman babble something about how this gas attack mustn't remain unpunished.
    So no, the Western Europeans won't play a constructive role in this.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  134. @Excal


    Trump is one man taking on massive powerful forces.
     
    That’s just fantasy and wishful thinking.

     

    It's what Trump has done his whole life. He's always been the Tasmanian devil attacking much larger creatures, and he's always been laughed at. He's been lucky, maybe skilled, enough to survive. Old New Yorkers have to be tough. They don't care if you laugh at them.


    The tougher Trump talks, the more breathing room he has not to do something stupid.

     

    How is that supposed to work? If he doesn’t follow up on his dumb Twitter threats, he’s looking weak, and that’s obviously one of the things he fears the most.
     
    I think Greasy may be overstating things a little bit, but this is a standard negotiation tactic (some actually call it Russian style!). It does not require following up on stupid threats. Sometimes it works anyway.


    A pro Syrian/Russian President is simply an impossibility in the 2018 USA.
     
    Who’s even suggesting the US president should be “pro-Syrian” or “pro-Russian”? Merely taking an attitude of “Syria is a mess, let’s not get involved any deeper, escalating tensions with Russia over non-essential issues is dumb and dangerous” would be enough.
     
    If Mrs Clinton had won, the world would likely be in the midst of a horrible war right now. It could still happen, but it's at least less likely with Trump.

    I am hoping that Trump doesn't take the Syria bait. I don't think he will, in the end, but Bolton is a wildcard.

    If Mrs Clinton had won, the world would likely be in the midst of a horrible war right now.

    If she followed through her campaign promise of instituting no-fly zones in Syria. But how likely is that? Especially if Russia gave $50,000,000 to the Clinton Foundation?

    Read More
    • Replies: @LondonBob
    Clinton's people were telling the Russians it was all just campaign rhetoric. I think if HRC had won things would have been worse but not much so.
    , @Excal

    If she followed through her campaign promise of instituting no-fly zones in Syria. But how likely is that?
     
    Not unlikely at all, I think, and it would have happened already.

    My guess is based on Mrs Clinton's behaviour during her time as Secretary of State. She, as much as anyone, encouraged the "Arab Spring", for instance.

    Especially if Russia gave $50,000,000 to the Clinton Foundation?

     

    $50M is impressive, but they are quite capable of taking it and starting a war with Russia anyway. There is no honour among thieves.

    Of course, it would seem that things are not much better off with Trump, as I feared, but it was a choice between Scylla and Charybdis. There may be something to this Deep State business after all ..
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  135. @Dmitry
    It's clearly useful for urban war as well. You can just clear an area like this without risking your soldiers in door to door fighting.

    Of course very gruesome - the experience WW1, has created a lasting horror of it.

    But imagine how much easier the Berlin Offensive Operation or Battle of Stalingrad (on German side initially) would have been if they had just covered the city with mustard gas by shellling, before sending in soldiers.

    Soldiers are more likely to receive hazmat suits or even proper medical treatment and antidotes, but even if not, due to the high population densities the vast majority of casualties will be civilians. Chemical weapons are not very civilian-friendly, to put it mildly.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  136. Especially if Russia gave $50,000,000 to the Clinton Foundation?

    Not so sure about the logic of this, Gaddafi gave (we are told) even more than this amount to Sarkozy.

    Read More
    • Replies: @reiner Tor
    Possible (though she did allow Russia to buy uranium back in the day after receiving much less), but people are using this argument as if they knew for sure what Clinton would've done. I think we have to admit that we don't know, and that, had we avoided a world war with Clinton by now, then the chances of such a war would definitely not be any higher than they are now with Trump. In fact, they might be lower, because Clinton would be treated more leniently by the media. Trump also has a tendency to shoot his mouth off (regardless of Twitter, last year he did it during the press conference with King Abdullah), which is then difficult to retract. He's also more vulnerable to pressure because his internal agenda is hated by the establishment, but more importantly, his person and especially his voters are also hated, and so he cannot really do what he'd like in Syria. (That is, pulling out. If that's what he really wants.) With Clinton, it'd be a woman, who would probably be risk-averse, and would probably be using at least some of the (less hawkish) Obama advisers. With Trump, it's a loudmouth, vulnerable to pressure, and not the least risk-averse.

    Regarding Gaddafi. Maybe he was asked for more and he declined?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  137. @for-the-record
    Especially if Russia gave $50,000,000 to the Clinton Foundation?

    Not so sure about the logic of this, Gaddafi gave (we are told) even more than this amount to Sarkozy.

    Possible (though she did allow Russia to buy uranium back in the day after receiving much less), but people are using this argument as if they knew for sure what Clinton would’ve done. I think we have to admit that we don’t know, and that, had we avoided a world war with Clinton by now, then the chances of such a war would definitely not be any higher than they are now with Trump. In fact, they might be lower, because Clinton would be treated more leniently by the media. Trump also has a tendency to shoot his mouth off (regardless of Twitter, last year he did it during the press conference with King Abdullah), which is then difficult to retract. He’s also more vulnerable to pressure because his internal agenda is hated by the establishment, but more importantly, his person and especially his voters are also hated, and so he cannot really do what he’d like in Syria. (That is, pulling out. If that’s what he really wants.) With Clinton, it’d be a woman, who would probably be risk-averse, and would probably be using at least some of the (less hawkish) Obama advisers. With Trump, it’s a loudmouth, vulnerable to pressure, and not the least risk-averse.

    Regarding Gaddafi. Maybe he was asked for more and he declined?

    Read More
    • Replies: @for-the-record
    Regarding Gaddafi. Maybe he was asked for more and he declined?

    Alternatively:

    Gaddafi was killed by French secret serviceman on orders of Nicolas Sarkozy, sources claim

    A French secret serviceman acting on the express orders of Nicolas Sarkozy is suspected of murdering Colonel Gaddafi, it was sensationally claimed today.

    He is said to have infiltrated a violent mob mutilating the captured Libyan dictator last year and shot him in the head.

    The motive, according to well-placed sources in the North African country, was to stop Gaddafi being interrogated about his highly suspicious links with Sarkozy, who was President of France at the time . . .

    Diplomatic sources in Tripoli, the Libyan capital, meanwhile suggested to the Italian newspaper Corriere della Serra that a foreign assassin was likely to have been French.

    The paper writes: 'Since the beginning of NATO support for the revolution, strongly backed by the government of Nicolas Sarkozy, Gaddafi openly threatened to reveal details of his relationship with the former president of France, including the millions of dollars paid to finance his candidacy at the 2007 elections.'

    One Tripoli source said: 'Sarkozy had every reason to try to silence the Colonel and as quickly as possible.'

    The view is supported by information gathered by investigaters in Benghazi, Libya's second city and the place where the 'Arab Spring' revolution against Gaddafi started in early 2011.

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2210759/Gaddafi-killed-French-secret-serviceman-orders-Nicolas-Sarkozy-sources-claim.html

     

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  138. LondonBob says:
    @reiner Tor

    If Mrs Clinton had won, the world would likely be in the midst of a horrible war right now.
     
    If she followed through her campaign promise of instituting no-fly zones in Syria. But how likely is that? Especially if Russia gave $50,000,000 to the Clinton Foundation?

    Clinton’s people were telling the Russians it was all just campaign rhetoric. I think if HRC had won things would have been worse but not much so.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  139. Russia and Syria, the obvious perpetrators of the crime, are calling for a OPCW inspection to be carried out “immediately” (tomorrow, i.e. today) on site, promising “unlimited cooperation” and guaranteeing security.

    The US and the other nations of the Free World, on the other hand, are insisting on a revival of the “Joint Investigative Mechanism” which expired in November 2017, when one of the aforementioned perpetrators vetoed its continuation. The JIM rejects onsite inspection in favour of remote investigations with samples and other evidence provided by unidentified 3rd parties of unimpeachable reputation.

    The Russian/Syrian proposal naturally being rejected en masse, the Russians will then veto the Free World proposal. This will of course constitute further evidence of their perfidy, because only a guilty party would veto a resolution for an “independent” investigation of this horrendous crime.

    Have I missed something?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  140. @reiner Tor
    Possible (though she did allow Russia to buy uranium back in the day after receiving much less), but people are using this argument as if they knew for sure what Clinton would've done. I think we have to admit that we don't know, and that, had we avoided a world war with Clinton by now, then the chances of such a war would definitely not be any higher than they are now with Trump. In fact, they might be lower, because Clinton would be treated more leniently by the media. Trump also has a tendency to shoot his mouth off (regardless of Twitter, last year he did it during the press conference with King Abdullah), which is then difficult to retract. He's also more vulnerable to pressure because his internal agenda is hated by the establishment, but more importantly, his person and especially his voters are also hated, and so he cannot really do what he'd like in Syria. (That is, pulling out. If that's what he really wants.) With Clinton, it'd be a woman, who would probably be risk-averse, and would probably be using at least some of the (less hawkish) Obama advisers. With Trump, it's a loudmouth, vulnerable to pressure, and not the least risk-averse.

    Regarding Gaddafi. Maybe he was asked for more and he declined?

    Regarding Gaddafi. Maybe he was asked for more and he declined?

    Alternatively:

    Gaddafi was killed by French secret serviceman on orders of Nicolas Sarkozy, sources claim

    A French secret serviceman acting on the express orders of Nicolas Sarkozy is suspected of murdering Colonel Gaddafi, it was sensationally claimed today.

    He is said to have infiltrated a violent mob mutilating the captured Libyan dictator last year and shot him in the head.

    The motive, according to well-placed sources in the North African country, was to stop Gaddafi being interrogated about his highly suspicious links with Sarkozy, who was President of France at the time . . .

    Diplomatic sources in Tripoli, the Libyan capital, meanwhile suggested to the Italian newspaper Corriere della Serra that a foreign assassin was likely to have been French.

    The paper writes: ‘Since the beginning of NATO support for the revolution, strongly backed by the government of Nicolas Sarkozy, Gaddafi openly threatened to reveal details of his relationship with the former president of France, including the millions of dollars paid to finance his candidacy at the 2007 elections.’

    One Tripoli source said: ‘Sarkozy had every reason to try to silence the Colonel and as quickly as possible.’

    The view is supported by information gathered by investigaters in Benghazi, Libya’s second city and the place where the ‘Arab Spring’ revolution against Gaddafi started in early 2011.

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2210759/Gaddafi-killed-French-secret-serviceman-orders-Nicolas-Sarkozy-sources-claim.html

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  141. LondonBob says:
    @reiner Tor
    Trump cannot even admit the possibility that it could have been a false flag. The rabbit hole it’d open would run much too deep, for example people would start questioning his decision not to investigate last year. After all, if it could be a false flag now, then it could’ve been last year as well.

    Now with Trump’s lawyer raided by the FBI, he’s not in a position to wage a war against both the deep state and the political elite. Not to forget his own former self.

    We might fittingly get a world war as a result of a warmonger elite which pushes for war without understanding the risks or feeling responsibility and a weak president desperate to look tough or not be impeached for being soft. A fittingly stupid ending of our civilization.

    That is nonsense, Trump has consistently underestimated his own strength and his enemies intentions. He could and should have fired Rosenstein and Mueller a year ago, no one would impeach him for that, absolutely empty threat. He could declare on twitter tomorrow that there is no evidence of a chemical attack by Assad, there isn’t as the White House admits. He promised action and so he can blame the rebels and declare his response would be an immediate withdrawl. Trump can declassify intelligence and he is the C in C.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  142. @Greasy William
    Are you saying that the factory workers didn't support the Nazis?

    Mises wrote in his commentary on the Nazi economy that Nazism really was great for the workers, just not so great for everybody else. And he certainly had no reason to lie.

    It wasn’t. Despite the economic recovery, average Germans would not regain their late 1920s material living standards until the 1950s.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  143. Read More
    • Replies: @reiner Tor
    Somewhat scary.
    , @Greasy William
    predictions?
    , @reiner Tor
    Any higher quality sources on the impending attack?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  144. @Anatoly Karlin
    https://twitter.com/AlSuraEnglish/status/983547466594140160

    Somewhat scary.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  145. @Anatoly Karlin
    https://twitter.com/AlSuraEnglish/status/983547466594140160

    predictions?

    Read More
    • Replies: @reiner Tor
    I bet you a piece of rotten horse meat that there will be a nuclear war.
    , @Swedish Family

    predictions?
     
    My predictions for tonight's game of chicken, in order of likelihood:

    1. No attack.
    2. US sends cruise missiles against some minor SAA object(s) --> Russia sends cruise missiles against some minor object in the US-controlled parts of Syria
    3. US sends cruise missiles against some major SAA object(s) --> Russia sends cruise missiles against some major US-backed militia unit with no embedded Westerners
    4. US willfully attacks one or more Russian units --> Russia sends cruise missiles against some US-backed militia unit WITH embedded Westerners

    Wild card:
    5. Ukraine's defense minister claims that Russia has amassed 77,000 troops at the border, so the response to (4) could possibly be in the Donbass, in line with our host's wishes.

    The reason I think Russia will only respond in kind is that even something very low-key, such as (2) above, will get hearts racing in Brussels and Washington. It's also very unlike Putin to throw caution to the wind.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  146. This could be important — it would appear that Russia is now saying that they will respond to any attack against Syria, not only one that threatens Russian forces there.

    UNITED NATIONS (Reuters) -

    Russian U.N. Ambassador Vassily Nebenzia said on Monday that Moscow has warned the United States of “grave repercussions” if it carries out an attack against Syrian government forces over reports of a deadly chemical weapons attack.

    “Through the relevant channels we already conveyed to the U.S. that armed force under mendacious pretext against Syria – where, at the request of the legitimate government of a country, Russian troops have been deployed – could lead to grave repercussions,” he said.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Randal
    I'd say that still leaves plenty of wiggle room.

    It looks as though some kind of military strike by the US and its Euro-poodles is now certain. The response, and the response to any response, will determine whether we wake up to find the US in effect at war with Russia. Then we just have to hope for punctuated escalation allowing for things to be got back under control.

    Remember over the next few days, anything and everything that happens is entirely (though not solely) the direct responsibility of Donald Trump. He chose to start this line of hysterical responses to allegations of chemical weapons attacks (by his administration, at least - he was under no compulsion to follow past leftist R2P nonsense-inspired Obama regime stupidity) and all his fighting talk on this nonsense has been entirely voluntary on his part).

    By the way, here's a rare ray of light from the dark world of US politics and media. Tucker Carson asking the questions the entire US legislature ought to be asking:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M28aYkLRlm0

    [What happened to Howard Dean, by the way? I mean, he's a leftist and thus a scumbag, but I hadn't particularly pegged him as among the worst neocon warmonger types. Mind you, I haven't noticed him for a decade and a half.]

    Anyway, this piece by Carlson goes nicely with the Galloway tour de force I linked earlier on the Skripal nonsense:

    https://youtu.be/32ylnBrADkQ

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  147. @Greasy William
    predictions?

    I bet you a piece of rotten horse meat that there will be a nuclear war.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  148. This flew under the radar (no pun intended), but Russia today both announced that Israel was behind the T4 attack and that Israel did not notify them in advance.

    Russian policy has been not to comment on Israeli attacks in Syria, but this time they may have done so in hopes of deescalating tensions with the US/West; let everybody know that US and Co hadn’t done anything.

    But saying that Israel didn’t notify them ahead of time is an obvious lie and I can’t figure out why Russia would say that.

    So what’s going on? Are they trying to let the US know that they mean business by subtly threatening Israel?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Randal

    But saying that Israel didn’t notify them ahead of time is an obvious lie
     
    Howso?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  149. Randal says:
    @for-the-record
    This could be important -- it would appear that Russia is now saying that they will respond to any attack against Syria, not only one that threatens Russian forces there.

    UNITED NATIONS (Reuters) -

    Russian U.N. Ambassador Vassily Nebenzia said on Monday that Moscow has warned the United States of “grave repercussions” if it carries out an attack against Syrian government forces over reports of a deadly chemical weapons attack.

    “Through the relevant channels we already conveyed to the U.S. that armed force under mendacious pretext against Syria – where, at the request of the legitimate government of a country, Russian troops have been deployed - could lead to grave repercussions,” he said.
     

    I’d say that still leaves plenty of wiggle room.

    It looks as though some kind of military strike by the US and its Euro-poodles is now certain. The response, and the response to any response, will determine whether we wake up to find the US in effect at war with Russia. Then we just have to hope for punctuated escalation allowing for things to be got back under control.

    Remember over the next few days, anything and everything that happens is entirely (though not solely) the direct responsibility of Donald Trump. He chose to start this line of hysterical responses to allegations of chemical weapons attacks (by his administration, at least – he was under no compulsion to follow past leftist R2P nonsense-inspired Obama regime stupidity) and all his fighting talk on this nonsense has been entirely voluntary on his part).

    By the way, here’s a rare ray of light from the dark world of US politics and media. Tucker Carson asking the questions the entire US legislature ought to be asking:

    [What happened to Howard Dean, by the way? I mean, he's a leftist and thus a scumbag, but I hadn't particularly pegged him as among the worst neocon warmonger types. Mind you, I haven't noticed him for a decade and a half.]

    Anyway, this piece by Carlson goes nicely with the Galloway tour de force I linked earlier on the Skripal nonsense:

    Read More
    • Replies: @for-the-record
    The Carlson piece is very good, of course he still has to make the obligatory declaration that due to his defective "moral character" Assad is of course capable of having done it (although for purely practical reasons he likely didn't).
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  150. Randal says:
    @Greasy William
    This flew under the radar (no pun intended), but Russia today both announced that Israel was behind the T4 attack and that Israel did not notify them in advance.

    Russian policy has been not to comment on Israeli attacks in Syria, but this time they may have done so in hopes of deescalating tensions with the US/West; let everybody know that US and Co hadn't done anything.

    But saying that Israel didn't notify them ahead of time is an obvious lie and I can't figure out why Russia would say that.

    So what's going on? Are they trying to let the US know that they mean business by subtly threatening Israel?

    But saying that Israel didn’t notify them ahead of time is an obvious lie

    Howso?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Greasy William
    1. First of all, why would Israel want to commit suicide? Let's say that there had been a Russian at that base. Russia and Israel would be at war right now.

    2. Russia evacuated their personnel from T4 a few hours before the attack.

    3. Unless Israel had told Russia the attack was coming, Russia wouldn't have known not to launch their S-400s at the jets they were picking up on their radars. The F-15 has an RCS the size of a football field so there is no way the Russians just missed it. They obviously had been ordered to stand down.


    Russia is clearly legitimately pissed at Israel about something, but it isn't for attacking T4 without notice.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  151. @Randal
    I'd say that still leaves plenty of wiggle room.

    It looks as though some kind of military strike by the US and its Euro-poodles is now certain. The response, and the response to any response, will determine whether we wake up to find the US in effect at war with Russia. Then we just have to hope for punctuated escalation allowing for things to be got back under control.

    Remember over the next few days, anything and everything that happens is entirely (though not solely) the direct responsibility of Donald Trump. He chose to start this line of hysterical responses to allegations of chemical weapons attacks (by his administration, at least - he was under no compulsion to follow past leftist R2P nonsense-inspired Obama regime stupidity) and all his fighting talk on this nonsense has been entirely voluntary on his part).

    By the way, here's a rare ray of light from the dark world of US politics and media. Tucker Carson asking the questions the entire US legislature ought to be asking:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M28aYkLRlm0

    [What happened to Howard Dean, by the way? I mean, he's a leftist and thus a scumbag, but I hadn't particularly pegged him as among the worst neocon warmonger types. Mind you, I haven't noticed him for a decade and a half.]

    Anyway, this piece by Carlson goes nicely with the Galloway tour de force I linked earlier on the Skripal nonsense:

    https://youtu.be/32ylnBrADkQ

    The Carlson piece is very good, of course he still has to make the obligatory declaration that due to his defective “moral character” Assad is of course capable of having done it (although for purely practical reasons he likely didn’t).

    Read More
    • Replies: @reiner Tor
    Of course Assad could have done it. No question. But it’s highly unlikely he did. He had no motive whatsoever. He’s certainly not evil for evilness’ sake. He’s just a dictator who might butcher hundreds or thousands if he needs to, but he probably doesn’t enjoy it much. He’d rather be an ophthalmologist in London.
    , @Greasy William
    There is no way Assad ordered it but if there really was a chem attack I think it's possible some rogue element of the army used gas.

    But like German Reader pointed out, it doesn't even matter. Saddam used chem weapons and nobody cared. Assad Sr. used them and nobody cared. It's a total non issue.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  152. @Randal

    But saying that Israel didn’t notify them ahead of time is an obvious lie
     
    Howso?

    1. First of all, why would Israel want to commit suicide? Let’s say that there had been a Russian at that base. Russia and Israel would be at war right now.

    2. Russia evacuated their personnel from T4 a few hours before the attack.

    3. Unless Israel had told Russia the attack was coming, Russia wouldn’t have known not to launch their S-400s at the jets they were picking up on their radars. The F-15 has an RCS the size of a football field so there is no way the Russians just missed it. They obviously had been ordered to stand down.

    Russia is clearly legitimately pissed at Israel about something, but it isn’t for attacking T4 without notice.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Randal

    First of all, why would Israel want to commit suicide? Let’s say that there had been a Russian at that base. Russia and Israel would be at war right now.
     
    Not unless the Russians want to be at war with Israel. I've seen no evidence that is the case. Turkey intentionally shot down a Russian plane and no war ensued.

    Unless Israel had told Russia the attack was coming, Russia wouldn’t have known not to launch their S-400s at the jets they were picking up on their radars. The F-15 has an RCS the size of a football field so there is no way the Russians just missed it. They obviously had been ordered to stand down.
     
    As I heard it, the F15s were over Lebanon. I haven't seen any detailed reports of the event, though.

    Regardless, I don't see the Russians having orders to just shoot down willy nilly any planes launching standoff attacks on Syrian targets.

    Russia is clearly legitimately pissed at Israel about something, but it isn’t for attacking T4 without notice.
     
    In this case a couple of things occur immediately - conducting what could be seen as a recon and/or a provocation on behalf of the US at a particularly tense and sensitive time, when the Russians are undoubtedly seriously facing up to the possibility of war (regional or not) with the US - they would be utterly irresponsible if not.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  153. @for-the-record
    The Carlson piece is very good, of course he still has to make the obligatory declaration that due to his defective "moral character" Assad is of course capable of having done it (although for purely practical reasons he likely didn't).

    Of course Assad could have done it. No question. But it’s highly unlikely he did. He had no motive whatsoever. He’s certainly not evil for evilness’ sake. He’s just a dictator who might butcher hundreds or thousands if he needs to, but he probably doesn’t enjoy it much. He’d rather be an ophthalmologist in London.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  154. @for-the-record
    The Carlson piece is very good, of course he still has to make the obligatory declaration that due to his defective "moral character" Assad is of course capable of having done it (although for purely practical reasons he likely didn't).

    There is no way Assad ordered it but if there really was a chem attack I think it’s possible some rogue element of the army used gas.

    But like German Reader pointed out, it doesn’t even matter. Saddam used chem weapons and nobody cared. Assad Sr. used them and nobody cared. It’s a total non issue.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  155. @Anatoly Karlin
    https://twitter.com/AlSuraEnglish/status/983547466594140160

    Any higher quality sources on the impending attack?

    Read More
    • Replies: @LondonBob
    Better sources tend to be better disciplined in giving out news. James Brower on twitter is good on the Trump admin, Elijah Magnier on Syria.

    https://www.zerohedge.com/sites/default/files/inline-images/naval%20map%204.9.jpg?itok=80I7gfyP

    Ineteresting is that there isn't that much US muscle in the region at the moment. I guess with us we have some aircraft at our base in Cyprus but they aren't much good, being few in number and very old now. The French posture but they don't have much either. I doubt it I'll be a big airstrike, likely just cruise missiles, so the question is all about the Russian response.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  156. Randal says:
    @Greasy William
    1. First of all, why would Israel want to commit suicide? Let's say that there had been a Russian at that base. Russia and Israel would be at war right now.

    2. Russia evacuated their personnel from T4 a few hours before the attack.

    3. Unless Israel had told Russia the attack was coming, Russia wouldn't have known not to launch their S-400s at the jets they were picking up on their radars. The F-15 has an RCS the size of a football field so there is no way the Russians just missed it. They obviously had been ordered to stand down.


    Russia is clearly legitimately pissed at Israel about something, but it isn't for attacking T4 without notice.

    First of all, why would Israel want to commit suicide? Let’s say that there had been a Russian at that base. Russia and Israel would be at war right now.

    Not unless the Russians want to be at war with Israel. I’ve seen no evidence that is the case. Turkey intentionally shot down a Russian plane and no war ensued.

    Unless Israel had told Russia the attack was coming, Russia wouldn’t have known not to launch their S-400s at the jets they were picking up on their radars. The F-15 has an RCS the size of a football field so there is no way the Russians just missed it. They obviously had been ordered to stand down.

    As I heard it, the F15s were over Lebanon. I haven’t seen any detailed reports of the event, though.

    Regardless, I don’t see the Russians having orders to just shoot down willy nilly any planes launching standoff attacks on Syrian targets.

    Russia is clearly legitimately pissed at Israel about something, but it isn’t for attacking T4 without notice.

    In this case a couple of things occur immediately – conducting what could be seen as a recon and/or a provocation on behalf of the US at a particularly tense and sensitive time, when the Russians are undoubtedly seriously facing up to the possibility of war (regional or not) with the US – they would be utterly irresponsible if not.

    Read More
    • Replies: @LondonBob
    https://twitter.com/ejmalrai/status/983377457255460865
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  157. @Greasy William
    I know that there won't be WWIII because G-d won't allow it, but that doesn't mean there can't be a huge mess.

    What we really need is for the UK, France and Germany to take a more independent line in the interest of making sure the US and Russia can deescalate. I'm not saying they should take Russia's side or even stay neutral, but they should announce that they won't participate directly in any attacks against Assad and that their first interest is in deescalation. Even if Assad really did use gas, I'm not seeing any demand from the Western publics to retaliate so Western Europe can end this if they want to.

    What needs to happen is for UK/France/Germany to publicly state that any solution in Syria must include Russia and Assad. Trump can't say that because of domestic political reasons but the Euros can. They should do so before we all get dragged into a war with no clear end.

    But in answer to your question, The American Civil War II is very much still on. Most Americans don't even know anything is going on in Syria and politically engaged Americans are way more interested in Mueller's latest antics than those of Assad and Co.

    ...

    But now that you mention it, I did always think that the life portrayed in Fallout looked kinda fun. I just have to hope I'm one of the survivors if it comes to that.

    What we really need is for the UK, France and Germany to take a more independent line in the interest of making sure the US and Russia can deescalate.

    France and the UK are fully on board with this “bomb Syria” scheme. Germany won’t participate (not least due to the rotten state of its armed forces), but Merkel’s government has already lent verbal support and had its spokesman babble something about how this gas attack mustn’t remain unpunished.
    So no, the Western Europeans won’t play a constructive role in this.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  158. LondonBob says:
    @reiner Tor
    Any higher quality sources on the impending attack?

    Better sources tend to be better disciplined in giving out news. James Brower on twitter is good on the Trump admin, Elijah Magnier on Syria.

    Ineteresting is that there isn’t that much US muscle in the region at the moment. I guess with us we have some aircraft at our base in Cyprus but they aren’t much good, being few in number and very old now. The French posture but they don’t have much either. I doubt it I’ll be a big airstrike, likely just cruise missiles, so the question is all about the Russian response.

    Read More
    • Replies: @reiner Tor
    I am skeptical about either the imminence or the forcefulness of the attack. What would happen if another few dozens of Tomahawks were lobbed at Syria? Chances are, nothing.
    , @for-the-record
    Interesting is that there isn’t that much US muscle in the region at the moment.

    A Navy source said the U.S. has a number of ships armed with Tomahawk cruise missiles in the region, including the USS Donald Cook, a guided-missile destroyer that has just completed a port call in Cyprus, and got underway in the eastern Mediterranean within range of Syria Monday.

    https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/policy/defense-national-security/the-us-is-drawing-up-several-options-for-striking-syria-after-chemical-weapons-attack-pentagon-sources-say
     
    , @Randal

    Ineteresting is that there isn’t that much US muscle in the region at the moment. I guess with us we have some aircraft at our base in Cyprus but they aren’t much good, being few in number and very old now. The French posture but they don’t have much either. I doubt it I’ll be a big airstrike, likely just cruise missiles, so the question is all about the Russian response.
     
    Arguably the intention of the whole business could be just to provoke a response from the Russians that can then be used to further the goals of the Skripal case (and as things have developed, bury the collapsing of the Skripal narrative itself).
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  159. LondonBob says:
    @Randal

    First of all, why would Israel want to commit suicide? Let’s say that there had been a Russian at that base. Russia and Israel would be at war right now.
     
    Not unless the Russians want to be at war with Israel. I've seen no evidence that is the case. Turkey intentionally shot down a Russian plane and no war ensued.

    Unless Israel had told Russia the attack was coming, Russia wouldn’t have known not to launch their S-400s at the jets they were picking up on their radars. The F-15 has an RCS the size of a football field so there is no way the Russians just missed it. They obviously had been ordered to stand down.
     
    As I heard it, the F15s were over Lebanon. I haven't seen any detailed reports of the event, though.

    Regardless, I don't see the Russians having orders to just shoot down willy nilly any planes launching standoff attacks on Syrian targets.

    Russia is clearly legitimately pissed at Israel about something, but it isn’t for attacking T4 without notice.
     
    In this case a couple of things occur immediately - conducting what could be seen as a recon and/or a provocation on behalf of the US at a particularly tense and sensitive time, when the Russians are undoubtedly seriously facing up to the possibility of war (regional or not) with the US - they would be utterly irresponsible if not.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Greasy William
    1. 1 jet. Not 2. Magnier loves his fake news.

    2. Magnier promised that Israel would never again be able to strike targets in Syria after what happened in February. He sounded like he wanted to cry last night. The dude is a lying Hezbollah/Assad/Iran shill.


    7 dead Iranians at least and about as many dead Syrians. Where is the retaliation of the mighty Syrian and Iranian forces?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  160. @LondonBob
    https://twitter.com/ejmalrai/status/983377457255460865

    1. 1 jet. Not 2. Magnier loves his fake news.

    2. Magnier promised that Israel would never again be able to strike targets in Syria after what happened in February. He sounded like he wanted to cry last night. The dude is a lying Hezbollah/Assad/Iran shill.

    7 dead Iranians at least and about as many dead Syrians. Where is the retaliation of the mighty Syrian and Iranian forces?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Randal

    7 dead Iranians at least and about as many dead Syrians. Where is the retaliation of the mighty Syrian and Iranian forces?
     
    You can gloat for the moment at your favoured country's impunity, but you should bear in mind that it won't last much longer.

    Events are moving towards the situation in which there will be routine Syrian/Iranian retaliations for such attacks, and the more Israel alienates Russia with stunts such as the latest attack, the sooner it will come.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  161. @LondonBob
    Better sources tend to be better disciplined in giving out news. James Brower on twitter is good on the Trump admin, Elijah Magnier on Syria.

    https://www.zerohedge.com/sites/default/files/inline-images/naval%20map%204.9.jpg?itok=80I7gfyP

    Ineteresting is that there isn't that much US muscle in the region at the moment. I guess with us we have some aircraft at our base in Cyprus but they aren't much good, being few in number and very old now. The French posture but they don't have much either. I doubt it I'll be a big airstrike, likely just cruise missiles, so the question is all about the Russian response.

    I am skeptical about either the imminence or the forcefulness of the attack. What would happen if another few dozens of Tomahawks were lobbed at Syria? Chances are, nothing.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  162. @LondonBob
    Better sources tend to be better disciplined in giving out news. James Brower on twitter is good on the Trump admin, Elijah Magnier on Syria.

    https://www.zerohedge.com/sites/default/files/inline-images/naval%20map%204.9.jpg?itok=80I7gfyP

    Ineteresting is that there isn't that much US muscle in the region at the moment. I guess with us we have some aircraft at our base in Cyprus but they aren't much good, being few in number and very old now. The French posture but they don't have much either. I doubt it I'll be a big airstrike, likely just cruise missiles, so the question is all about the Russian response.

    Interesting is that there isn’t that much US muscle in the region at the moment.

    A Navy source said the U.S. has a number of ships armed with Tomahawk cruise missiles in the region, including the USS Donald Cook, a guided-missile destroyer that has just completed a port call in Cyprus, and got underway in the eastern Mediterranean within range of Syria Monday.

    https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/policy/defense-national-security/the-us-is-drawing-up-several-options-for-striking-syria-after-chemical-weapons-attack-pentagon-sources-say

    Read More
    • Replies: @reiner Tor
    The Donald Cook is already close to Syrian waters. It can launch 60 Tomahawks. But I doubt that that will be it this time. Maybe they talk loudly and carry a small twig, as Greasy used to say of Israel, but at least they now promise much more than recently.

    https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-04-09/us-navy-destroyer-armed-tomahawks-arrives-syrian-coast-harassed-russian-warplanes
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  163. @for-the-record
    Interesting is that there isn’t that much US muscle in the region at the moment.

    A Navy source said the U.S. has a number of ships armed with Tomahawk cruise missiles in the region, including the USS Donald Cook, a guided-missile destroyer that has just completed a port call in Cyprus, and got underway in the eastern Mediterranean within range of Syria Monday.

    https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/policy/defense-national-security/the-us-is-drawing-up-several-options-for-striking-syria-after-chemical-weapons-attack-pentagon-sources-say
     

    The Donald Cook is already close to Syrian waters. It can launch 60 Tomahawks. But I doubt that that will be it this time. Maybe they talk loudly and carry a small twig, as Greasy used to say of Israel, but at least they now promise much more than recently.

    https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-04-09/us-navy-destroyer-armed-tomahawks-arrives-syrian-coast-harassed-russian-warplanes

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  164. Randal says:
    @Greasy William
    1. 1 jet. Not 2. Magnier loves his fake news.

    2. Magnier promised that Israel would never again be able to strike targets in Syria after what happened in February. He sounded like he wanted to cry last night. The dude is a lying Hezbollah/Assad/Iran shill.


    7 dead Iranians at least and about as many dead Syrians. Where is the retaliation of the mighty Syrian and Iranian forces?

    7 dead Iranians at least and about as many dead Syrians. Where is the retaliation of the mighty Syrian and Iranian forces?

    You can gloat for the moment at your favoured country’s impunity, but you should bear in mind that it won’t last much longer.

    Events are moving towards the situation in which there will be routine Syrian/Iranian retaliations for such attacks, and the more Israel alienates Russia with stunts such as the latest attack, the sooner it will come.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Greasy William

    Events are moving towards the situation in which there will be routine Syrian/Iranian retaliations for such attacks
     
    Great! Next year? Year after that? 5 years? Give me a time line.

    Syria and Iran aren't gonna do shit and you know it. 14 more Iranians and Syrians are in Hell this week, joining hundreds of others that we have put there over the last decade with hundreds more to come. I can't imagine how bad the underworld must smell these days.

    There will never be any retaliation. Keep saying it is 4d chess. If Iran and Syria could have done anything, they would have a long time ago.

    Don't get me wrong, I'd love it if they did. I want war to finish them off.


    Russia can stop us, IF they are willing to lose 200 of their largest cities. I doubt they are. Do you want to take a bet on that one too?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  165. Randal says:
    @LondonBob
    Better sources tend to be better disciplined in giving out news. James Brower on twitter is good on the Trump admin, Elijah Magnier on Syria.

    https://www.zerohedge.com/sites/default/files/inline-images/naval%20map%204.9.jpg?itok=80I7gfyP

    Ineteresting is that there isn't that much US muscle in the region at the moment. I guess with us we have some aircraft at our base in Cyprus but they aren't much good, being few in number and very old now. The French posture but they don't have much either. I doubt it I'll be a big airstrike, likely just cruise missiles, so the question is all about the Russian response.

    Ineteresting is that there isn’t that much US muscle in the region at the moment. I guess with us we have some aircraft at our base in Cyprus but they aren’t much good, being few in number and very old now. The French posture but they don’t have much either. I doubt it I’ll be a big airstrike, likely just cruise missiles, so the question is all about the Russian response.

    Arguably the intention of the whole business could be just to provoke a response from the Russians that can then be used to further the goals of the Skripal case (and as things have developed, bury the collapsing of the Skripal narrative itself).

    Read More
    • Replies: @reiner Tor
    As the venerable commenter for-the-record wrote, US policy towards Russia is basically a redux of US policy towards Japan in those fateful months leading up to Pearl Harbor.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  166. @Randal

    7 dead Iranians at least and about as many dead Syrians. Where is the retaliation of the mighty Syrian and Iranian forces?
     
    You can gloat for the moment at your favoured country's impunity, but you should bear in mind that it won't last much longer.

    Events are moving towards the situation in which there will be routine Syrian/Iranian retaliations for such attacks, and the more Israel alienates Russia with stunts such as the latest attack, the sooner it will come.

    Events are moving towards the situation in which there will be routine Syrian/Iranian retaliations for such attacks

    Great! Next year? Year after that? 5 years? Give me a time line.

    Syria and Iran aren’t gonna do shit and you know it. 14 more Iranians and Syrians are in Hell this week, joining hundreds of others that we have put there over the last decade with hundreds more to come. I can’t imagine how bad the underworld must smell these days.

    There will never be any retaliation. Keep saying it is 4d chess. If Iran and Syria could have done anything, they would have a long time ago.

    Don’t get me wrong, I’d love it if they did. I want war to finish them off.

    Russia can stop us, IF they are willing to lose 200 of their largest cities. I doubt they are. Do you want to take a bet on that one too?

    Read More
    • Replies: @LondonBob
    Hezbollah and Iran always retaliate, at a time and place of their choosing.

    The globalist cuck Macron seems particularly keen for a fight, interesting the British government is more reluctant, we just do propaganda these days.
    , @Randal

    Syria and Iran aren’t gonna do shit and you know it. 14 more Iranians and Syrians are in Hell this week, joining hundreds of others that we have put there over the last decade with hundreds more to come. I can’t imagine how bad the underworld must smell these days.

    There will never be any retaliation. Keep saying it is 4d chess. If Iran and Syria could have done anything, they would have a long time ago.
     

    It's nothing to do with "4d chess", it's just common sense. Syria hasn't responded to Israeli acts of aggression because it has lacked the military strength to do so safely. That has been doubly the case in the past seven years while it has been embroiled in a desperate struggle for survival against an externally backed insurrection. But that situation is winding down, and Syria now has strong external backing from Russia, and much more direct backing from Iran. So long as Russia approves its actions, Syria has nothing to fear from an Israeli military response.

    Once the Israelis annoy the Russians enough, when Syria has finished mopping up in its own territory, they will tell the Syrians that counterstrikes can be launched against any Israeli strikes on a tit for tat basis and Russia will not allow any massive attack by Israel. Iran can easily provide the required missile forces to allow Syria to defend its sovereignty against these Israeli aggressions on a tit for tat basis.

    Russia does not want to have to try to rebuild a Syria under constant Israeli barrage, and Israel cannot survive economically under constant tit for tat missile attacks.

    That's the end state the Zionists can see coming, which is why they are pushing so hard to try to overturn the table before we get there.

    Say thank you to the US neocons and Israeli militarists and to the sunni despots and to Erdogan for creating this situation, by trying to regime change Syria and thereby drawing Russia and Iran in to protect their ally.


    Don’t get me wrong, I’d love it if they did. I want war to finish them off.

    Russia can stop us, IF they are willing to lose 200 of their largest cities. I doubt they are. Do you want to take a bet on that one too?
     

    Israel is not going to initiate a nuclear exchange over Syria, and it's frankly rather hysterical to suggest it. Not being able to bomb Syria at will is not an existential issue for Israel, no matter how much US neocon and militarist and Israeli nationalist liars squeal that it is.

    Faced with no better alternatives, Israel will take the only realistic route and once it has established the situation will halt most attacks against Syrian and Iranian targets. That's how power works.

    , @Dmitry

    Great! Next year? Year after that? 5 years? Give me a time line.

    Syria and Iran aren’t gonna do shit and you know it. 14 more Iranians and Syrians are in Hell this week, joining hundreds of others that we have put there over the last decade with hundreds more to come. I can’t imagine how bad the underworld must smell these days.

    There will never be any retaliation. Keep saying it is 4d chess. If Iran and Syria could have done anything, they would have a long time ago.

    Don’t get me wrong, I’d love it if they did. I want war to finish them off.

    Russia can stop us, IF they are willing to lose 200 of their largest cities. I doubt they are. Do you want to take a bet on that one too?

     

    Why say 'us', when you're not an Israeli, but American living safely in America.

    Israel is very vulnerable of course, but people adapted to it psychologically, and it was a lot worse formerly.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  167. @Randal

    Ineteresting is that there isn’t that much US muscle in the region at the moment. I guess with us we have some aircraft at our base in Cyprus but they aren’t much good, being few in number and very old now. The French posture but they don’t have much either. I doubt it I’ll be a big airstrike, likely just cruise missiles, so the question is all about the Russian response.
     
    Arguably the intention of the whole business could be just to provoke a response from the Russians that can then be used to further the goals of the Skripal case (and as things have developed, bury the collapsing of the Skripal narrative itself).

    As the venerable commenter for-the-record wrote, US policy towards Russia is basically a redux of US policy towards Japan in those fateful months leading up to Pearl Harbor.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Randal
    There does seem to be a lot of truth in that, though Russia is not Japan and nuclear weapons change the situation rather fundamentally.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  168. LondonBob says:
    @Greasy William

    Events are moving towards the situation in which there will be routine Syrian/Iranian retaliations for such attacks
     
    Great! Next year? Year after that? 5 years? Give me a time line.

    Syria and Iran aren't gonna do shit and you know it. 14 more Iranians and Syrians are in Hell this week, joining hundreds of others that we have put there over the last decade with hundreds more to come. I can't imagine how bad the underworld must smell these days.

    There will never be any retaliation. Keep saying it is 4d chess. If Iran and Syria could have done anything, they would have a long time ago.

    Don't get me wrong, I'd love it if they did. I want war to finish them off.


    Russia can stop us, IF they are willing to lose 200 of their largest cities. I doubt they are. Do you want to take a bet on that one too?

    Hezbollah and Iran always retaliate, at a time and place of their choosing.

    The globalist cuck Macron seems particularly keen for a fight, interesting the British government is more reluctant, we just do propaganda these days.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Talha

    Hezbollah and Iran always retaliate, at a time and place of their choosing.
     
    That seems to be the general pattern. One particular non-military retaliation would be to cooperate more with Turkey and bring them into a greater sphere of influence such that the Turks stop contracts with Israel; this would hit them in the pocket book.

    Another possibility (piling on the last one) is to work with Lebanon to come up with security agreement with the Turks such that they are in charge of securing Lebanese air space (a bit like Russians in Syyria). If Russia were to do it, there would be howls of anger - but the Turks are NATO - so it wouldn't be too bad. This way Lebanese airspace would be off limits to Israeli use.

    Peace.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  169. Randal says:
    @Greasy William

    Events are moving towards the situation in which there will be routine Syrian/Iranian retaliations for such attacks
     
    Great! Next year? Year after that? 5 years? Give me a time line.

    Syria and Iran aren't gonna do shit and you know it. 14 more Iranians and Syrians are in Hell this week, joining hundreds of others that we have put there over the last decade with hundreds more to come. I can't imagine how bad the underworld must smell these days.

    There will never be any retaliation. Keep saying it is 4d chess. If Iran and Syria could have done anything, they would have a long time ago.

    Don't get me wrong, I'd love it if they did. I want war to finish them off.


    Russia can stop us, IF they are willing to lose 200 of their largest cities. I doubt they are. Do you want to take a bet on that one too?

    Syria and Iran aren’t gonna do shit and you know it. 14 more Iranians and Syrians are in Hell this week, joining hundreds of others that we have put there over the last decade with hundreds more to come. I can’t imagine how bad the underworld must smell these days.

    There will never be any retaliation. Keep saying it is 4d chess. If Iran and Syria could have done anything, they would have a long time ago.

    It’s nothing to do with “4d chess”, it’s just common sense. Syria hasn’t responded to Israeli acts of aggression because it has lacked the military strength to do so safely. That has been doubly the case in the past seven years while it has been embroiled in a desperate struggle for survival against an externally backed insurrection. But that situation is winding down, and Syria now has strong external backing from Russia, and much more direct backing from Iran. So long as Russia approves its actions, Syria has nothing to fear from an Israeli military response.

    Once the Israelis annoy the Russians enough, when Syria has finished mopping up in its own territory, they will tell the Syrians that counterstrikes can be launched against any Israeli strikes on a tit for tat basis and Russia will not allow any massive attack by Israel. Iran can easily provide the required missile forces to allow Syria to defend its sovereignty against these Israeli aggressions on a tit for tat basis.

    Russia does not want to have to try to rebuild a Syria under constant Israeli barrage, and Israel cannot survive economically under constant tit for tat missile attacks.

    That’s the end state the Zionists can see coming, which is why they are pushing so hard to try to overturn the table before we get there.

    Say thank you to the US neocons and Israeli militarists and to the sunni despots and to Erdogan for creating this situation, by trying to regime change Syria and thereby drawing Russia and Iran in to protect their ally.

    Don’t get me wrong, I’d love it if they did. I want war to finish them off.

    Russia can stop us, IF they are willing to lose 200 of their largest cities. I doubt they are. Do you want to take a bet on that one too?

    Israel is not going to initiate a nuclear exchange over Syria, and it’s frankly rather hysterical to suggest it. Not being able to bomb Syria at will is not an existential issue for Israel, no matter how much US neocon and militarist and Israeli nationalist liars squeal that it is.

    Faced with no better alternatives, Israel will take the only realistic route and once it has established the situation will halt most attacks against Syrian and Iranian targets. That’s how power works.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Talha

    Israel is not going to initiate a nuclear exchange over Syria
     
    Agreed - since everybody knows Russians would involve the US in any retaliation because it is assumed that the Americans green-lighted the operation.

    Peace.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  170. Randal says:
    @reiner Tor
    As the venerable commenter for-the-record wrote, US policy towards Russia is basically a redux of US policy towards Japan in those fateful months leading up to Pearl Harbor.

    There does seem to be a lot of truth in that, though Russia is not Japan and nuclear weapons change the situation rather fundamentally.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  171. @Greasy William
    predictions?

    predictions?

    My predictions for tonight’s game of chicken, in order of likelihood:

    1. No attack.
    2. US sends cruise missiles against some minor SAA object(s) –> Russia sends cruise missiles against some minor object in the US-controlled parts of Syria
    3. US sends cruise missiles against some major SAA object(s) –> Russia sends cruise missiles against some major US-backed militia unit with no embedded Westerners
    4. US willfully attacks one or more Russian units –> Russia sends cruise missiles against some US-backed militia unit WITH embedded Westerners

    Wild card:
    5. Ukraine’s defense minister claims that Russia has amassed 77,000 troops at the border, so the response to (4) could possibly be in the Donbass, in line with our host’s wishes.

    The reason I think Russia will only respond in kind is that even something very low-key, such as (2) above, will get hearts racing in Brussels and Washington. It’s also very unlike Putin to throw caution to the wind.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Randal
    Seems reasonable, except the option of "no attack" seems pretty unlikely given the expectations Trump has built. He might as well paint a big target on his back, hand out pistols to all his political enemies in the US and stand ten feet away from them shouting "have at it, boys!", as not carry out something at least on the scale of the Shayrat attack, now. Of course that also will be criticised by his enemies as inadequate, but at least his allies will have some ammunition to use in his defence.

    The only way I can see "no attack" being the outcome over the next few days is if they come up with some other big initiative (sanctions, boycotts, increased support for regime change, etc) that's paraded as a punishment, but it's quite hard to come up with a really plausible one.
    , @Daniel Chieh
    Well, the US will probably launch Tomahawk cruise missiles again. Russia should probably aim to increase point defense at this point because if Americans will keep using the same tool, you might as well turn it into a technology demonstration to sell equipment to future buyers.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  172. A potential game-changer which I don’t think has been discussed so far is a decapitation strike aimed at Assad. If Trump simply launches some cruise missiles at an air base (like a year ago) there will be howls of protest that the “response” was not sufficient.

    An attempt to “get” Assad, even if not successful (“that will teach him a lesson”) would receive all sorts of kudos (“Trump is again behaving presidentially”).

    In other words shades of “Target Qaddafi” (April 1986) as described by Seymour Hersh:

    https://www.nytimes.com/1987/02/22/magazine/target-qaddafi.html

    Read More
    • Replies: @Randal
    Yes, that must be a possibility that Assad will have to (if he has any sense) take seriously.

    On the face of it you would think the likelihood of civilian casualties and consequential propaganda and diplomatic blowback would deter such action.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  173. Dmitry says:

    Unless America does several months (or more) of air-strikes, it won’t have much effect on anything.

    Russian airforces started daily bombing in Syria in September 2015, and it was about a year of this before favoured side started to recapture territory.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Parbes
    "Russian airforces started daily bombing in Syria in September 2015, and it was about a year of this before favoured side started to recapture territory."

    Nonsense. The Syrian government forces started recapturing territory from the jihadis almost immediately after Russia started bombing in September 2015. In fact, by the beginning of 2016, the jihadis were greatly demoralized and the jihadi front was nearing collapse across almost all of Western Syria - this, despite the fact that the bombing was mostly against carefully selected targets in rural areas and avoided jihadi-controlled urban areas for fear of causing civilian casualties. It was Putin's stupid ceasefire with the Western-backed "moderate jihadis" in February 2016 (a decision taken right after a face-to-face meeting in Russia with the war criminal scumbag Henry Kissinger), halting the bombing at the precise moment when it was most effective, and pulling out most of the Russian airplanes, that allowed the Western-backed jihadis in Western Syria to stave off crushing defeat in early 2016, prolonging the war until today. If not for that idiocy, the Syrian government forces, with Russian bombing aid, would probably have finished off the jihadis completely sometime in early or mid-2016.

    In other words, you are either ignorant or being deliberately misleading about what transpired in the Syrian war just a couple of years ago. Now which is it? (Your being a Russian Jew with liberasty opinions and a professed admiration for "the West", Israel, and neoliberalism probably doesn't hurt, either, as far as misremembering, misinterpreting and misrepresenting things).
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  174. Dmitry says:
    @Greasy William

    Events are moving towards the situation in which there will be routine Syrian/Iranian retaliations for such attacks
     
    Great! Next year? Year after that? 5 years? Give me a time line.

    Syria and Iran aren't gonna do shit and you know it. 14 more Iranians and Syrians are in Hell this week, joining hundreds of others that we have put there over the last decade with hundreds more to come. I can't imagine how bad the underworld must smell these days.

    There will never be any retaliation. Keep saying it is 4d chess. If Iran and Syria could have done anything, they would have a long time ago.

    Don't get me wrong, I'd love it if they did. I want war to finish them off.


    Russia can stop us, IF they are willing to lose 200 of their largest cities. I doubt they are. Do you want to take a bet on that one too?

    Great! Next year? Year after that? 5 years? Give me a time line.

    Syria and Iran aren’t gonna do shit and you know it. 14 more Iranians and Syrians are in Hell this week, joining hundreds of others that we have put there over the last decade with hundreds more to come. I can’t imagine how bad the underworld must smell these days.

    There will never be any retaliation. Keep saying it is 4d chess. If Iran and Syria could have done anything, they would have a long time ago.

    Don’t get me wrong, I’d love it if they did. I want war to finish them off.

    Russia can stop us, IF they are willing to lose 200 of their largest cities. I doubt they are. Do you want to take a bet on that one too?

    Why say ‘us’, when you’re not an Israeli, but American living safely in America.

    Israel is very vulnerable of course, but people adapted to it psychologically, and it was a lot worse formerly.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  175. Read More
    • Replies: @Dmitry
    It will likely be a reality television/entertainment- with no long-term impact on the war (unless they would do months - or like Russia, years - of bombing).
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  176. Randal says:
    @Swedish Family

    predictions?
     
    My predictions for tonight's game of chicken, in order of likelihood:

    1. No attack.
    2. US sends cruise missiles against some minor SAA object(s) --> Russia sends cruise missiles against some minor object in the US-controlled parts of Syria
    3. US sends cruise missiles against some major SAA object(s) --> Russia sends cruise missiles against some major US-backed militia unit with no embedded Westerners
    4. US willfully attacks one or more Russian units --> Russia sends cruise missiles against some US-backed militia unit WITH embedded Westerners

    Wild card:
    5. Ukraine's defense minister claims that Russia has amassed 77,000 troops at the border, so the response to (4) could possibly be in the Donbass, in line with our host's wishes.

    The reason I think Russia will only respond in kind is that even something very low-key, such as (2) above, will get hearts racing in Brussels and Washington. It's also very unlike Putin to throw caution to the wind.

    Seems reasonable, except the option of “no attack” seems pretty unlikely given the expectations Trump has built. He might as well paint a big target on his back, hand out pistols to all his political enemies in the US and stand ten feet away from them shouting “have at it, boys!”, as not carry out something at least on the scale of the Shayrat attack, now. Of course that also will be criticised by his enemies as inadequate, but at least his allies will have some ammunition to use in his defence.

    The only way I can see “no attack” being the outcome over the next few days is if they come up with some other big initiative (sanctions, boycotts, increased support for regime change, etc) that’s paraded as a punishment, but it’s quite hard to come up with a really plausible one.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Daniel Chieh
    I wonder if a "targeted cyberattack" as suggested by some sources for the Skripal affair would be seen as an effective declaration of war. If its focused in a way to, for example, hamper and impede the ability of Russian financial services to operate(damage withdrawls, cause chaos with balances, break credit transfers), then I think that could still be seen as a the level of not causing death. Of course, if it causes traffic accidents through disrupting lights or kills hospital patients by damaging medical communication, its hard to see how that isn't an act of war.
    , @Thorfinnsson

    The only way I can see “no attack” being the outcome over the next few days is if they come up with some other big initiative (sanctions, boycotts, increased support for regime change, etc) that’s paraded as a punishment, but it’s quite hard to come up with a really plausible one.
     

    This is a fantastic idea. Trump should announce the following retaliation:

    * The US Men's team will boycott the 2018 World Cup in Russia
    * The US will sell arms to Israel, Saudi Arabia, and UAE to bolster the regional coalition against Iran
    * Iran will be prohibited from enriching uranium more than 20%
    * Russian cars and limousines will be banned from the US market
    * Syrian corporations won't be allowed to acquire strategic, high tech American companies such as Apple
    * Total import ban on Syrian-made wide body airliners and high-bypass turbofan jet engines in both the USA and EU
    * Syrian banks will no longer be permitted to use the SWIFT system to make payments to North Korea

    These sanctions will send a strong, decisive message.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  177. Randal says:
    @for-the-record
    A potential game-changer which I don't think has been discussed so far is a decapitation strike aimed at Assad. If Trump simply launches some cruise missiles at an air base (like a year ago) there will be howls of protest that the "response" was not sufficient.

    An attempt to "get" Assad, even if not successful ("that will teach him a lesson") would receive all sorts of kudos ("Trump is again behaving presidentially").

    In other words shades of "Target Qaddafi" (April 1986) as described by Seymour Hersh:

    https://www.nytimes.com/1987/02/22/magazine/target-qaddafi.html

    Yes, that must be a possibility that Assad will have to (if he has any sense) take seriously.

    On the face of it you would think the likelihood of civilian casualties and consequential propaganda and diplomatic blowback would deter such action.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  178. @Randal
    Seems reasonable, except the option of "no attack" seems pretty unlikely given the expectations Trump has built. He might as well paint a big target on his back, hand out pistols to all his political enemies in the US and stand ten feet away from them shouting "have at it, boys!", as not carry out something at least on the scale of the Shayrat attack, now. Of course that also will be criticised by his enemies as inadequate, but at least his allies will have some ammunition to use in his defence.

    The only way I can see "no attack" being the outcome over the next few days is if they come up with some other big initiative (sanctions, boycotts, increased support for regime change, etc) that's paraded as a punishment, but it's quite hard to come up with a really plausible one.

    I wonder if a “targeted cyberattack” as suggested by some sources for the Skripal affair would be seen as an effective declaration of war. If its focused in a way to, for example, hamper and impede the ability of Russian financial services to operate(damage withdrawls, cause chaos with balances, break credit transfers), then I think that could still be seen as a the level of not causing death. Of course, if it causes traffic accidents through disrupting lights or kills hospital patients by damaging medical communication, its hard to see how that isn’t an act of war.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Randal
    Well I think any action has to be initially targeted at Syria rather than Russia, and one of the few advantages of being generally ravaged by war is probably being less vulnerable to wide scale cyber-attacks.

    As for whether it would be seen as an act of war, you're probably correct on that (though obviously - if we are talking about the grossly hypocritical Americans - the situation would be very different if the boot were on the other foot).
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  179. @Swedish Family

    predictions?
     
    My predictions for tonight's game of chicken, in order of likelihood:

    1. No attack.
    2. US sends cruise missiles against some minor SAA object(s) --> Russia sends cruise missiles against some minor object in the US-controlled parts of Syria
    3. US sends cruise missiles against some major SAA object(s) --> Russia sends cruise missiles against some major US-backed militia unit with no embedded Westerners
    4. US willfully attacks one or more Russian units --> Russia sends cruise missiles against some US-backed militia unit WITH embedded Westerners

    Wild card:
    5. Ukraine's defense minister claims that Russia has amassed 77,000 troops at the border, so the response to (4) could possibly be in the Donbass, in line with our host's wishes.

    The reason I think Russia will only respond in kind is that even something very low-key, such as (2) above, will get hearts racing in Brussels and Washington. It's also very unlike Putin to throw caution to the wind.

    Well, the US will probably launch Tomahawk cruise missiles again. Russia should probably aim to increase point defense at this point because if Americans will keep using the same tool, you might as well turn it into a technology demonstration to sell equipment to future buyers.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Dmitry

    launch Tomahawk cruise missiles again.

     

    Sadly I don't know how to buy shares.

    I would have bought shares in Raytheon.

    https://i.imgur.com/a3u08eX.jpg
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  180. Randal says:
    @Daniel Chieh
    I wonder if a "targeted cyberattack" as suggested by some sources for the Skripal affair would be seen as an effective declaration of war. If its focused in a way to, for example, hamper and impede the ability of Russian financial services to operate(damage withdrawls, cause chaos with balances, break credit transfers), then I think that could still be seen as a the level of not causing death. Of course, if it causes traffic accidents through disrupting lights or kills hospital patients by damaging medical communication, its hard to see how that isn't an act of war.

    Well I think any action has to be initially targeted at Syria rather than Russia, and one of the few advantages of being generally ravaged by war is probably being less vulnerable to wide scale cyber-attacks.

    As for whether it would be seen as an act of war, you’re probably correct on that (though obviously – if we are talking about the grossly hypocritical Americans – the situation would be very different if the boot were on the other foot).

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  181. Dmitry says:
    @reiner Tor
    Trump definitely plans to do something.

    https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-04-10/trump-cancels-south-america-trip-oversee-syria-military-response

    It will likely be a reality television/entertainment- with no long-term impact on the war (unless they would do months – or like Russia, years – of bombing).

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  182. It is reported that France and Britain are likely to participate in any eventual attack. Can someone please advise on what means they have available for doing this?

    The Russians would perhaps be well advised to make sure that they pay a disproportionate price for their “vassalage” — nothing will of course convince the US to back off, but I’m not sure how far the French and UK publics are really willing to go with this, once it becomes apparent that it is no longer “cost free”.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Randal

    It is reported that France and Britain are likely to participate in any eventual attack. Can someone please advise on what means they have available for doing this?
     
    Storm Shadow
    , @Dmitry

    It is reported that France and Britain are likely to participate in any eventual attack. Can someone please advise on what means they have available for doing this?

     

    The British have a base in Cyprus. Their airforce can hit Syria from there. And presumably the French could use it as well.

    But probably that is only if they would do a longer operation - which is less likely.

    , @Anonymous
    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/apr/10/what-could-the-us-target-in-syria-and-how-might-russia-react
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  183. @Randal
    Seems reasonable, except the option of "no attack" seems pretty unlikely given the expectations Trump has built. He might as well paint a big target on his back, hand out pistols to all his political enemies in the US and stand ten feet away from them shouting "have at it, boys!", as not carry out something at least on the scale of the Shayrat attack, now. Of course that also will be criticised by his enemies as inadequate, but at least his allies will have some ammunition to use in his defence.

    The only way I can see "no attack" being the outcome over the next few days is if they come up with some other big initiative (sanctions, boycotts, increased support for regime change, etc) that's paraded as a punishment, but it's quite hard to come up with a really plausible one.

    The only way I can see “no attack” being the outcome over the next few days is if they come up with some other big initiative (sanctions, boycotts, increased support for regime change, etc) that’s paraded as a punishment, but it’s quite hard to come up with a really plausible one.

    This is a fantastic idea. Trump should announce the following retaliation:

    * The US Men’s team will boycott the 2018 World Cup in Russia
    * The US will sell arms to Israel, Saudi Arabia, and UAE to bolster the regional coalition against Iran
    * Iran will be prohibited from enriching uranium more than 20%
    * Russian cars and limousines will be banned from the US market
    * Syrian corporations won’t be allowed to acquire strategic, high tech American companies such as Apple
    * Total import ban on Syrian-made wide body airliners and high-bypass turbofan jet engines in both the USA and EU
    * Syrian banks will no longer be permitted to use the SWIFT system to make payments to North Korea

    These sanctions will send a strong, decisive message.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  184. Dmitry says:
    @Daniel Chieh
    Well, the US will probably launch Tomahawk cruise missiles again. Russia should probably aim to increase point defense at this point because if Americans will keep using the same tool, you might as well turn it into a technology demonstration to sell equipment to future buyers.

    launch Tomahawk cruise missiles again.

    Sadly I don’t know how to buy shares.

    I would have bought shares in Raytheon.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  185. LondonBob says:

    Brossert has resigned due to his opposition to airstrikes, fighting with Bolton. Within the next 24 hours then,

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  186. Randal says:
    @for-the-record
    It is reported that France and Britain are likely to participate in any eventual attack. Can someone please advise on what means they have available for doing this?

    The Russians would perhaps be well advised to make sure that they pay a disproportionate price for their "vassalage" -- nothing will of course convince the US to back off, but I'm not sure how far the French and UK publics are really willing to go with this, once it becomes apparent that it is no longer "cost free".

    It is reported that France and Britain are likely to participate in any eventual attack. Can someone please advise on what means they have available for doing this?

    Storm Shadow

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  187. Dmitry says:
    @for-the-record
    It is reported that France and Britain are likely to participate in any eventual attack. Can someone please advise on what means they have available for doing this?

    The Russians would perhaps be well advised to make sure that they pay a disproportionate price for their "vassalage" -- nothing will of course convince the US to back off, but I'm not sure how far the French and UK publics are really willing to go with this, once it becomes apparent that it is no longer "cost free".

    It is reported that France and Britain are likely to participate in any eventual attack. Can someone please advise on what means they have available for doing this?

    The British have a base in Cyprus. Their airforce can hit Syria from there. And presumably the French could use it as well.

    But probably that is only if they would do a longer operation – which is less likely.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  188. 2282252

    But it will take a week to get there, does that mean we can call off the alert for now? Or is this to be a sustained “response”?

    Read More
    • Replies: @reiner Tor
    Sorry I deleted and resent the comment.

    Either that, or they are planning for a long campaign, depending on the Russian response, or something.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  189. So either a long term air campaign is planned, or they will start only after next week, or both.

    https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-04-10/us-deploys-truman-carrier-strike-group-and-7-warships-cruise-missiles-mediterranean

    Read More
    • Replies: @LondonBob
    Tonight. Airstrikes? Does it mean planes or cruise missiles, planes would be nuts.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  190. LondonBob says:
    @reiner Tor
    So either a long term air campaign is planned, or they will start only after next week, or both.

    https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-04-10/us-deploys-truman-carrier-strike-group-and-7-warships-cruise-missiles-mediterranean

    Tonight. Airstrikes? Does it mean planes or cruise missiles, planes would be nuts.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Randal

    Airstrikes? Does it mean planes or cruise missiles, planes would be nuts.
     
    If they are going for full suppression then planes are absolutely required, for recon/EW and for SEAD strikes, and for force protection (air superiority), although mostly using standoff weapons.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  191. @for-the-record
    But it will take a week to get there, does that mean we can call off the alert for now? Or is this to be a sustained "response"?

    Sorry I deleted and resent the comment.

    Either that, or they are planning for a long campaign, depending on the Russian response, or something.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Randal

    Either that, or they are planning for a long campaign, depending on the Russian response, or something.
     
    The best option is that this announcement is intended to deter any Russian response to a wrist-slapping strike. (Assuming the best of all options - that it's all Trumpian hot air, is ruled out.)

    The worst case is that they are planning for the Lindsey Graham option.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  192. Talha says:
    @LondonBob
    Hezbollah and Iran always retaliate, at a time and place of their choosing.

    The globalist cuck Macron seems particularly keen for a fight, interesting the British government is more reluctant, we just do propaganda these days.

    Hezbollah and Iran always retaliate, at a time and place of their choosing.

    That seems to be the general pattern. One particular non-military retaliation would be to cooperate more with Turkey and bring them into a greater sphere of influence such that the Turks stop contracts with Israel; this would hit them in the pocket book.

    Another possibility (piling on the last one) is to work with Lebanon to come up with security agreement with the Turks such that they are in charge of securing Lebanese air space (a bit like Russians in Syyria). If Russia were to do it, there would be howls of anger – but the Turks are NATO – so it wouldn’t be too bad. This way Lebanese airspace would be off limits to Israeli use.

    Peace.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Talha
    I would be really cool if they would do their joint air force exercises with Pakistan (that they do about every year or two) over Lebanon and Turkey. Pakistan has fairly good relations with Iran so again, Iran may be able to use influence to broker this whole thing - with very specific parameters like; the air forces can only engage on a threat to Lebanese airspace, inclusive of airplanes, helicopters, drones etc.

    Lebanon obviously can't protect its own airspace with the few Cessnas they have - they should look to outsource.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  193. Randal says:
    @reiner Tor
    Sorry I deleted and resent the comment.

    Either that, or they are planning for a long campaign, depending on the Russian response, or something.

    Either that, or they are planning for a long campaign, depending on the Russian response, or something.

    The best option is that this announcement is intended to deter any Russian response to a wrist-slapping strike. (Assuming the best of all options – that it’s all Trumpian hot air, is ruled out.)

    The worst case is that they are planning for the Lindsey Graham option.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  194. Interesting development — looks like they’ll have to wait.

    Weapons inspectors to deploy to Syria’s Douma “shortly” — OPCW

    Amsterdam: Inspectors with the global chemical weapons watchdog will travel to the Syrian town of Douma to investigate reports of an attack there that killed as many as 60 people, the agency said in a statement on Tuesday.

    The OPCW “has requested the Syrian Arab Republic to make the necessary arrangements for such a deployment,” the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons said.

    “This has coincided with a request from the Syrian Arab Republic and the Russian Federation to investigate the allegations of chemical weapons use in Douma. The team is preparing to deploy to Syria shortly.”

    http://www.arabnews.com/node/1282336/middle-east

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  195. Randal says:
    @LondonBob
    Tonight. Airstrikes? Does it mean planes or cruise missiles, planes would be nuts.

    Airstrikes? Does it mean planes or cruise missiles, planes would be nuts.

    If they are going for full suppression then planes are absolutely required, for recon/EW and for SEAD strikes, and for force protection (air superiority), although mostly using standoff weapons.

    Read More
    • Replies: @LondonBob
    I mean in the sense cruise missiles can be countered without loss of life and things will blow over like last time. Planes being shot down leads to a potential escalation spiral.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  196. Talha says:
    @Randal

    Syria and Iran aren’t gonna do shit and you know it. 14 more Iranians and Syrians are in Hell this week, joining hundreds of others that we have put there over the last decade with hundreds more to come. I can’t imagine how bad the underworld must smell these days.

    There will never be any retaliation. Keep saying it is 4d chess. If Iran and Syria could have done anything, they would have a long time ago.
     

    It's nothing to do with "4d chess", it's just common sense. Syria hasn't responded to Israeli acts of aggression because it has lacked the military strength to do so safely. That has been doubly the case in the past seven years while it has been embroiled in a desperate struggle for survival against an externally backed insurrection. But that situation is winding down, and Syria now has strong external backing from Russia, and much more direct backing from Iran. So long as Russia approves its actions, Syria has nothing to fear from an Israeli military response.

    Once the Israelis annoy the Russians enough, when Syria has finished mopping up in its own territory, they will tell the Syrians that counterstrikes can be launched against any Israeli strikes on a tit for tat basis and Russia will not allow any massive attack by Israel. Iran can easily provide the required missile forces to allow Syria to defend its sovereignty against these Israeli aggressions on a tit for tat basis.

    Russia does not want to have to try to rebuild a Syria under constant Israeli barrage, and Israel cannot survive economically under constant tit for tat missile attacks.

    That's the end state the Zionists can see coming, which is why they are pushing so hard to try to overturn the table before we get there.

    Say thank you to the US neocons and Israeli militarists and to the sunni despots and to Erdogan for creating this situation, by trying to regime change Syria and thereby drawing Russia and Iran in to protect their ally.


    Don’t get me wrong, I’d love it if they did. I want war to finish them off.

    Russia can stop us, IF they are willing to lose 200 of their largest cities. I doubt they are. Do you want to take a bet on that one too?
     

    Israel is not going to initiate a nuclear exchange over Syria, and it's frankly rather hysterical to suggest it. Not being able to bomb Syria at will is not an existential issue for Israel, no matter how much US neocon and militarist and Israeli nationalist liars squeal that it is.

    Faced with no better alternatives, Israel will take the only realistic route and once it has established the situation will halt most attacks against Syrian and Iranian targets. That's how power works.

    Israel is not going to initiate a nuclear exchange over Syria

    Agreed – since everybody knows Russians would involve the US in any retaliation because it is assumed that the Americans green-lighted the operation.

    Peace.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Randal

    Agreed – since everybody knows Russians would involve the US in any retaliation because it is assumed that the Americans green-lighted the operation.
     
    Well not because of that - because of the usual reason why countries don't initiate nuclear exchanges over non-existential issues - they prefer to live to fight another day.
    , @Dmitry

    Agreed – since everybody knows Russians would involve the US in any retaliation because it is assumed that the Americans green-lighted the operation.

     

    Israel is very rarely hitting Syrian government forces (except after a mortar lands in Golan), it's all related to Iran/Hezbollah and transfer of weapons to Hezbollah.

    And Russia is just hitting the Jihadist (Sunni) forces inside Syria.

    Turkey is just hitting Kurds.

    The only one which is hitting Syrian government forces in a serious way, was the April 2017 bombing of one of Assad's airfield. This (2017) was mainly a symbolic attack, which had no real impact on the war.

    Possibly now - Trump will take out the Syrian airforce more seriously in a short airstrike. But it will not have much impact, as Russian aviation can continue airstrikes on rebel areas.

    The war itself is going in slow-motion though, which is one of the main things encouraging more countries to slowly join in more than before. (Even Russia has only joined in October 2015, after 4.5 years into the war).

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  197. Talha says:
    @Talha

    Hezbollah and Iran always retaliate, at a time and place of their choosing.
     
    That seems to be the general pattern. One particular non-military retaliation would be to cooperate more with Turkey and bring them into a greater sphere of influence such that the Turks stop contracts with Israel; this would hit them in the pocket book.

    Another possibility (piling on the last one) is to work with Lebanon to come up with security agreement with the Turks such that they are in charge of securing Lebanese air space (a bit like Russians in Syyria). If Russia were to do it, there would be howls of anger - but the Turks are NATO - so it wouldn't be too bad. This way Lebanese airspace would be off limits to Israeli use.

    Peace.

    I would be really cool if they would do their joint air force exercises with Pakistan (that they do about every year or two) over Lebanon and Turkey. Pakistan has fairly good relations with Iran so again, Iran may be able to use influence to broker this whole thing – with very specific parameters like; the air forces can only engage on a threat to Lebanese airspace, inclusive of airplanes, helicopters, drones etc.

    Lebanon obviously can’t protect its own airspace with the few Cessnas they have – they should look to outsource.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  198. Randal says:
    @Talha

    Israel is not going to initiate a nuclear exchange over Syria
     
    Agreed - since everybody knows Russians would involve the US in any retaliation because it is assumed that the Americans green-lighted the operation.

    Peace.

    Agreed – since everybody knows Russians would involve the US in any retaliation because it is assumed that the Americans green-lighted the operation.

    Well not because of that – because of the usual reason why countries don’t initiate nuclear exchanges over non-existential issues – they prefer to live to fight another day.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  199. Dmitry says:
    @Talha

    Israel is not going to initiate a nuclear exchange over Syria
     
    Agreed - since everybody knows Russians would involve the US in any retaliation because it is assumed that the Americans green-lighted the operation.

    Peace.

    Agreed – since everybody knows Russians would involve the US in any retaliation because it is assumed that the Americans green-lighted the operation.

    Israel is very rarely hitting Syrian government forces (except after a mortar lands in Golan), it’s all related to Iran/Hezbollah and transfer of weapons to Hezbollah.

    And Russia is just hitting the Jihadist (Sunni) forces inside Syria.

    Turkey is just hitting Kurds.

    The only one which is hitting Syrian government forces in a serious way, was the April 2017 bombing of one of Assad’s airfield. This (2017) was mainly a symbolic attack, which had no real impact on the war.

    Possibly now – Trump will take out the Syrian airforce more seriously in a short airstrike. But it will not have much impact, as Russian aviation can continue airstrikes on rebel areas.

    The war itself is going in slow-motion though, which is one of the main things encouraging more countries to slowly join in more than before. (Even Russia has only joined in October 2015, after 4.5 years into the war).

    Read More
    • Replies: @Dmitry
    If the Europeans/EU are smart, they should create their own safe-zone inside Northern Syria. And then repatriate all the Syrian migrants that are living in Europe into that safe-zone.

    They could even waste a lot of money rebuilding it and making it nice for the Syrian returnees. This would reduce the number of Arab immigrants in the EU by a few million.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  200. Israel is very rarely hitting Syrian government forces (except after a mortar lands in Golan), it’s all related to Iran/Hezbollah and transfer of weapons to Hezbollah.

    It’s a distinction without a difference, since they are allies in the ongoing civil war. Hitting one makes the job of the others that much harder.

    Read More
    • Agree: Randal
    • Replies: @Dmitry

    It’s a distinction without a difference, since they are allies in the ongoing civil war. Hitting one makes the job of the others that much harder.

     

    It's why Russia does not intervene. The same reason that everyone allows Turkey to bomb the Kurds - even though technically the Kurds are on the side as the Americans.
    , @Talha

    It’s a distinction without a difference, since they are allies in the ongoing civil war.
     
    Agreed - I certainly wouldn't make a distinction if I was the govt of Syria - I doubt they do either.

    It's like if the American Revolutionaries decided to shoot up only Hessian mercenaries - the British Empire wouldn't care (other than in relief that they'd have less mercenaries to pay at the end of the year - cha-ching!!!).

    Peace.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  201. Dmitry says:
    @Dmitry

    Agreed – since everybody knows Russians would involve the US in any retaliation because it is assumed that the Americans green-lighted the operation.

     

    Israel is very rarely hitting Syrian government forces (except after a mortar lands in Golan), it's all related to Iran/Hezbollah and transfer of weapons to Hezbollah.

    And Russia is just hitting the Jihadist (Sunni) forces inside Syria.

    Turkey is just hitting Kurds.

    The only one which is hitting Syrian government forces in a serious way, was the April 2017 bombing of one of Assad's airfield. This (2017) was mainly a symbolic attack, which had no real impact on the war.

    Possibly now - Trump will take out the Syrian airforce more seriously in a short airstrike. But it will not have much impact, as Russian aviation can continue airstrikes on rebel areas.

    The war itself is going in slow-motion though, which is one of the main things encouraging more countries to slowly join in more than before. (Even Russia has only joined in October 2015, after 4.5 years into the war).

    If the Europeans/EU are smart, they should create their own safe-zone inside Northern Syria. And then repatriate all the Syrian migrants that are living in Europe into that safe-zone.

    They could even waste a lot of money rebuilding it and making it nice for the Syrian returnees. This would reduce the number of Arab immigrants in the EU by a few million.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Randal

    If the Europeans/EU are smart, they should create their own safe-zone inside Northern Syria. And then repatriate all the Syrian migrants that are living in Europe into that safe-zone.
     
    Yes, that's what a fairly open Israeli partisan would suggest, because it goes in the direction you want things to go. The reality is, of course, that the attempt to create such a "safe-zone" would result in even greater conflict and chaos.

    In reality, if Europeans were smart they would target the forces prolonging the civil war in pursuit of geopolitical objectives - Israel, the US and the sunni despots - to put pressure on them to let the Syrian government restore order more quickly. With restored order and rebuilding, the "refugee" problem goes away.

    It has always been those states, along with Turkey, that have prolonged the disorder in Syria by pursuing regime change.
    , @Talha
    I agree with Randal about trying to create a safe-zone inside Syria. It will be used as a coin by political partisans.

    However, there are stable areas not far outside Syria. And yes - it is much, much cheaper to house and maintain refugees close to their country of origin (either in Turkey or Jordan, etc.). Far more can be done to build adequate facilities and feed them there than to integrate them into the West.
    "On average, each Middle Eastern refugee resettled in the United States costs an estimated $64,370 in the first five years, or $257,481 per household.
    The UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) has requested $1,057 to care for each Syrian refugee annually in most countries neighboring Syria*."
    https://cis.org/Report/High-Cost-Resettling-Middle-Eastern-Refugees

    *This sounds right because I personally know people that work for non-profit Muslim organizations like Helping Hand and Islamic Relief and their estimates are about the same.

    Sometimes it's even less if you can be even more targeted. For instance, I know of orphan-sponsorship programs where it costs very little (about $50-75 a month in the area) because the uncle or grandfather (or other extended family) is willing to house and provide for the orphan and all they need is a little extra help to provide for one more person to feed and clothe.

    Peace.

    , @German_reader

    If the Europeans/EU are smart, they should create their own safe-zone inside Northern Syria. And then repatriate all the Syrian migrants that are living in Europe into that safe-zone.
     
    Insane idea, would be total madness to send European troops there, one would be at the mercy of the Turks and it would be a prime target for jihadis. And of course it would mean conflict with Assad's regime, Russia and Iran.
    As for sending back refugees, the best solution imo would be to come to an understanding with Assad...we'll pay him money, he'll take back refugees and promise not to have them disappeared or killed (at least not immediately). But of course such a solution is sabotaged by the human rights and mass immigration lobbies.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  202. Dmitry says:
    @reiner Tor

    Israel is very rarely hitting Syrian government forces (except after a mortar lands in Golan), it’s all related to Iran/Hezbollah and transfer of weapons to Hezbollah.
     
    It's a distinction without a difference, since they are allies in the ongoing civil war. Hitting one makes the job of the others that much harder.

    It’s a distinction without a difference, since they are allies in the ongoing civil war. Hitting one makes the job of the others that much harder.

    It’s why Russia does not intervene. The same reason that everyone allows Turkey to bomb the Kurds – even though technically the Kurds are on the side as the Americans.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  203. Talha says:
    @reiner Tor

    Israel is very rarely hitting Syrian government forces (except after a mortar lands in Golan), it’s all related to Iran/Hezbollah and transfer of weapons to Hezbollah.
     
    It's a distinction without a difference, since they are allies in the ongoing civil war. Hitting one makes the job of the others that much harder.

    It’s a distinction without a difference, since they are allies in the ongoing civil war.

    Agreed – I certainly wouldn’t make a distinction if I was the govt of Syria – I doubt they do either.

    It’s like if the American Revolutionaries decided to shoot up only Hessian mercenaries – the British Empire wouldn’t care (other than in relief that they’d have less mercenaries to pay at the end of the year – cha-ching!!!).

    Peace.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Dmitry
    Iran presence in Syria, reduces chance of a 'worst case scenario' in Syria (which is Assad government over-throw). But it also reduces the rewards of a 'best case scenario' (in which Russia will emerge as only second most influential patron in the country, without the cultural/religious connections that Iran has).

    When chance of 'worst case scenario' is higher, then Israel bombing the Iranians/Hezbollah - will be something negative to goals. However, when chance of 'best case scenario is higher, then this bombing can be consistent with goals.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  204. Randal says:
    @Dmitry
    If the Europeans/EU are smart, they should create their own safe-zone inside Northern Syria. And then repatriate all the Syrian migrants that are living in Europe into that safe-zone.

    They could even waste a lot of money rebuilding it and making it nice for the Syrian returnees. This would reduce the number of Arab immigrants in the EU by a few million.

    If the Europeans/EU are smart, they should create their own safe-zone inside Northern Syria. And then repatriate all the Syrian migrants that are living in Europe into that safe-zone.

    Yes, that’s what a fairly open Israeli partisan would suggest, because it goes in the direction you want things to go. The reality is, of course, that the attempt to create such a “safe-zone” would result in even greater conflict and chaos.

    In reality, if Europeans were smart they would target the forces prolonging the civil war in pursuit of geopolitical objectives – Israel, the US and the sunni despots – to put pressure on them to let the Syrian government restore order more quickly. With restored order and rebuilding, the “refugee” problem goes away.

    It has always been those states, along with Turkey, that have prolonged the disorder in Syria by pursuing regime change.

    Read More
    • Agree: for-the-record, utu
    • Replies: @Dmitry

    Yes, that’s what a fairly open Israeli partisan would suggest, because it goes in the direction you want things to go. The reality is, of course, that the attempt to create such a “safe-zone” would result in even greater conflict and chaos.

    In reality, if Europeans were smart they would target the forces prolonging the civil war in pursuit of geopolitical objectives – Israel, the US and the sunni despots – to put pressure on them to let the Syrian government restore order more quickly. With restored order and rebuilding, the “refugee” problem goes away.

    It has always been those states, along with Turkey, that have prolonged the disorder in Syria by pursuing regime change.
     
    The Syrian refugees in Europe, most of them Sunni, many rebels or supporters, will not return to the Assad controlled areas.

    The Christian and Alawite ones should be returned there though.

    Currently the courts will not allow return to a warzone or somewhere they claim to be 'in danger of persecution'.

    The alternative would be that Assad gives a legal amnesty to all these people and welcomes them back (but why would he do that - it would be idiotic for him).

    If I was in the EU, I would argue to build a EU controlled territory and return them to this territory. Such a plan would cost billions of dollars though. The long term effect would be worth it from European view though, to stop the immigration from Syria. In such a case, the EU could also deport to here forcibly, as they would be able to argue that they can verify its safety.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  205. Talha says:
    @Dmitry
    If the Europeans/EU are smart, they should create their own safe-zone inside Northern Syria. And then repatriate all the Syrian migrants that are living in Europe into that safe-zone.

    They could even waste a lot of money rebuilding it and making it nice for the Syrian returnees. This would reduce the number of Arab immigrants in the EU by a few million.

    I agree with Randal about trying to create a safe-zone inside Syria. It will be used as a coin by political partisans.

    However, there are stable areas not far outside Syria. And yes – it is much, much cheaper to house and maintain refugees close to their country of origin (either in Turkey or Jordan, etc.). Far more can be done to build adequate facilities and feed them there than to integrate them into the West.
    “On average, each Middle Eastern refugee resettled in the United States costs an estimated $64,370 in the first five years, or $257,481 per household.
    The UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) has requested $1,057 to care for each Syrian refugee annually in most countries neighboring Syria*.”

    https://cis.org/Report/High-Cost-Resettling-Middle-Eastern-Refugees

    *This sounds right because I personally know people that work for non-profit Muslim organizations like Helping Hand and Islamic Relief and their estimates are about the same.

    Sometimes it’s even less if you can be even more targeted. For instance, I know of orphan-sponsorship programs where it costs very little (about $50-75 a month in the area) because the uncle or grandfather (or other extended family) is willing to house and provide for the orphan and all they need is a little extra help to provide for one more person to feed and clothe.

    Peace.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  206. Dmitry says:
    @Talha

    It’s a distinction without a difference, since they are allies in the ongoing civil war.
     
    Agreed - I certainly wouldn't make a distinction if I was the govt of Syria - I doubt they do either.

    It's like if the American Revolutionaries decided to shoot up only Hessian mercenaries - the British Empire wouldn't care (other than in relief that they'd have less mercenaries to pay at the end of the year - cha-ching!!!).

    Peace.

    Iran presence in Syria, reduces chance of a ‘worst case scenario’ in Syria (which is Assad government over-throw). But it also reduces the rewards of a ‘best case scenario’ (in which Russia will emerge as only second most influential patron in the country, without the cultural/religious connections that Iran has).

    When chance of ‘worst case scenario’ is higher, then Israel bombing the Iranians/Hezbollah – will be something negative to goals. However, when chance of ‘best case scenario is higher, then this bombing can be consistent with goals.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  207. Dmitry says:
    @Randal

    If the Europeans/EU are smart, they should create their own safe-zone inside Northern Syria. And then repatriate all the Syrian migrants that are living in Europe into that safe-zone.
     
    Yes, that's what a fairly open Israeli partisan would suggest, because it goes in the direction you want things to go. The reality is, of course, that the attempt to create such a "safe-zone" would result in even greater conflict and chaos.

    In reality, if Europeans were smart they would target the forces prolonging the civil war in pursuit of geopolitical objectives - Israel, the US and the sunni despots - to put pressure on them to let the Syrian government restore order more quickly. With restored order and rebuilding, the "refugee" problem goes away.

    It has always been those states, along with Turkey, that have prolonged the disorder in Syria by pursuing regime change.

    Yes, that’s what a fairly open Israeli partisan would suggest, because it goes in the direction you want things to go. The reality is, of course, that the attempt to create such a “safe-zone” would result in even greater conflict and chaos.

    In reality, if Europeans were smart they would target the forces prolonging the civil war in pursuit of geopolitical objectives – Israel, the US and the sunni despots – to put pressure on them to let the Syrian government restore order more quickly. With restored order and rebuilding, the “refugee” problem goes away.

    It has always been those states, along with Turkey, that have prolonged the disorder in Syria by pursuing regime change.

    The Syrian refugees in Europe, most of them Sunni, many rebels or supporters, will not return to the Assad controlled areas.

    The Christian and Alawite ones should be returned there though.

    Currently the courts will not allow return to a warzone or somewhere they claim to be ‘in danger of persecution’.

    The alternative would be that Assad gives a legal amnesty to all these people and welcomes them back (but why would he do that – it would be idiotic for him).

    If I was in the EU, I would argue to build a EU controlled territory and return them to this territory. Such a plan would cost billions of dollars though. The long term effect would be worth it from European view though, to stop the immigration from Syria. In such a case, the EU could also deport to here forcibly, as they would be able to argue that they can verify its safety.

    Read More
    • Replies: @for-the-record
    The Syrian refugees in Europe, most of them Sunni, will not return to the Assad controlled areas.

    1. The majority of Assad's cabinet is Sunni, as well as many of his most trusted advisers (eg. Ali Mamlouk on security matters).

    2. Around half (and perhaps up to 60%) of the Syrian Army is Sunni, while the special Ba'ath Brigades are nearly 100% Sunni.

    3. Assad's wife is Sunni.

    While many Sunni refugees in Europe may well choose not to return to a peaceful Syria, for the large majority this will be because they prefer the European "lifestyle", not for political reasons. The idea that Sunnis will not return to a post-war Syria for political reasons is a fantasy promoted by opponents of the regime.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  208. Randal says:

    If I was in the EU, I would argue to build a EU controlled territory and return them to this territory.

    Of course you would, because you hold the interests of Israel ahead of those of Europe, as you have often made clear. The real ulterior motive for such proposals has always been to draw European states further into conflict with the Syrian government.

    The Syrian refugees in Europe, most of them Sunni, many rebels or supporters, will not return to the Assad controlled areas.

    Most of them will, if life is made unpleasant enough for them here, apart from those who genuinely have something to fear because they’ve actually committed crimes in the rebellion. Syria is not a sectarian country – it’s a majority sunni country, and plenty of sunnis live there quite happily.

    Of course, such a “safe-zone” for the vast majority of (non-Kurdish) Syrian “refugees” has already been created in Afrin, by the Turks. So your altruistically intended suggestion to the peoples and governments of Europe is no longer required, no?

    Regardless, the real problem with “Syrian refugees” is that the vast majority of them aren’t actually Syrian at all. That’s just a policing and an attitude problem.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Dmitry

    Of course you would, because you hold the interests of Israel ahead of those of Europe, as you have often made clear. The real ulterior motive for such proposals has always been to draw European states further into conflict with the Syrian government.

     

    My level of care 'for the interests of Europe' is about 5/10 with no sentimentality, as I would like to continue living in Europe, without it turning into a disaster zone.

    The proposal would be how Syrians would be taken out of Europe - whether or not that will ever happen (without such proposals) is about 1% probability.

    Most of them will, if life is made unpleasant enough for them here, apart from those who genuinely have something to fear because they’ve actually committed crimes in the rebellion.
     
    This is will never happen as we all know. And you can't (under current EU legal regime) deport a person back to their country, without normalized relations and verification of their safety.

    Syria is not a sectarian country – it’s a majority sunni country, and plenty of sunnis live there quite happily.
     
    This is true, but not of the population component in Europe.

    Of course, such a “safe-zone” for the vast majority of (non-Kurdish) Syrian “refugees” has already been created in Afrin, by the Turks. So your altruistically intended suggestion to the peoples and governments of Europe is no longer required, no?

    Regardless, the real problem with “Syrian refugees” is that the vast majority of them aren’t actually Syrian at all. That’s just a policing and an attitude problem.
     
    The deportation to third-countries is an alternative. It's funny you mention Israel - Israel has been trying to do this through Rwanda, but the deal has fallen through.

    Deporting Syrians that left a war state to a third-country, would be more legally difficult. And also there would have to be some kind of bribing of the third-country.

    Perhaps to give several billion dollars to Jordan to accept them. But again the legality/possibility of deportation to third-country has not been tested.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  209. @Dmitry

    Yes, that’s what a fairly open Israeli partisan would suggest, because it goes in the direction you want things to go. The reality is, of course, that the attempt to create such a “safe-zone” would result in even greater conflict and chaos.

    In reality, if Europeans were smart they would target the forces prolonging the civil war in pursuit of geopolitical objectives – Israel, the US and the sunni despots – to put pressure on them to let the Syrian government restore order more quickly. With restored order and rebuilding, the “refugee” problem goes away.

    It has always been those states, along with Turkey, that have prolonged the disorder in Syria by pursuing regime change.
     
    The Syrian refugees in Europe, most of them Sunni, many rebels or supporters, will not return to the Assad controlled areas.

    The Christian and Alawite ones should be returned there though.

    Currently the courts will not allow return to a warzone or somewhere they claim to be 'in danger of persecution'.

    The alternative would be that Assad gives a legal amnesty to all these people and welcomes them back (but why would he do that - it would be idiotic for him).

    If I was in the EU, I would argue to build a EU controlled territory and return them to this territory. Such a plan would cost billions of dollars though. The long term effect would be worth it from European view though, to stop the immigration from Syria. In such a case, the EU could also deport to here forcibly, as they would be able to argue that they can verify its safety.

    The Syrian refugees in Europe, most of them Sunni, will not return to the Assad controlled areas.

    1. The majority of Assad’s cabinet is Sunni, as well as many of his most trusted advisers (eg. Ali Mamlouk on security matters).

    2. Around half (and perhaps up to 60%) of the Syrian Army is Sunni, while the special Ba’ath Brigades are nearly 100% Sunni.

    3. Assad’s wife is Sunni.

    While many Sunni refugees in Europe may well choose not to return to a peaceful Syria, for the large majority this will be because they prefer the European “lifestyle”, not for political reasons. The idea that Sunnis will not return to a post-war Syria for political reasons is a fantasy promoted by opponents of the regime.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Dmitry
    The loyal Sunnis are in Syria now - but the refugees are not - or hardly not - this component.

    The issue of wanting return or not is kind of irrelevant, because you can physically deport a person back to their home, if it's agreed that they are safe and not in danger of 'persecution'.
    , @Talha

    While many Sunni refugees in Europe may well choose not to return to a peaceful Syria, for the large majority this will be because they prefer the European “lifestyle”, not for political reasons.
     
    Agree here - if there is general safety, amnesty granted to those who lay down weapons, and a return to the past (with reasonable accommodations for the concerns of dissidents), I really can't see a reason why Sunnis would not return to Syria.

    Peace.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  210. Dmitry says:
    @for-the-record
    The Syrian refugees in Europe, most of them Sunni, will not return to the Assad controlled areas.

    1. The majority of Assad's cabinet is Sunni, as well as many of his most trusted advisers (eg. Ali Mamlouk on security matters).

    2. Around half (and perhaps up to 60%) of the Syrian Army is Sunni, while the special Ba'ath Brigades are nearly 100% Sunni.

    3. Assad's wife is Sunni.

    While many Sunni refugees in Europe may well choose not to return to a peaceful Syria, for the large majority this will be because they prefer the European "lifestyle", not for political reasons. The idea that Sunnis will not return to a post-war Syria for political reasons is a fantasy promoted by opponents of the regime.

    The loyal Sunnis are in Syria now – but the refugees are not – or hardly not – this component.

    The issue of wanting return or not is kind of irrelevant, because you can physically deport a person back to their home, if it’s agreed that they are safe and not in danger of ‘persecution’.

    Read More
    • Replies: @for-the-record
    if it’s agreed that they are safe and not in danger of ‘persecution’.

    There you are, then once peace is restored they can safely be returned to Syria (those who are actually Syrian -- as has been noted already the large majority of "Syrian" refugees in Europe are Syrian by solidarity, not by nationality).
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  211. Dmitry says:
    @Randal

    If I was in the EU, I would argue to build a EU controlled territory and return them to this territory.
     
    Of course you would, because you hold the interests of Israel ahead of those of Europe, as you have often made clear. The real ulterior motive for such proposals has always been to draw European states further into conflict with the Syrian government.

    The Syrian refugees in Europe, most of them Sunni, many rebels or supporters, will not return to the Assad controlled areas.
     
    Most of them will, if life is made unpleasant enough for them here, apart from those who genuinely have something to fear because they've actually committed crimes in the rebellion. Syria is not a sectarian country - it's a majority sunni country, and plenty of sunnis live there quite happily.

    Of course, such a "safe-zone" for the vast majority of (non-Kurdish) Syrian "refugees" has already been created in Afrin, by the Turks. So your altruistically intended suggestion to the peoples and governments of Europe is no longer required, no?

    Regardless, the real problem with "Syrian refugees" is that the vast majority of them aren't actually Syrian at all. That's just a policing and an attitude problem.

    Of course you would, because you hold the interests of Israel ahead of those of Europe, as you have often made clear. The real ulterior motive for such proposals has always been to draw European states further into conflict with the Syrian government.

    My level of care ‘for the interests of Europe’ is about 5/10 with no sentimentality, as I would like to continue living in Europe, without it turning into a disaster zone.

    The proposal would be how Syrians would be taken out of Europe – whether or not that will ever happen (without such proposals) is about 1% probability.

    Most of them will, if life is made unpleasant enough for them here, apart from those who genuinely have something to fear because they’ve actually committed crimes in the rebellion.

    This is will never happen as we all know. And you can’t (under current EU legal regime) deport a person back to their country, without normalized relations and verification of their safety.

    Syria is not a sectarian country – it’s a majority sunni country, and plenty of sunnis live there quite happily.

    This is true, but not of the population component in Europe.

    Of course, such a “safe-zone” for the vast majority of (non-Kurdish) Syrian “refugees” has already been created in Afrin, by the Turks. So your altruistically intended suggestion to the peoples and governments of Europe is no longer required, no?

    Regardless, the real problem with “Syrian refugees” is that the vast majority of them aren’t actually Syrian at all. That’s just a policing and an attitude problem.

    The deportation to third-countries is an alternative. It’s funny you mention Israel – Israel has been trying to do this through Rwanda, but the deal has fallen through.

    Deporting Syrians that left a war state to a third-country, would be more legally difficult. And also there would have to be some kind of bribing of the third-country.

    Perhaps to give several billion dollars to Jordan to accept them. But again the legality/possibility of deportation to third-country has not been tested.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Dmitry

    Deporting Syrians that left a war state to a third-country, would be more legally difficult. And also there would have to be some kind of bribing of the third-country.

    Perhaps to give several billion dollars to Jordan to accept them. But again the legality/possibility of deportation to third-country has not been tested.
     
    This was replying to deportation to Turkey. But Jordan would probably make more sense as destination, as it is another Arab country.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  212. Talha says:
    @for-the-record
    The Syrian refugees in Europe, most of them Sunni, will not return to the Assad controlled areas.

    1. The majority of Assad's cabinet is Sunni, as well as many of his most trusted advisers (eg. Ali Mamlouk on security matters).

    2. Around half (and perhaps up to 60%) of the Syrian Army is Sunni, while the special Ba'ath Brigades are nearly 100% Sunni.

    3. Assad's wife is Sunni.

    While many Sunni refugees in Europe may well choose not to return to a peaceful Syria, for the large majority this will be because they prefer the European "lifestyle", not for political reasons. The idea that Sunnis will not return to a post-war Syria for political reasons is a fantasy promoted by opponents of the regime.

    While many Sunni refugees in Europe may well choose not to return to a peaceful Syria, for the large majority this will be because they prefer the European “lifestyle”, not for political reasons.

    Agree here – if there is general safety, amnesty granted to those who lay down weapons, and a return to the past (with reasonable accommodations for the concerns of dissidents), I really can’t see a reason why Sunnis would not return to Syria.

    Peace.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Dmitry

    Agree here – if there is general safety, amnesty granted to those who lay down weapons, and a return to the past (with reasonable accommodations for the concerns of dissidents), I really can’t see a reason why Sunnis would not return to Syria.

     

    They would have to be mass deported there. Only small minority will return home voluntarily, from a developed country to an undeveloped one. In addition, why would Assad welcome them back to his controlled territories (except in the knowledge that few would return voluntarily - otherwise it would be a suicidal decision for him).
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  213. Dmitry says:
    @Dmitry

    Of course you would, because you hold the interests of Israel ahead of those of Europe, as you have often made clear. The real ulterior motive for such proposals has always been to draw European states further into conflict with the Syrian government.

     

    My level of care 'for the interests of Europe' is about 5/10 with no sentimentality, as I would like to continue living in Europe, without it turning into a disaster zone.

    The proposal would be how Syrians would be taken out of Europe - whether or not that will ever happen (without such proposals) is about 1% probability.

    Most of them will, if life is made unpleasant enough for them here, apart from those who genuinely have something to fear because they’ve actually committed crimes in the rebellion.
     
    This is will never happen as we all know. And you can't (under current EU legal regime) deport a person back to their country, without normalized relations and verification of their safety.

    Syria is not a sectarian country – it’s a majority sunni country, and plenty of sunnis live there quite happily.
     
    This is true, but not of the population component in Europe.

    Of course, such a “safe-zone” for the vast majority of (non-Kurdish) Syrian “refugees” has already been created in Afrin, by the Turks. So your altruistically intended suggestion to the peoples and governments of Europe is no longer required, no?

    Regardless, the real problem with “Syrian refugees” is that the vast majority of them aren’t actually Syrian at all. That’s just a policing and an attitude problem.
     
    The deportation to third-countries is an alternative. It's funny you mention Israel - Israel has been trying to do this through Rwanda, but the deal has fallen through.

    Deporting Syrians that left a war state to a third-country, would be more legally difficult. And also there would have to be some kind of bribing of the third-country.

    Perhaps to give several billion dollars to Jordan to accept them. But again the legality/possibility of deportation to third-country has not been tested.

    Deporting Syrians that left a war state to a third-country, would be more legally difficult. And also there would have to be some kind of bribing of the third-country.

    Perhaps to give several billion dollars to Jordan to accept them. But again the legality/possibility of deportation to third-country has not been tested.

    This was replying to deportation to Turkey. But Jordan would probably make more sense as destination, as it is another Arab country.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  214. Dmitry says:
    @Talha

    While many Sunni refugees in Europe may well choose not to return to a peaceful Syria, for the large majority this will be because they prefer the European “lifestyle”, not for political reasons.
     
    Agree here - if there is general safety, amnesty granted to those who lay down weapons, and a return to the past (with reasonable accommodations for the concerns of dissidents), I really can't see a reason why Sunnis would not return to Syria.

    Peace.

    Agree here – if there is general safety, amnesty granted to those who lay down weapons, and a return to the past (with reasonable accommodations for the concerns of dissidents), I really can’t see a reason why Sunnis would not return to Syria.

    They would have to be mass deported there. Only small minority will return home voluntarily, from a developed country to an undeveloped one. In addition, why would Assad welcome them back to his controlled territories (except in the knowledge that few would return voluntarily – otherwise it would be a suicidal decision for him).

    Read More
    • Replies: @Talha

    Only small minority will return home voluntarily, from a developed country to an undeveloped one.
     
    They'll return if you choose to do what some of the Gulf countries have done:
    1) Cut off welfare.
    2) Give a timeline of when any job must be held by a citizen.

    Or offer financial incentives for return.

    why would Assad welcome them back to his controlled territories
     
    Assad doesn't have to like it, he can eat the paperwork or suck his thumb if it upsets him that badly - this is what post-war negotiations are about; reasonable accommodations and compromise. This comes down to what big guys like Russia and Iran also agree to and push into his lap.

    Peace.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  215. @Dmitry
    If the Europeans/EU are smart, they should create their own safe-zone inside Northern Syria. And then repatriate all the Syrian migrants that are living in Europe into that safe-zone.

    They could even waste a lot of money rebuilding it and making it nice for the Syrian returnees. This would reduce the number of Arab immigrants in the EU by a few million.

    If the Europeans/EU are smart, they should create their own safe-zone inside Northern Syria. And then repatriate all the Syrian migrants that are living in Europe into that safe-zone.

    Insane idea, would be total madness to send European troops there, one would be at the mercy of the Turks and it would be a prime target for jihadis. And of course it would mean conflict with Assad’s regime, Russia and Iran.
    As for sending back refugees, the best solution imo would be to come to an understanding with Assad…we’ll pay him money, he’ll take back refugees and promise not to have them disappeared or killed (at least not immediately). But of course such a solution is sabotaged by the human rights and mass immigration lobbies.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Talha

    But of course such a solution is sabotaged by the human rights and mass immigration lobbies.
     
    More evidence High-IQ is dysgenic...

    Just sayin'

    Peace.
    , @Dmitry
    Turkey (or Jordan if it's on their border) could keep control of the security of the area. But there would need to be EU bureaucrats on the ground to ensure the safety and organize the society. This way the bureaucrats would be verify that it is a safe society, and from a EU legal perspective all refugees would be able to be deported back there (without the legal objections). Funding would have to be provided though, so it would cost a lot.

    As for paying Assad to take back refugees into his controlled territory - it wouldn't make much sense from his perspective, unless you are talking a huge amount. Also it would require waiting until the active fighting part of the war is over.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  216. Talha says:
    @German_reader

    If the Europeans/EU are smart, they should create their own safe-zone inside Northern Syria. And then repatriate all the Syrian migrants that are living in Europe into that safe-zone.
     
    Insane idea, would be total madness to send European troops there, one would be at the mercy of the Turks and it would be a prime target for jihadis. And of course it would mean conflict with Assad's regime, Russia and Iran.
    As for sending back refugees, the best solution imo would be to come to an understanding with Assad...we'll pay him money, he'll take back refugees and promise not to have them disappeared or killed (at least not immediately). But of course such a solution is sabotaged by the human rights and mass immigration lobbies.

    But of course such a solution is sabotaged by the human rights and mass immigration lobbies.

    More evidence High-IQ is dysgenic…

    Just sayin’

    Peace.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  217. Talha says:
    @Dmitry

    Agree here – if there is general safety, amnesty granted to those who lay down weapons, and a return to the past (with reasonable accommodations for the concerns of dissidents), I really can’t see a reason why Sunnis would not return to Syria.

     

    They would have to be mass deported there. Only small minority will return home voluntarily, from a developed country to an undeveloped one. In addition, why would Assad welcome them back to his controlled territories (except in the knowledge that few would return voluntarily - otherwise it would be a suicidal decision for him).

    Only small minority will return home voluntarily, from a developed country to an undeveloped one.

    They’ll return if you choose to do what some of the Gulf countries have done:
    1) Cut off welfare.
    2) Give a timeline of when any job must be held by a citizen.

    Or offer financial incentives for return.

    why would Assad welcome them back to his controlled territories

    Assad doesn’t have to like it, he can eat the paperwork or suck his thumb if it upsets him that badly – this is what post-war negotiations are about; reasonable accommodations and compromise. This comes down to what big guys like Russia and Iran also agree to and push into his lap.

    Peace.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anon

    why would Assad welcome them back to his controlled territories
     
    1. In exchange for aid, better relations with the West, etc. etc. etc.
    2. Because, unlike the West, he won't be paying them welfare and should be able to get some tax revenue out of them at least.

    How many "Syrian refugees" were not? These ones should be able to go back home. Assad's Syria is probably a step up from some places (Afghanistan for instance) so some of them might even want to go there by preference, if he'll take them.
    , @Dmitry

    Assad doesn’t have to like it, he can eat the paperwork or suck his thumb if it upsets him that badly – this is what post-war negotiations are about; reasonable accommodations and compromise. This comes down to what big guys like Russia and Iran also agree to and push into his lap.

     

    It's over 1 million returnees - recipe for constant uprisings within his territory in the future.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  218. @Dmitry
    The loyal Sunnis are in Syria now - but the refugees are not - or hardly not - this component.

    The issue of wanting return or not is kind of irrelevant, because you can physically deport a person back to their home, if it's agreed that they are safe and not in danger of 'persecution'.

    if it’s agreed that they are safe and not in danger of ‘persecution’.

    There you are, then once peace is restored they can safely be returned to Syria (those who are actually Syrian — as has been noted already the large majority of “Syrian” refugees in Europe are Syrian by solidarity, not by nationality).

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  219. Anon[291] • Disclaimer says:
    @Talha

    Only small minority will return home voluntarily, from a developed country to an undeveloped one.
     
    They'll return if you choose to do what some of the Gulf countries have done:
    1) Cut off welfare.
    2) Give a timeline of when any job must be held by a citizen.

    Or offer financial incentives for return.

    why would Assad welcome them back to his controlled territories
     
    Assad doesn't have to like it, he can eat the paperwork or suck his thumb if it upsets him that badly - this is what post-war negotiations are about; reasonable accommodations and compromise. This comes down to what big guys like Russia and Iran also agree to and push into his lap.

    Peace.

    why would Assad welcome them back to his controlled territories

    1. In exchange for aid, better relations with the West, etc. etc. etc.
    2. Because, unlike the West, he won’t be paying them welfare and should be able to get some tax revenue out of them at least.

    How many “Syrian refugees” were not? These ones should be able to go back home. Assad’s Syria is probably a step up from some places (Afghanistan for instance) so some of them might even want to go there by preference, if he’ll take them.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  220. Anonymous[204] • Disclaimer says:
    @for-the-record
    It is reported that France and Britain are likely to participate in any eventual attack. Can someone please advise on what means they have available for doing this?

    The Russians would perhaps be well advised to make sure that they pay a disproportionate price for their "vassalage" -- nothing will of course convince the US to back off, but I'm not sure how far the French and UK publics are really willing to go with this, once it becomes apparent that it is no longer "cost free".
    Read More
    • Replies: @for-the-record
    Thanks, I especially liked the conclusion:

    However, the main value of the UK to any military action by the US – which is not short of firepower or expertise – would be in allowing the US to say it isn’t acting unilaterally.
     
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  221. @Anonymous
    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/apr/10/what-could-the-us-target-in-syria-and-how-might-russia-react

    Thanks, I especially liked the conclusion:

    However, the main value of the UK to any military action by the US – which is not short of firepower or expertise – would be in allowing the US to say it isn’t acting unilaterally.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  222. ussr andy says:
    @Daniel Chieh
    She described the victims in graphic terms.

    "I could hold up pictures of babies lying dead next to their mothers, in their diapers, all lying together, dead, ashen blue, open eyed and lifeless, white foam bubbling from their mouths and noses."

     

    Oh boy, this is subtle. Not at all like a parody of THINK OF THE CHILDREN!!!

    Dalrymple made a point (in Spoilt Rotten, I think) sentimentality went hand in hand with brutality.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  223. Parbes says:
    @Dmitry
    Unless America does several months (or more) of air-strikes, it won't have much effect on anything.

    Russian airforces started daily bombing in Syria in September 2015, and it was about a year of this before favoured side started to recapture territory.

    “Russian airforces started daily bombing in Syria in September 2015, and it was about a year of this before favoured side started to recapture territory.”

    Nonsense. The Syrian government forces started recapturing territory from the jihadis almost immediately after Russia started bombing in September 2015. In fact, by the beginning of 2016, the jihadis were greatly demoralized and the jihadi front was nearing collapse across almost all of Western Syria – this, despite the fact that the bombing was mostly against carefully selected targets in rural areas and avoided jihadi-controlled urban areas for fear of causing civilian casualties. It was Putin’s stupid ceasefire with the Western-backed “moderate jihadis” in February 2016 (a decision taken right after a face-to-face meeting in Russia with the war criminal scumbag Henry Kissinger), halting the bombing at the precise moment when it was most effective, and pulling out most of the Russian airplanes, that allowed the Western-backed jihadis in Western Syria to stave off crushing defeat in early 2016, prolonging the war until today. If not for that idiocy, the Syrian government forces, with Russian bombing aid, would probably have finished off the jihadis completely sometime in early or mid-2016.

    In other words, you are either ignorant or being deliberately misleading about what transpired in the Syrian war just a couple of years ago. Now which is it? (Your being a Russian Jew with liberasty opinions and a professed admiration for “the West”, Israel, and neoliberalism probably doesn’t hurt, either, as far as misremembering, misinterpreting and misrepresenting things).

    Read More
    • Replies: @Dmitry

    Nonsense. The Syrian government forces started recapturing territory from the jihadis almost immediately after Russia started bombing in September 2015. In fact, by the beginning of 2016, the jihadis were greatly demoralized and the jihadi front was nearing collapse across almost all of Western Syria – this, despite the fact that the bombing was mostly against carefully selected targets i
     
    That's not true in a significant way. Look at the constancy of land areas between late 2015 and 2017.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bMKy0_RE9HM


    In other words, you are either ignorant or being deliberately misleading about what transpired in the Syrian war just a couple of years ago. Now which is it? (Your being a Russian Jew with liberasty opinions and a
     
    Technically - Russian with Jewish roots to the third-generation.

    professed admiration for “the West”, Israel, and neoliberalism probably doesn’t hurt, either, as far as misremembering, misinterpreting and misrepresenting things).
     

    I was right and you wrong, despite that I haven't even been following the war.

    If you watch the video, Assad is significantly reconquering territory only from summer 2017. Prior to this his territory is almost constant.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  224. Dmitry says:
    @German_reader

    If the Europeans/EU are smart, they should create their own safe-zone inside Northern Syria. And then repatriate all the Syrian migrants that are living in Europe into that safe-zone.
     
    Insane idea, would be total madness to send European troops there, one would be at the mercy of the Turks and it would be a prime target for jihadis. And of course it would mean conflict with Assad's regime, Russia and Iran.
    As for sending back refugees, the best solution imo would be to come to an understanding with Assad...we'll pay him money, he'll take back refugees and promise not to have them disappeared or killed (at least not immediately). But of course such a solution is sabotaged by the human rights and mass immigration lobbies.

    Turkey (or Jordan if it’s on their border) could keep control of the security of the area. But there would need to be EU bureaucrats on the ground to ensure the safety and organize the society. This way the bureaucrats would be verify that it is a safe society, and from a EU legal perspective all refugees would be able to be deported back there (without the legal objections). Funding would have to be provided though, so it would cost a lot.

    As for paying Assad to take back refugees into his controlled territory – it wouldn’t make much sense from his perspective, unless you are talking a huge amount. Also it would require waiting until the active fighting part of the war is over.

    Read More
    • Replies: @German_reader

    Turkey (or Jordan if it’s on their border) could keep control of the security of the area.
     
    lol, as if Turkey could be a trustworthy partner. Given how demented Erdogan is, he'd probably make such an area a safe haven for jihadis and blackmail the Europeans into even paying him for it. He'd also increase his ethnic cleansing and persecution of Kurds, so at best we'd be merely changing one set of refugees for another.
    No thanks.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  225. Dmitry says:
    @Parbes
    "Russian airforces started daily bombing in Syria in September 2015, and it was about a year of this before favoured side started to recapture territory."

    Nonsense. The Syrian government forces started recapturing territory from the jihadis almost immediately after Russia started bombing in September 2015. In fact, by the beginning of 2016, the jihadis were greatly demoralized and the jihadi front was nearing collapse across almost all of Western Syria - this, despite the fact that the bombing was mostly against carefully selected targets in rural areas and avoided jihadi-controlled urban areas for fear of causing civilian casualties. It was Putin's stupid ceasefire with the Western-backed "moderate jihadis" in February 2016 (a decision taken right after a face-to-face meeting in Russia with the war criminal scumbag Henry Kissinger), halting the bombing at the precise moment when it was most effective, and pulling out most of the Russian airplanes, that allowed the Western-backed jihadis in Western Syria to stave off crushing defeat in early 2016, prolonging the war until today. If not for that idiocy, the Syrian government forces, with Russian bombing aid, would probably have finished off the jihadis completely sometime in early or mid-2016.

    In other words, you are either ignorant or being deliberately misleading about what transpired in the Syrian war just a couple of years ago. Now which is it? (Your being a Russian Jew with liberasty opinions and a professed admiration for "the West", Israel, and neoliberalism probably doesn't hurt, either, as far as misremembering, misinterpreting and misrepresenting things).

    Nonsense. The Syrian government forces started recapturing territory from the jihadis almost immediately after Russia started bombing in September 2015. In fact, by the beginning of 2016, the jihadis were greatly demoralized and the jihadi front was nearing collapse across almost all of Western Syria – this, despite the fact that the bombing was mostly against carefully selected targets i

    That’s not true in a significant way. Look at the constancy of land areas between late 2015 and 2017.

    In other words, you are either ignorant or being deliberately misleading about what transpired in the Syrian war just a couple of years ago. Now which is it? (Your being a Russian Jew with liberasty opinions and a

    Technically – Russian with Jewish roots to the third-generation.

    professed admiration for “the West”, Israel, and neoliberalism probably doesn’t hurt, either, as far as misremembering, misinterpreting and misrepresenting things).

    I was right and you wrong, despite that I haven’t even been following the war.

    If you watch the video, Assad is significantly reconquering territory only from summer 2017. Prior to this his territory is almost constant.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  226. Dmitry says:
    @Talha

    Only small minority will return home voluntarily, from a developed country to an undeveloped one.
     
    They'll return if you choose to do what some of the Gulf countries have done:
    1) Cut off welfare.
    2) Give a timeline of when any job must be held by a citizen.

    Or offer financial incentives for return.

    why would Assad welcome them back to his controlled territories
     
    Assad doesn't have to like it, he can eat the paperwork or suck his thumb if it upsets him that badly - this is what post-war negotiations are about; reasonable accommodations and compromise. This comes down to what big guys like Russia and Iran also agree to and push into his lap.

    Peace.

    Assad doesn’t have to like it, he can eat the paperwork or suck his thumb if it upsets him that badly – this is what post-war negotiations are about; reasonable accommodations and compromise. This comes down to what big guys like Russia and Iran also agree to and push into his lap.

    It’s over 1 million returnees – recipe for constant uprisings within his territory in the future.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Talha

    recipe for constant uprisings within his territory in the future.
     
    Correct - if "reasonable accommodations and compromise" are not negotiated. The Assad regime (and everybody) has to come to this fundamental realization; a bloody civil war was fought (yes it involved a hell of a lot of outsiders, but it also involved plenty of Syrians) for near 7 years and it will not go back to how it was in 2010 - compromises will have to be made. What are they? I don't know, if I lived there I might have a better idea.

    Assad also knows he can't do this alone. At some point it is really going to be Russia and Iran that ultimately call the shots because they hold the cards that hold the place together.

    Peace.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  227. @Dmitry
    Turkey (or Jordan if it's on their border) could keep control of the security of the area. But there would need to be EU bureaucrats on the ground to ensure the safety and organize the society. This way the bureaucrats would be verify that it is a safe society, and from a EU legal perspective all refugees would be able to be deported back there (without the legal objections). Funding would have to be provided though, so it would cost a lot.

    As for paying Assad to take back refugees into his controlled territory - it wouldn't make much sense from his perspective, unless you are talking a huge amount. Also it would require waiting until the active fighting part of the war is over.

    Turkey (or Jordan if it’s on their border) could keep control of the security of the area.

    lol, as if Turkey could be a trustworthy partner. Given how demented Erdogan is, he’d probably make such an area a safe haven for jihadis and blackmail the Europeans into even paying him for it. He’d also increase his ethnic cleansing and persecution of Kurds, so at best we’d be merely changing one set of refugees for another.
    No thanks.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Dmitry
    It doesn't really matter what happens in the long term. Once they are home, they can live as they like. For the short term, it would create legal conditions for repatriation project of the Syrians (they could be airlifted even in a few months). The EU would have to make sure it is a safe space during the repatriation process, as it's not allowed under UN convention to repatriated to danger zone.

    The alternative, which is what is 99% likely to happen, is that they are going to be in the EU forever.

    Otherwise, there is the option of deporting them to third-countries, which would best to be in Jordan. But this would require new legal precedent - (I don't believe EU has ever deported to third-countries before).

    Or expecting that Assad will take them into his territory - again I can bet he will not do this (feel free to screenshot this and see if this prediction is true in five years).
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  228. Dmitry says:
    @German_reader

    Turkey (or Jordan if it’s on their border) could keep control of the security of the area.
     
    lol, as if Turkey could be a trustworthy partner. Given how demented Erdogan is, he'd probably make such an area a safe haven for jihadis and blackmail the Europeans into even paying him for it. He'd also increase his ethnic cleansing and persecution of Kurds, so at best we'd be merely changing one set of refugees for another.
    No thanks.

    It doesn’t really matter what happens in the long term. Once they are home, they can live as they like. For the short term, it would create legal conditions for repatriation project of the Syrians (they could be airlifted even in a few months). The EU would have to make sure it is a safe space during the repatriation process, as it’s not allowed under UN convention to repatriated to danger zone.

    The alternative, which is what is 99% likely to happen, is that they are going to be in the EU forever.

    Otherwise, there is the option of deporting them to third-countries, which would best to be in Jordan. But this would require new legal precedent – (I don’t believe EU has ever deported to third-countries before).

    Or expecting that Assad will take them into his territory – again I can bet he will not do this (feel free to screenshot this and see if this prediction is true in five years).

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  229. Talha says:
    @Dmitry

    Assad doesn’t have to like it, he can eat the paperwork or suck his thumb if it upsets him that badly – this is what post-war negotiations are about; reasonable accommodations and compromise. This comes down to what big guys like Russia and Iran also agree to and push into his lap.

     

    It's over 1 million returnees - recipe for constant uprisings within his territory in the future.

    recipe for constant uprisings within his territory in the future.

    Correct – if “reasonable accommodations and compromise” are not negotiated. The Assad regime (and everybody) has to come to this fundamental realization; a bloody civil war was fought (yes it involved a hell of a lot of outsiders, but it also involved plenty of Syrians) for near 7 years and it will not go back to how it was in 2010 – compromises will have to be made. What are they? I don’t know, if I lived there I might have a better idea.

    Assad also knows he can’t do this alone. At some point it is really going to be Russia and Iran that ultimately call the shots because they hold the cards that hold the place together.

    Peace.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  230. anon[200] • Disclaimer says:

    Sanders noticed how strange it is to talk about Stormy Daniels when the world hangs on the precipice.

    Bernie is out of the loop, this is deliberate. As in 1941, keep the normies in complete calm and ignorance. How many people back then knew about US embargo against Japan?

    If Russia shoots back, and destroys US planes or ships, this will come as absolute shock, new bolt from the blue, new Pearl Harbor. And then, anything would be possible, the angry and frightened normies will follow.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  231. U.S. allies France and Saudi Arabia may be joining President Donald Trump in an upcoming attack on Syria, defying Russia, China and Iran, which support Syrian President Bashar al-Assad and question his role in a recent chemical weapons attack . . .

    “Our decision will not target allies of the regime or attack anyone but rather attack the regime’s chemical capabilities,” Macron said, emphasizing that he did “not want an escalation,” according to the Agence France-Presse.

    http://www.newsweek.com/us-saudi-arabia-france-talk-military-action-syria-russia-china-iran-warn-879921

    Read More
    • Replies: @Talha
    Interesting...the Saudis would have to violate Iraqi, Jordanian airspace or...the Israeli's - won't that be a clincher, eh?

    Peace.
    , @Randal

    “Our decision will not target allies of the regime or attack anyone but rather attack the regime’s chemical capabilities,” Macron said
     
    Good luck with that, Macron, you lying Blairite filth, since the Syrian government doesn't have any chemical capabilities.
    , @German_reader
    Grotesque that Saudi-Arabia is now allowed to pose as a defender of humanitarian principles.
    I really wonder how the political class in many Western countries has become so utterly shameless...were they always like that? This level of blatant hypocrisy and mendacity is hard to stomach. But a lot of normal people seem to believe it all and be entirely trusting of what their politicians and the media tell them. After the numerous disastrous interventions of the last 20 years I'd have expected it to be different.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  232. Talha says:
    @for-the-record

    U.S. allies France and Saudi Arabia may be joining President Donald Trump in an upcoming attack on Syria, defying Russia, China and Iran, which support Syrian President Bashar al-Assad and question his role in a recent chemical weapons attack . . .

    "Our decision will not target allies of the regime or attack anyone but rather attack the regime's chemical capabilities," Macron said, emphasizing that he did "not want an escalation," according to the Agence France-Presse.

    http://www.newsweek.com/us-saudi-arabia-france-talk-military-action-syria-russia-china-iran-warn-879921
     

    Interesting…the Saudis would have to violate Iraqi, Jordanian airspace or…the Israeli’s – won’t that be a clincher, eh?

    Peace.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  233. Note the date of this report, and also the location of the predicted missile and bomb strike:

    MOSCOW, March 13. /TASS/.

    US planning missile and bombing raid against Damascus — top brass

    Militants are preparing a provocation with the use of chemical agents in Syria to justify a massive US strike against Damascus’ government neighborhoods, Chief of Russia’s General Staff Valery Gerasimov said on Tuesday.

    According to Gerasimov, Russia has hard facts about preparations for staging the use of chemical weapons against civilians by the government forces.

    After the provocation, the US plans to accuse Syria’s government forces of using chemical weapons. He added that the United States plans to “furnish the so-called ‘evidence’ of the alleged mass civilian deaths through the fault of the Syrian government and the Russian leadership supporting it.”

    “As a countermeasure, Washington plans to deliver a missile and bomb strike against Damascus’ government districts,” Gerasimov said.

    He stressed that there are Russian military officials in Damascus in the Syrian Defense Ministry’s facilities, and “in the event of a threat to our military servicemen’s lives, Russia’s Armed Forces will take retaliatory measures to target both the missiles and their delivery vehicles.”

    http://tass.com/world/993678

    Read More
    • Replies: @Randal

    “As a countermeasure, Washington plans to deliver a missile and bomb strike against Damascus’ government districts,” Gerasimov said.

    He stressed that there are Russian military officials in Damascus in the Syrian Defense Ministry’s facilities, and “in the event of a threat to our military servicemen’s lives, Russia’s Armed Forces will take retaliatory measures to target both the missiles and their delivery vehicles.”
     
    This is a pretty direct warning, if the US is indeed planning a "decapitation strike" at Damascus (as you suggested earlier and as seems to be what the Russians here said they were expecting.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  234. Randal says:
    @for-the-record

    U.S. allies France and Saudi Arabia may be joining President Donald Trump in an upcoming attack on Syria, defying Russia, China and Iran, which support Syrian President Bashar al-Assad and question his role in a recent chemical weapons attack . . .

    "Our decision will not target allies of the regime or attack anyone but rather attack the regime's chemical capabilities," Macron said, emphasizing that he did "not want an escalation," according to the Agence France-Presse.

    http://www.newsweek.com/us-saudi-arabia-france-talk-military-action-syria-russia-china-iran-warn-879921
     

    “Our decision will not target allies of the regime or attack anyone but rather attack the regime’s chemical capabilities,” Macron said

    Good luck with that, Macron, you lying Blairite filth, since the Syrian government doesn’t have any chemical capabilities.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  235. Randal says:
    @for-the-record
    Note the date of this report, and also the location of the predicted missile and bomb strike:

    MOSCOW, March 13. /TASS/.

    US planning missile and bombing raid against Damascus — top brass

    Militants are preparing a provocation with the use of chemical agents in Syria to justify a massive US strike against Damascus’ government neighborhoods, Chief of Russia’s General Staff Valery Gerasimov said on Tuesday.

    According to Gerasimov, Russia has hard facts about preparations for staging the use of chemical weapons against civilians by the government forces.

    After the provocation, the US plans to accuse Syria’s government forces of using chemical weapons. He added that the United States plans to "furnish the so-called ‘evidence’ of the alleged mass civilian deaths through the fault of the Syrian government and the Russian leadership supporting it."

    "As a countermeasure, Washington plans to deliver a missile and bomb strike against Damascus’ government districts," Gerasimov said.

    He stressed that there are Russian military officials in Damascus in the Syrian Defense Ministry’s facilities, and "in the event of a threat to our military servicemen’s lives, Russia’s Armed Forces will take retaliatory measures to target both the missiles and their delivery vehicles."

    http://tass.com/world/993678
     

    “As a countermeasure, Washington plans to deliver a missile and bomb strike against Damascus’ government districts,” Gerasimov said.

    He stressed that there are Russian military officials in Damascus in the Syrian Defense Ministry’s facilities, and “in the event of a threat to our military servicemen’s lives, Russia’s Armed Forces will take retaliatory measures to target both the missiles and their delivery vehicles.”

    This is a pretty direct warning, if the US is indeed planning a “decapitation strike” at Damascus (as you suggested earlier and as seems to be what the Russians here said they were expecting.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  236. @for-the-record

    U.S. allies France and Saudi Arabia may be joining President Donald Trump in an upcoming attack on Syria, defying Russia, China and Iran, which support Syrian President Bashar al-Assad and question his role in a recent chemical weapons attack . . .

    "Our decision will not target allies of the regime or attack anyone but rather attack the regime's chemical capabilities," Macron said, emphasizing that he did "not want an escalation," according to the Agence France-Presse.

    http://www.newsweek.com/us-saudi-arabia-france-talk-military-action-syria-russia-china-iran-warn-879921
     

    Grotesque that Saudi-Arabia is now allowed to pose as a defender of humanitarian principles.
    I really wonder how the political class in many Western countries has become so utterly shameless…were they always like that? This level of blatant hypocrisy and mendacity is hard to stomach. But a lot of normal people seem to believe it all and be entirely trusting of what their politicians and the media tell them. After the numerous disastrous interventions of the last 20 years I’d have expected it to be different.

    Read More
    • Replies: @anon

    But a lot of normal people seem to believe it all and be entirely trusting of what their politicians and the media tell them. After the numerous disastrous interventions of the last 20 years I’d have expected it to be different.
     
    Indeed, it is unbelievable there are still people who trust and believe in Donald Trump.

    https://twitter.com/Lrihendry/status/983826239638196224
    , @reiner Tor

    After the numerous disastrous interventions of the last 20 years I’d have expected it to be different.
     
    Yes, I do find it disturbing.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  237. anon[190] • Disclaimer says:
    @German_reader
    Grotesque that Saudi-Arabia is now allowed to pose as a defender of humanitarian principles.
    I really wonder how the political class in many Western countries has become so utterly shameless...were they always like that? This level of blatant hypocrisy and mendacity is hard to stomach. But a lot of normal people seem to believe it all and be entirely trusting of what their politicians and the media tell them. After the numerous disastrous interventions of the last 20 years I'd have expected it to be different.

    But a lot of normal people seem to believe it all and be entirely trusting of what their politicians and the media tell them. After the numerous disastrous interventions of the last 20 years I’d have expected it to be different.

    Indeed, it is unbelievable there are still people who trust and believe in Donald Trump.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  238. @German_reader
    Grotesque that Saudi-Arabia is now allowed to pose as a defender of humanitarian principles.
    I really wonder how the political class in many Western countries has become so utterly shameless...were they always like that? This level of blatant hypocrisy and mendacity is hard to stomach. But a lot of normal people seem to believe it all and be entirely trusting of what their politicians and the media tell them. After the numerous disastrous interventions of the last 20 years I'd have expected it to be different.

    After the numerous disastrous interventions of the last 20 years I’d have expected it to be different.

    Yes, I do find it disturbing.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  239. LondonBob says:
    @Randal

    Airstrikes? Does it mean planes or cruise missiles, planes would be nuts.
     
    If they are going for full suppression then planes are absolutely required, for recon/EW and for SEAD strikes, and for force protection (air superiority), although mostly using standoff weapons.

    I mean in the sense cruise missiles can be countered without loss of life and things will blow over like last time. Planes being shot down leads to a potential escalation spiral.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Randal
    That's true, but only so long as the recipient is willing to remain passive and accept the odd blow getting through without responding. The Russians, on the other hand, have specifically stated that if Russian assets are threatened they will respond against both the missiles and their delivery systems - in other words, aircraft, ships, submarines or bases. So your point is only comforting up to a point.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  240. Randal says:
    @LondonBob
    I mean in the sense cruise missiles can be countered without loss of life and things will blow over like last time. Planes being shot down leads to a potential escalation spiral.

    That’s true, but only so long as the recipient is willing to remain passive and accept the odd blow getting through without responding. The Russians, on the other hand, have specifically stated that if Russian assets are threatened they will respond against both the missiles and their delivery systems – in other words, aircraft, ships, submarines or bases. So your point is only comforting up to a point.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  241. The “wiggle room” seems to be shrinking, if the diplomat in question is quoted correctly:

    Russian military will respond to any US aggression in Syria: diplomat

    BEIRUT, LEBANON (9:40 A.M.) – The Russian Ambassador to Lebanon Alexander Zaspikin told Al-Manar TV on Tuesday that his country’s forces will respond militarily to any U.S. attack in Syria.

    Zaspikin stressed that the Russian forces will confront any US aggression on Syria, by intercepting the missiles and striking their launch pads.

    https://www.almasdarnews.com/article/russian-military-will-respond-to-any-us-aggression-in-syria-diplomat/

    Read More
    • Replies: @reiner Tor
    I’m somewhat near to getting seriously worried.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  242. @for-the-record
    The "wiggle room" seems to be shrinking, if the diplomat in question is quoted correctly:

    Russian military will respond to any US aggression in Syria: diplomat

    BEIRUT, LEBANON (9:40 A.M.) – The Russian Ambassador to Lebanon Alexander Zaspikin told Al-Manar TV on Tuesday that his country’s forces will respond militarily to any U.S. attack in Syria.

    Zaspikin stressed that the Russian forces will confront any US aggression on Syria, by intercepting the missiles and striking their launch pads.

    https://www.almasdarnews.com/article/russian-military-will-respond-to-any-us-aggression-in-syria-diplomat/
     

    I’m somewhat near to getting seriously worried.

    Read More
    • Replies: @for-the-record

    Russia vows to shoot down any and all missiles fired at Syria. Get ready Russia, because they will be coming, nice and new and “smart!” You shouldn’t be partners with a Gas Killing Animal who kills his people and enjoys it!— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) April 11, 2018
     
    , @for-the-record

    General Sir Richard Barrons, a former commander of Joint Forces Command, said Mr Zasypkin’s comments amounted to a threat of war. “I hope the ambassador has chosen his words very carefully,” he told the Today programme on BBC Radio 4. “By saying the words ‘launch platforms’ he’s saying they’re going to try and sink ships, sink submarines and shoot aircraft out of the sky. That’s war.

    Asked if any joint action could take out Syria’s chemical weapons capability, he said: “The capability exists, given enough time and effort to identify where the chemical weapons stocks are and the delivery means, which are mostly aircraft, and then over time to begin to strike at them from range and that I guess is what’s under consideration . . . . and you’re not going to do that completely but you are going to make a difference over time.”

    The chances of collateral damage against Russian aircraft was very high, he added

    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/russian-envoy-threatens-war-against-us-over-syria-strikes-lc2k578cf

     

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  243. @reiner Tor
    I’m somewhat near to getting seriously worried.

    Russia vows to shoot down any and all missiles fired at Syria. Get ready Russia, because they will be coming, nice and new and “smart!” You shouldn’t be partners with a Gas Killing Animal who kills his people and enjoys it!— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) April 11, 2018

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  244. @reiner Tor
    I’m somewhat near to getting seriously worried.

    General Sir Richard Barrons, a former commander of Joint Forces Command, said Mr Zasypkin’s comments amounted to a threat of war. “I hope the ambassador has chosen his words very carefully,” he told the Today programme on BBC Radio 4. “By saying the words ‘launch platforms’ he’s saying they’re going to try and sink ships, sink submarines and shoot aircraft out of the sky. That’s war.

    Asked if any joint action could take out Syria’s chemical weapons capability, he said: “The capability exists, given enough time and effort to identify where the chemical weapons stocks are and the delivery means, which are mostly aircraft, and then over time to begin to strike at them from range and that I guess is what’s under consideration . . . . and you’re not going to do that completely but you are going to make a difference over time.”

    The chances of collateral damage against Russian aircraft was very high, he added

    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/russian-envoy-threatens-war-against-us-over-syria-strikes-lc2k578cf

    Read More
    • Replies: @reiner Tor
    So the Russians shooting back would be an act of war! I guess that’s how US wars start: those wicked enemies start shooting back!
    , @Dmitry
    It's a diplomat, who has not got some great grasp military terminology, speaking to Al-Manar television in Lebanon. Diplomat in Lebanon does not have access to military plans.

    Neither do we. But assuredly there won't be any war or fighting with the US.

    Americans will blow up some empty warehouses, maybe hit a few buildings in Damascus - i.e. blow up more stuff than last year, but Trump will actually easily satisfied (as long as they use some shiny and "smart" missiles).
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  245. @for-the-record

    General Sir Richard Barrons, a former commander of Joint Forces Command, said Mr Zasypkin’s comments amounted to a threat of war. “I hope the ambassador has chosen his words very carefully,” he told the Today programme on BBC Radio 4. “By saying the words ‘launch platforms’ he’s saying they’re going to try and sink ships, sink submarines and shoot aircraft out of the sky. That’s war.

    Asked if any joint action could take out Syria’s chemical weapons capability, he said: “The capability exists, given enough time and effort to identify where the chemical weapons stocks are and the delivery means, which are mostly aircraft, and then over time to begin to strike at them from range and that I guess is what’s under consideration . . . . and you’re not going to do that completely but you are going to make a difference over time.”

    The chances of collateral damage against Russian aircraft was very high, he added

    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/russian-envoy-threatens-war-against-us-over-syria-strikes-lc2k578cf

     

    So the Russians shooting back would be an act of war! I guess that’s how US wars start: those wicked enemies start shooting back!

    Read More
    • Replies: @Dmitry
    You would have to be either stupid or crazy to fire on an American warship - and the people in charge are not stupid or crazy.

    Maybe Trump is getting in that direction today - but not our side.

    The levels of stupid in Trump's tweet though, it is difficult to comprehend.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  246. Dmitry says:
    @for-the-record

    General Sir Richard Barrons, a former commander of Joint Forces Command, said Mr Zasypkin’s comments amounted to a threat of war. “I hope the ambassador has chosen his words very carefully,” he told the Today programme on BBC Radio 4. “By saying the words ‘launch platforms’ he’s saying they’re going to try and sink ships, sink submarines and shoot aircraft out of the sky. That’s war.

    Asked if any joint action could take out Syria’s chemical weapons capability, he said: “The capability exists, given enough time and effort to identify where the chemical weapons stocks are and the delivery means, which are mostly aircraft, and then over time to begin to strike at them from range and that I guess is what’s under consideration . . . . and you’re not going to do that completely but you are going to make a difference over time.”

    The chances of collateral damage against Russian aircraft was very high, he added

    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/russian-envoy-threatens-war-against-us-over-syria-strikes-lc2k578cf

     

    It’s a diplomat, who has not got some great grasp military terminology, speaking to Al-Manar television in Lebanon. Diplomat in Lebanon does not have access to military plans.

    Neither do we. But assuredly there won’t be any war or fighting with the US.

    Americans will blow up some empty warehouses, maybe hit a few buildings in Damascus – i.e. blow up more stuff than last year, but Trump will actually easily satisfied (as long as they use some shiny and “smart” missiles).

    Read More
    • Replies: @reiner Tor

    It’s a diplomat, who has not got some great grasp military terminology
     
    Diplomats normally do choose their words very carefully. I doubt what he said was not what his bosses told him to be the party line. It was also never corrected, despite the uproar in the MSM.

    If he said "launching platforms," he likely meant it.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  247. Dmitry says:
    @reiner Tor
    So the Russians shooting back would be an act of war! I guess that’s how US wars start: those wicked enemies start shooting back!

    You would have to be either stupid or crazy to fire on an American warship – and the people in charge are not stupid or crazy.

    Maybe Trump is getting in that direction today – but not our side.

    The levels of stupid in Trump’s tweet though, it is difficult to comprehend.

    Read More
    • Replies: @reiner Tor
    But if Trump is crazy, the Russian leadership has to deal with crazies. You need to play by game theory. Game theory says you shouldn't always fold, and have to be somewhat unpredictable. (Folding some times, but being tough at other times.)
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  248. @Dmitry
    It's a diplomat, who has not got some great grasp military terminology, speaking to Al-Manar television in Lebanon. Diplomat in Lebanon does not have access to military plans.

    Neither do we. But assuredly there won't be any war or fighting with the US.

    Americans will blow up some empty warehouses, maybe hit a few buildings in Damascus - i.e. blow up more stuff than last year, but Trump will actually easily satisfied (as long as they use some shiny and "smart" missiles).

    It’s a diplomat, who has not got some great grasp military terminology

    Diplomats normally do choose their words very carefully. I doubt what he said was not what his bosses told him to be the party line. It was also never corrected, despite the uproar in the MSM.

    If he said “launching platforms,” he likely meant it.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  249. @Dmitry
    You would have to be either stupid or crazy to fire on an American warship - and the people in charge are not stupid or crazy.

    Maybe Trump is getting in that direction today - but not our side.

    The levels of stupid in Trump's tweet though, it is difficult to comprehend.

    But if Trump is crazy, the Russian leadership has to deal with crazies. You need to play by game theory. Game theory says you shouldn’t always fold, and have to be somewhat unpredictable. (Folding some times, but being tough at other times.)

    Read More
    • Replies: @Dmitry
    I generally think Trump is quite reasonable - but this tweet of today makes him seem crazy, which makes attacking an American ship even more of a suicide project.

    Either way, there is no reason to ruin everyone's future. and lose of lives of people, over actual shithole in the Middle East, that does not even have significant oil or gas resources.

    Imagine if you died over this conflict in Syria. God himself would not resist laughing, that people were dying for such a strange objective.

    As I said before - apart from the Arabs in Syria itself, the only country which has suffered in a direct way so far from the Syria war is the EU, which have taken some million or more Syrian immigrants. The war in Syria has little, but mainly abstract, impact in either Russia or America itself.

    , @Swedish Family

    But if Trump is crazy, the Russian leadership has to deal with crazies. You need to play by game theory. Game theory says you shouldn’t always fold, and have to be somewhat unpredictable. (Folding some times, but being tough at other times.)
     
    I have two objections to this. First, game theory assumes rationality on the part of both players, so that would seem to rule out crazies. Second, as I understand the general idea, the goal is to punish defection in a predictable way, thereby reaching some measure of consensus over many games (I think this is referred to as a "Nash equilibrium"). That is to say, a well-played game involves the opposite of being unpredictable.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  250. Dmitry says:
    @reiner Tor
    But if Trump is crazy, the Russian leadership has to deal with crazies. You need to play by game theory. Game theory says you shouldn't always fold, and have to be somewhat unpredictable. (Folding some times, but being tough at other times.)

    I generally think Trump is quite reasonable – but this tweet of today makes him seem crazy, which makes attacking an American ship even more of a suicide project.

    Either way, there is no reason to ruin everyone’s future. and lose of lives of people, over actual shithole in the Middle East, that does not even have significant oil or gas resources.

    Imagine if you died over this conflict in Syria. God himself would not resist laughing, that people were dying for such a strange objective.

    As I said before – apart from the Arabs in Syria itself, the only country which has suffered in a direct way so far from the Syria war is the EU, which have taken some million or more Syrian immigrants. The war in Syria has little, but mainly abstract, impact in either Russia or America itself.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  251. @reiner Tor
    But if Trump is crazy, the Russian leadership has to deal with crazies. You need to play by game theory. Game theory says you shouldn't always fold, and have to be somewhat unpredictable. (Folding some times, but being tough at other times.)

    But if Trump is crazy, the Russian leadership has to deal with crazies. You need to play by game theory. Game theory says you shouldn’t always fold, and have to be somewhat unpredictable. (Folding some times, but being tough at other times.)

    I have two objections to this. First, game theory assumes rationality on the part of both players, so that would seem to rule out crazies. Second, as I understand the general idea, the goal is to punish defection in a predictable way, thereby reaching some measure of consensus over many games (I think this is referred to as a “Nash equilibrium”). That is to say, a well-played game involves the opposite of being unpredictable.

    Read More
    • Replies: @reiner Tor
    No. I think the only predictable thing should be that if they treat you well, you should reciprocate.

    Your response to provocations should be unpredictable. Sometimes you can just ignore them, even if they caused serious damage. But sometimes you should overreact way out of proportion and even at great cost to yourself. That way no one will harass you, because they just won’t be able to predict your reaction.

    You basically can choose two strategies for small provocations. You can always give a proportionate response, without exception. The problem is that it might not deter your opponent. He will always know the exact amount of retribution, can prepare for it, etc. Or you can overreact. But it’s costly, so you obviously cannot always do that. So you need to be unpredictable. That way your opponent will always think twice before as much as looking askance at you.

    If Trump is crazy, but rational, it means he’s playing a game of chicken. Then the only rational strategy is showing him that you are even more crazy. Like the way Kim behaved last year. Interestingly, Trump didn’t dare attacking him. Putin is a bad player.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  252. @Swedish Family

    But if Trump is crazy, the Russian leadership has to deal with crazies. You need to play by game theory. Game theory says you shouldn’t always fold, and have to be somewhat unpredictable. (Folding some times, but being tough at other times.)
     
    I have two objections to this. First, game theory assumes rationality on the part of both players, so that would seem to rule out crazies. Second, as I understand the general idea, the goal is to punish defection in a predictable way, thereby reaching some measure of consensus over many games (I think this is referred to as a "Nash equilibrium"). That is to say, a well-played game involves the opposite of being unpredictable.

    No. I think the only predictable thing should be that if they treat you well, you should reciprocate.

    Your response to provocations should be unpredictable. Sometimes you can just ignore them, even if they caused serious damage. But sometimes you should overreact way out of proportion and even at great cost to yourself. That way no one will harass you, because they just won’t be able to predict your reaction.

    You basically can choose two strategies for small provocations. You can always give a proportionate response, without exception. The problem is that it might not deter your opponent. He will always know the exact amount of retribution, can prepare for it, etc. Or you can overreact. But it’s costly, so you obviously cannot always do that. So you need to be unpredictable. That way your opponent will always think twice before as much as looking askance at you.

    If Trump is crazy, but rational, it means he’s playing a game of chicken. Then the only rational strategy is showing him that you are even more crazy. Like the way Kim behaved last year. Interestingly, Trump didn’t dare attacking him. Putin is a bad player.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  253. Excal says:
    @reiner Tor

    If Mrs Clinton had won, the world would likely be in the midst of a horrible war right now.
     
    If she followed through her campaign promise of instituting no-fly zones in Syria. But how likely is that? Especially if Russia gave $50,000,000 to the Clinton Foundation?

    If she followed through her campaign promise of instituting no-fly zones in Syria. But how likely is that?

    Not unlikely at all, I think, and it would have happened already.

    My guess is based on Mrs Clinton’s behaviour during her time as Secretary of State. She, as much as anyone, encouraged the “Arab Spring”, for instance.

    Especially if Russia gave $50,000,000 to the Clinton Foundation?

    $50M is impressive, but they are quite capable of taking it and starting a war with Russia anyway. There is no honour among thieves.

    Of course, it would seem that things are not much better off with Trump, as I feared, but it was a choice between Scylla and Charybdis. There may be something to this Deep State business after all ..

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
Current Commenter says:

Leave a Reply - Follow from *akarlin.com* and/or this *feed*. You can also comment with *your money*.


 Remember My InformationWhy?
 Email Replies to my Comment
Submitted comments become the property of The Unz Review and may be republished elsewhere at the sole discretion of the latter
Subscribe to This Comment Thread via RSS Subscribe to All Anatoly Karlin Comments via RSS