The Unz Review - Mobile
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 TeasersRussian Reaction Blog
Gloomy Presentiments
🔊 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

Tucker: “What is the American national interest that will be served by regime change?”
Senator: “If you care about Israel… we have a strategic interest there.”

I don’t think I have a reputation for panicking. But I do think that we are now at probably the most dangerous point in world affairs since Russian and NATO troops faced off at Pristina Airport in 1999, if not since the Cold War.

It is now clear that there will almost certainly be strikes by the US against Syrian targets in coordination with France, Britain, Saudi Arabia, and Qatar, and that the scope of this attack will be much greater than last year.

  • Naval force capable of a cruise missile strike is already off the coast of Syria, namely the destroyer USS Donald Cook and the cruise missile submarine USS Georgia. The destroyer Laboon will soon join up with them, while Carrier Strike Group 8 (USS Harry S. Truman) will be in the area in a week’s time.
  • The French frigate Aquitaine is also in the area, and British forces in Cyprus are allegedly mobilizing for strikes.
  • Russian Su-24′s have harassed the Donald Cook and Aquitaine, and the Black Sea Fleet has been placed on combat alert. Several senior officials have said there will be military retaliation if Russian troops are targeted, although there have been no clear commitments even as regards that. Current Russian naval forces in the area include two Kilo submarines. From my limited research, the Moskva cruiser is out of theater.
  • Trump has canceled scheduled visits to Latin America to instead “oversee the American response to Syria”, while James Mattis has canceled visits to Arizona and California.
  • Civilian overflights over Syria have completely ceased as Eurocontrols declares a no fly zone over the East Mediterranean for the next 72 hours.
  • The US and Russia vetoed each others Douma investigation resolutions at the UN Security Council. The reason Russia vetoed is that the American version had a reference to Chapter VII, which would have opened an avenue for the US to go to war against Syria – that is, for the same reasons it vetoed the US resolutions in 2017. The Libyan experience taught Russia to pay attention to wording.
  • While the US “welcomes” the OCPW mission to establish the facts on the ground, it openly says it will not affect the US decision on a response to Syria (sic). What can one say? At least they’re utterly forthright in their pretensions to exceptionalism.
  • There has been a remarkable show of unity over this issue in Europe, and not just the usual suspects. Days after approving it, Angela Merkel chose today to announce that Nord Stream 2 must preserve a transit role for the Ukraine. This kind of annuls its entire purpose and puts the capstone on the Kremlin’s dismal gas policy and outreach to Germany.
  • Meanwhile, Congress is already moving to enact further sanctions against Russia (forbids transactions relating to new Russian sovereign debt).

The Western media is beating the drumbeat for war, and unlike in 2003, during the Libyan Crisis, or even last year, I see hardly any skepticism about it in the comments. The few skeptics are invariably labeled Russian trolls. I am really getting the impression that the degree of popular hate in the West towards Russia is approaching what Allied citizens must have felt towards Nazi Germany by 1941. Kudos where its due: Neoliberalism.txt has programmed its peons well.

I still don’t think this will boil over into a major war, but the chances of that are now well above 0%.

If it does, though, it will constitute a stupidly appropriate end to Western civilization as we know it. As one commenter here has noted, current decision-makers make the statesmen of 1914 seem sane and rational.

 
• Category: Ideology • Tags: Geopolitics, Russia, Syrian Civil War, United States 
Hide 371 CommentsLeave a Comment
371 Comments to "Gloomy Presentiments"
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
    []
  1. Beckow says:

    stupidly appropriate end to Western civilization

    Endings are never appropriate, and it would be such a waste. I agree that we have a non-zero chance of this escalating into an apocalypse. And that can kind of odds happen all the time.

    Civilizations that end over disagreements about ‘who rules East Ghouta’ seem slightly wobbly already. By the way, who runs West Ghouta? Could they maybe just build a wall?

    Popular hatred toward Russia in the West has reached irrational levels. It seems very widespread and at this point short of a cleansing conflict I don’t see how it can subside. Since Westerners are forbidden hating anyone else, all the accumulated hostility has turned against anything Russian. It is ok to hate Russia and the hunger for strong negative emotions is very deep. The argument seems to be that Russians are so absolutely evil that they will do stupid, self-defeating things because they cannot control their own evil instincts. It is – as a prominent deep-stater said – in their DNA. The obvious solution is to make sure that the ‘evil’ DNA doesn’t stick around. And that way lies the unsolvable cul-de-sac we are facing today.

    Maybe a lucky distraction can help, or maybe Trump is playing it up but doesn’t mean it. That has been his style. At some point if we count on luck, we are bound to fail. All gamblers know this, but they can’t stop gambling anyway.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Fidelios Automata
    Even some of the smarter people I know have been completely accepting of this nonsensical propaganda. Only the most radical right people I know are against it. Probably a few far-lefties as well.
    , @Dmitry

    Popular hatred toward Russia in the West has reached irrational levels. It seems very widespread and at this point short of a cleansing conflict I don’t see how it can subside. Since Westerners are forbidden hating anyone else, all the accumulated hostility has turned against anything Russian. It is ok to hate Russia and the hunger for strong negative emotions is very deep.
     
    Yes also the more distant, and the less talking with people (and in America-Russia case there's less dialogue between ordinary people due to the language differences, except for few people who step out and make an effort - and facebook deleted one of my accounts when I used it to talk about American politics on American sites), the easier this projection of negative aspects onto an external public becomes.

    That said, it's also very abstract - Americans are not killing our people, nor vice-versa (actually most people are quite friendly in real encounters).

    And this abstract conflict/hatred can stay ephemeral, outside of online comments and so on.

    , @peterAUS

    Popular hatred toward Russia in the West has reached irrational levels. It seems very widespread and at this point short of a cleansing conflict I don’t see how it can subside. Since Westerners are forbidden hating anyone else, all the accumulated hostility has turned against anything Russian.
     
    and

    At some point if we count on luck, we are bound to fail. All gamblers know this, but they can’t stop gambling anyway.
     
    Yup.
    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. Trump’s Russophilia, still frequently expressed, seems like it would prevent a wider war. However he could undertake actions that he would not believe would invoke Russian retaliation but in fact do so.

    Farcically, he can of course be removed from office (or simply assassinated) in which case all bets are off.

    In any case he has shown no ability to deal with the Dweeb State or even know what he is up against. He is starting to get it based on his actions in the past month, but by now it could be too late.

    At this point in time I am glad to live in a rural area and also to no longer be in my 20s.

    There has been a remarkable show of unity over this issue in Europe, and not just the usual suspects. Days after approving it, Angela Merkel chose today to announce that Nord Stream 2 must preserve a transit role for the Ukraine. This kind of annuls its entire purpose and puts the capstone on the Kremlin’s dismal gas policy and outreach to Germany.

    This is something that truly requires investigation and explanation, and not just with respect to the present false flags. This Western elite unity did not exist prior to the Obama Administration, nor did it even exist during the Cold War when there was a genuine threat.

    What the hell happened?

    The best theory that I have is that many of today’s Western elites attended the same graduate schools and read the same English-language publications. This theory doesn’t explain Merkel, but then Merkel is a woman and a well-known opportunist weathervane.

    Read More
    • Replies: @German_reader

    Trump’s Russophilia, still frequently expressed, seems like it would prevent a wider war.
     
    What's Russophile about someone who states that Putin (just reelected by a majority of the Russian electorate and undoubtedly popular) has to "pay a big price" for the alleged gas attack? That's just projection and wishful thinking, something Trump supporters have indulged in excessively since the very start of Trump's campaign.
    I don't buy all those "Trump is really smart and has a plan, he's a valiant knight secretly fighting the Deep state on our behalf, just has to make some tactical concessions" rationalizations for his conduct either. No one forced him to hire people like Haley or Bolton, he wanted to do that.
    It seems most likely to me that Trump really is just as stupid, vulgar and uninformed as he generally comes across. He's a fitting representative of the very worst strains of US nationalism whose mindless bellicosity he seems to have fully internalized.
    , @reiner Tor

    This Western elite unity did not exist prior to the Obama Administration, nor did it even exist during the Cold War when there was a genuine threat.
     
    The NSA also has a lot of dirt on each one of them. I would dismiss it as irrelevant and/or conspiracy theory, not the least because of the seemingly incompetent and disorganized nature of the American intelligence services, but now with this strange unity it needs to be taken seriously.
    , @Mitleser

    What the hell happened?
     
    Change of generations among the leaderships.
    The current Western leaders' careers happened in the post-Soviet war era when the USA is very much dominant.
    Their predecessors were still familiar with a world where the USA had to compromise much more.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  3. Dmitry says:

    Civilian planes told to clear the area for 48 hours.

    If this implies, it is only 48 hours in which the operation takes place, is not going to make much difference in the war. Afterwards, everything will carry as before, but Trump will be boasting about it in the re-election campaign.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  4. Dmitry says:

    However he could undertake actions that he would not believe would invoke Russian retaliation but in fact do so.

    They will sit out for the short time the Americans bomb, and then go back to the long (over 2.5 years so far) airstrikes campaign, which – unlike 48 hour airstrikes – has the effect changing the war course.

    In list of intelligence in the Syria conflict – we can see from least intelligent, to most intelligent (or equally from least long-term thinking, to most long-term thinking): America, Russia, Iran.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  5. Dmitry says:

    Meanwhile, Congress is already moving to enact further sanctions against Russia (forbids transactions relating to new Russian sovereign debt).

    Meanwhile, tensions have made oil prices have now gone to the highest since 2014 – so Russian budget and economy will benefit some billions of dollars from Trump’s behaviour this week.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  6. @Thorfinnsson
    Trump's Russophilia, still frequently expressed, seems like it would prevent a wider war. However he could undertake actions that he would not believe would invoke Russian retaliation but in fact do so.

    Farcically, he can of course be removed from office (or simply assassinated) in which case all bets are off.

    In any case he has shown no ability to deal with the Dweeb State or even know what he is up against. He is starting to get it based on his actions in the past month, but by now it could be too late.

    At this point in time I am glad to live in a rural area and also to no longer be in my 20s.


    There has been a remarkable show of unity over this issue in Europe, and not just the usual suspects. Days after approving it, Angela Merkel chose today to announce that Nord Stream 2 must preserve a transit role for the Ukraine. This kind of annuls its entire purpose and puts the capstone on the Kremlin’s dismal gas policy and outreach to Germany.
     
    This is something that truly requires investigation and explanation, and not just with respect to the present false flags. This Western elite unity did not exist prior to the Obama Administration, nor did it even exist during the Cold War when there was a genuine threat.

    What the hell happened?

    The best theory that I have is that many of today's Western elites attended the same graduate schools and read the same English-language publications. This theory doesn't explain Merkel, but then Merkel is a woman and a well-known opportunist weathervane.

    Trump’s Russophilia, still frequently expressed, seems like it would prevent a wider war.

    What’s Russophile about someone who states that Putin (just reelected by a majority of the Russian electorate and undoubtedly popular) has to “pay a big price” for the alleged gas attack? That’s just projection and wishful thinking, something Trump supporters have indulged in excessively since the very start of Trump’s campaign.
    I don’t buy all those “Trump is really smart and has a plan, he’s a valiant knight secretly fighting the Deep state on our behalf, just has to make some tactical concessions” rationalizations for his conduct either. No one forced him to hire people like Haley or Bolton, he wanted to do that.
    It seems most likely to me that Trump really is just as stupid, vulgar and uninformed as he generally comes across. He’s a fitting representative of the very worst strains of US nationalism whose mindless bellicosity he seems to have fully internalized.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Thorfinnsson


    What’s Russophile about someone who states that Putin (just reelected by a majority of the Russian electorate and undoubtedly popular) has to “pay a big price” for the alleged gas attack? That’s just projection and wishful thinking, something Trump supporters have indulged in excessively since the very start of Trump’s campaign.
     
    Certainly nothing with respect to the specific tweets.

    But Trump has a long pattern of Russophilic behavior stemming from even before becoming a politician. Even back in the 1980s he suggested ending the Cold War in favor of the USA and USSR establishing a global condominium to prevent nuclear proliferation.

    More recently he insisted on removing providing lethal aid to the Ukraine from the Republican 2016 platform, and immediately upon taking office attempted to implement detente with Russia which was sabotaged by Foggy Bottom faggots and their faggot allies in Congress.

    More recent events have been disappointing to say the least, yet he keeps tweeting that he wants good relations with Russia. He received a bold faced document instructing him not to congratulate Walt (I refer to Putin as Walt--explanation at the end of this post) on his landslide win, yet did it anyway.

    The man clearly wants good relations with Russia, but is unable to get them owing to the Dweeb State (and his own personal flaws).

    I don’t buy all those “Trump is really smart and has a plan, he’s a valiant knight secretly fighting the Deep state on our behalf, just has to make some tactical concessions” rationalizations for his conduct either. No one forced him to hire people like Haley or Bolton, he wanted to do that.
     
    This is a separate issue, and I have no disagreement with you. His personnel selection in particular is appalling. The man simply didn't know what he was getting into, and he lacks several important skills and character traits to handle the situation he is in.

    I remain sympathetic as I happen to like him on a personal level.


    It seems most likely to me that Trump really is just as stupid, vulgar and uninformed as he generally comes across. He’s a fitting representative of the very worst strains of US nationalism whose mindless bellicosity he seems to have fully internalized.
     
    Well the man isn't stupid--how much money are you worth? Could you take the kind of public heat he could?

    Vulgar, yes, of course, but that was a selling point for us Deplorables.

    But at the end of the day it seems he simply isn't up to the job. I am sure you and I could do a better job running America...provided we had his piss and vinegar, pugilism, stamina, etc. You get what I am saying.

    I am not going to defend his clear deficiencies, but to me he remains likeable on a personal level and has a number of admirable and important qualities. These qualities were clearly insufficient. We need someone who possesses these qualities (and perhaps subtracts a few deficiencies) but adds true intellectual rigor.

    I'll be running in 2024 if I clear a billion by then.
    , @Dmitry
    He never hides anything. During the election campaign you can hear his attitude about war things.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bm9T5xXKOFo
    , @utu

    most likely to me that Trump really is just as stupid, vulgar and uninformed as he generally comes across
     
    No question about it. It is possible that he is suffering some form of old age cognitive disorder, that he used to be smarter and could handle multitasking and do some planning. But in everything he showed in his presidency so far there is no rhyme or reason. If he had any plan, any coherent idea for the future he would staff his administration with different people. If he really wanted to do some detente with Russia he would not have Nikki Haley in the UN or John Bolton. People who believe that he is playing some kind of 6D chess and fighting on our behalf with the Swamp and the Deep State are really delusional succumbing to wishful thinking and hope dies last syndromes.
    , @John Gruskos
    Trump is not an American nationalist.

    He is an Israeli nationalist.

    He is putting Israeli interests above American interests.

    The lesson for American nationalists is clear. Never trust a candidate who has a son-in-law named Kushner.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  7. Dan Hayes says:

    Initially Tucker Carlson unenthusiastically supported G W Bush’s Iraq War. Carlson attributed his support to the arguments of a much smarter man. Carlson came to rue his support.

    Carlson learned his lesson. Unfortunately virtually none of our erstwhile leaders and prognosticators have yet learned theirs.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  8. Aedib says:

    Time to grill Porky’s forces in Donbas as an asymmetrical retaliation for Syria,… may be?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  9. @German_reader

    Trump’s Russophilia, still frequently expressed, seems like it would prevent a wider war.
     
    What's Russophile about someone who states that Putin (just reelected by a majority of the Russian electorate and undoubtedly popular) has to "pay a big price" for the alleged gas attack? That's just projection and wishful thinking, something Trump supporters have indulged in excessively since the very start of Trump's campaign.
    I don't buy all those "Trump is really smart and has a plan, he's a valiant knight secretly fighting the Deep state on our behalf, just has to make some tactical concessions" rationalizations for his conduct either. No one forced him to hire people like Haley or Bolton, he wanted to do that.
    It seems most likely to me that Trump really is just as stupid, vulgar and uninformed as he generally comes across. He's a fitting representative of the very worst strains of US nationalism whose mindless bellicosity he seems to have fully internalized.

    What’s Russophile about someone who states that Putin (just reelected by a majority of the Russian electorate and undoubtedly popular) has to “pay a big price” for the alleged gas attack? That’s just projection and wishful thinking, something Trump supporters have indulged in excessively since the very start of Trump’s campaign.

    Certainly nothing with respect to the specific tweets.

    But Trump has a long pattern of Russophilic behavior stemming from even before becoming a politician. Even back in the 1980s he suggested ending the Cold War in favor of the USA and USSR establishing a global condominium to prevent nuclear proliferation.

    More recently he insisted on removing providing lethal aid to the Ukraine from the Republican 2016 platform, and immediately upon taking office attempted to implement detente with Russia which was sabotaged by Foggy Bottom faggots and their faggot allies in Congress.

    More recent events have been disappointing to say the least, yet he keeps tweeting that he wants good relations with Russia. He received a bold faced document instructing him not to congratulate Walt (I refer to Putin as Walt–explanation at the end of this post) on his landslide win, yet did it anyway.

    The man clearly wants good relations with Russia, but is unable to get them owing to the Dweeb State (and his own personal flaws).

    I don’t buy all those “Trump is really smart and has a plan, he’s a valiant knight secretly fighting the Deep state on our behalf, just has to make some tactical concessions” rationalizations for his conduct either. No one forced him to hire people like Haley or Bolton, he wanted to do that.

    This is a separate issue, and I have no disagreement with you. His personnel selection in particular is appalling. The man simply didn’t know what he was getting into, and he lacks several important skills and character traits to handle the situation he is in.

    I remain sympathetic as I happen to like him on a personal level.

    It seems most likely to me that Trump really is just as stupid, vulgar and uninformed as he generally comes across. He’s a fitting representative of the very worst strains of US nationalism whose mindless bellicosity he seems to have fully internalized.

    Well the man isn’t stupid–how much money are you worth? Could you take the kind of public heat he could?

    Vulgar, yes, of course, but that was a selling point for us Deplorables.

    But at the end of the day it seems he simply isn’t up to the job. I am sure you and I could do a better job running America…provided we had his piss and vinegar, pugilism, stamina, etc. You get what I am saying.

    I am not going to defend his clear deficiencies, but to me he remains likeable on a personal level and has a number of admirable and important qualities. These qualities were clearly insufficient. We need someone who possesses these qualities (and perhaps subtracts a few deficiencies) but adds true intellectual rigor.

    I’ll be running in 2024 if I clear a billion by then.

    Read More
    • Replies: @utu

    I could do a better job running America
     
    At least the awful problem of wild horses would be solved.
    , @German_reader

    but to me he remains likeable on a personal level
     
    I find him completely unlikeable on a personal level, the man is crassly materialistic, vulgar trash, his whoring around with porn stars and the like is reminiscent of some African big man (come to think of it, his nepotism regarding Ivanka and Jared is as well), not what I would expect from a real national leader, a world away from people like Franco, Mannerheim or De Gaulle. Which of course wouldn't be terribly relevant if he had good political judgement and pursued sound policies...but he doesn't.


    I refer to Putin as Walt–explanation at the end of this post
     
    That seems to be missing...why Walt?
    , @Stonehands
    “Well the man isn’t stupid–how much money are you worth?....”

    Lots of money is a sure sign of virtue in the spiritually loathesome United States...
    , @AaronB
    I'm amused by the naive Western faith in the "lone hero" when collective action by a strong community is the only thing that has ever had any chance of challenging the political status quo.

    Kind of like a certain other community I can't think of right now that has managed to amass tremendous power that way...whom we absolutely should not learn from, but continue being radical individualists.

    Ah well, I'm sure our hero will come after Trump and make it unnecessary to reform our culture in a collectivist direction with united interests and economic interdependence, and we can continue competitively stepping on each other's faces. We just need a hero with "the right character".
    , @Philip Owen
    Someone is taking down Zuckerberg from standing.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  10. Dmitry says:
    @German_reader

    Trump’s Russophilia, still frequently expressed, seems like it would prevent a wider war.
     
    What's Russophile about someone who states that Putin (just reelected by a majority of the Russian electorate and undoubtedly popular) has to "pay a big price" for the alleged gas attack? That's just projection and wishful thinking, something Trump supporters have indulged in excessively since the very start of Trump's campaign.
    I don't buy all those "Trump is really smart and has a plan, he's a valiant knight secretly fighting the Deep state on our behalf, just has to make some tactical concessions" rationalizations for his conduct either. No one forced him to hire people like Haley or Bolton, he wanted to do that.
    It seems most likely to me that Trump really is just as stupid, vulgar and uninformed as he generally comes across. He's a fitting representative of the very worst strains of US nationalism whose mindless bellicosity he seems to have fully internalized.

    He never hides anything. During the election campaign you can hear his attitude about war things.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Thorfinnsson
    I enjoyed this clip during the campaign, though there is occasionally a case for a general officer being interviewed.

    That said he is wrong about us having a General Patton today. The truth is that all of our general officers are pozzed, cucked, and worthless faggots who are simply LARPing.

    This is one of many reasons we must avoid a general war with Russia, China, or other serious countries.

    I hope his current immigration feud with Mad Duck Mattis leads him to discover this.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  11. @Dmitry
    He never hides anything. During the election campaign you can hear his attitude about war things.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bm9T5xXKOFo

    I enjoyed this clip during the campaign, though there is occasionally a case for a general officer being interviewed.

    That said he is wrong about us having a General Patton today. The truth is that all of our general officers are pozzed, cucked, and worthless faggots who are simply LARPing.

    This is one of many reasons we must avoid a general war with Russia, China, or other serious countries.

    I hope his current immigration feud with Mad Duck Mattis leads him to discover this.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Dmitry
    I find him entertaining to see as well, and watched many clips during the 2016 election.

    The fact he talks about wanting to find the new General Patton or General MacArthur tells you all about his intention though - military, fighting, bombings stuff, etc, although he has been more peaceful than expected so far.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  12. what’s the point of writing an article like this unless you address the question of whether you hold onto the fence or not during the nuclear blast?

    Read More
    • Replies: @songbird
    I thought "Terminator 2" answered that question:

    You pound the fence, preferably where there is a playground with kids on swings and merry-go-rounds. That is, before the blast, to try and warn them. What you do after the blast is up to you.

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

    Israel has misjudged Russia in Syria. The consequences could be grave

    https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/apr/10/israel-russia-syria-netanyahu-iran-middle-east

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  14. utu says:
    @Thorfinnsson


    What’s Russophile about someone who states that Putin (just reelected by a majority of the Russian electorate and undoubtedly popular) has to “pay a big price” for the alleged gas attack? That’s just projection and wishful thinking, something Trump supporters have indulged in excessively since the very start of Trump’s campaign.
     
    Certainly nothing with respect to the specific tweets.

    But Trump has a long pattern of Russophilic behavior stemming from even before becoming a politician. Even back in the 1980s he suggested ending the Cold War in favor of the USA and USSR establishing a global condominium to prevent nuclear proliferation.

    More recently he insisted on removing providing lethal aid to the Ukraine from the Republican 2016 platform, and immediately upon taking office attempted to implement detente with Russia which was sabotaged by Foggy Bottom faggots and their faggot allies in Congress.

    More recent events have been disappointing to say the least, yet he keeps tweeting that he wants good relations with Russia. He received a bold faced document instructing him not to congratulate Walt (I refer to Putin as Walt--explanation at the end of this post) on his landslide win, yet did it anyway.

    The man clearly wants good relations with Russia, but is unable to get them owing to the Dweeb State (and his own personal flaws).

    I don’t buy all those “Trump is really smart and has a plan, he’s a valiant knight secretly fighting the Deep state on our behalf, just has to make some tactical concessions” rationalizations for his conduct either. No one forced him to hire people like Haley or Bolton, he wanted to do that.
     
    This is a separate issue, and I have no disagreement with you. His personnel selection in particular is appalling. The man simply didn't know what he was getting into, and he lacks several important skills and character traits to handle the situation he is in.

    I remain sympathetic as I happen to like him on a personal level.


    It seems most likely to me that Trump really is just as stupid, vulgar and uninformed as he generally comes across. He’s a fitting representative of the very worst strains of US nationalism whose mindless bellicosity he seems to have fully internalized.
     
    Well the man isn't stupid--how much money are you worth? Could you take the kind of public heat he could?

    Vulgar, yes, of course, but that was a selling point for us Deplorables.

    But at the end of the day it seems he simply isn't up to the job. I am sure you and I could do a better job running America...provided we had his piss and vinegar, pugilism, stamina, etc. You get what I am saying.

    I am not going to defend his clear deficiencies, but to me he remains likeable on a personal level and has a number of admirable and important qualities. These qualities were clearly insufficient. We need someone who possesses these qualities (and perhaps subtracts a few deficiencies) but adds true intellectual rigor.

    I'll be running in 2024 if I clear a billion by then.

    I could do a better job running America

    At least the awful problem of wild horses would be solved.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Thorfinnsson


    At least the awful problem of wild horses would be solved.
     
    In addition to the truly critical problem of wild horses, many other very serious problems would be solved such as:

    * Negrophilia
    * Atomophobia
    * Feminophilia
    * Judeophilia
    * Backyardophobia
    * Russophobia
    * Supersonicboomophobia

    And that's just the beginning.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  15. @Thorfinnsson


    What’s Russophile about someone who states that Putin (just reelected by a majority of the Russian electorate and undoubtedly popular) has to “pay a big price” for the alleged gas attack? That’s just projection and wishful thinking, something Trump supporters have indulged in excessively since the very start of Trump’s campaign.
     
    Certainly nothing with respect to the specific tweets.

    But Trump has a long pattern of Russophilic behavior stemming from even before becoming a politician. Even back in the 1980s he suggested ending the Cold War in favor of the USA and USSR establishing a global condominium to prevent nuclear proliferation.

    More recently he insisted on removing providing lethal aid to the Ukraine from the Republican 2016 platform, and immediately upon taking office attempted to implement detente with Russia which was sabotaged by Foggy Bottom faggots and their faggot allies in Congress.

    More recent events have been disappointing to say the least, yet he keeps tweeting that he wants good relations with Russia. He received a bold faced document instructing him not to congratulate Walt (I refer to Putin as Walt--explanation at the end of this post) on his landslide win, yet did it anyway.

    The man clearly wants good relations with Russia, but is unable to get them owing to the Dweeb State (and his own personal flaws).

    I don’t buy all those “Trump is really smart and has a plan, he’s a valiant knight secretly fighting the Deep state on our behalf, just has to make some tactical concessions” rationalizations for his conduct either. No one forced him to hire people like Haley or Bolton, he wanted to do that.
     
    This is a separate issue, and I have no disagreement with you. His personnel selection in particular is appalling. The man simply didn't know what he was getting into, and he lacks several important skills and character traits to handle the situation he is in.

    I remain sympathetic as I happen to like him on a personal level.


    It seems most likely to me that Trump really is just as stupid, vulgar and uninformed as he generally comes across. He’s a fitting representative of the very worst strains of US nationalism whose mindless bellicosity he seems to have fully internalized.
     
    Well the man isn't stupid--how much money are you worth? Could you take the kind of public heat he could?

    Vulgar, yes, of course, but that was a selling point for us Deplorables.

    But at the end of the day it seems he simply isn't up to the job. I am sure you and I could do a better job running America...provided we had his piss and vinegar, pugilism, stamina, etc. You get what I am saying.

    I am not going to defend his clear deficiencies, but to me he remains likeable on a personal level and has a number of admirable and important qualities. These qualities were clearly insufficient. We need someone who possesses these qualities (and perhaps subtracts a few deficiencies) but adds true intellectual rigor.

    I'll be running in 2024 if I clear a billion by then.

    but to me he remains likeable on a personal level

    I find him completely unlikeable on a personal level, the man is crassly materialistic, vulgar trash, his whoring around with porn stars and the like is reminiscent of some African big man (come to think of it, his nepotism regarding Ivanka and Jared is as well), not what I would expect from a real national leader, a world away from people like Franco, Mannerheim or De Gaulle. Which of course wouldn’t be terribly relevant if he had good political judgement and pursued sound policies…but he doesn’t.

    I refer to Putin as Walt–explanation at the end of this post

    That seems to be missing…why Walt?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Thorfinnsson


    I find him completely unlikeable on a personal level, the man is crassly materialistic, vulgar trash, his whoring around with porn stars and the like is reminiscent of some African big man (come to think of it, his nepotism regarding Ivanka and Jared is as well), not what I would expect from a real national leader, a world away from people like Franco, Mannerheim or De Gaulle.
     
    This reminds me of talking to my father. And my father did not grow up in America, which is likely telling in this case.

    I don't mind any of these things, and I generally find African big men amusing and charming.

    I am also in favor of nepotism as I am a monarchist. I hate Jared and Ivanka for other reasons.

    I do agree of course that this behavior is not optimal in a head of state.

    But I have always greatly enjoyed Trump's antics on a personal level since I first discovered him.


    That seems to be missing…why Walt?
     
    Sorry, missed this in the previous post.

    Vladimir = Walter

    Vladimirovich = Walterson

    Putin = Putnam

    Walter Walterson Putnam

    or Walt, for short
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  16. @German_reader

    but to me he remains likeable on a personal level
     
    I find him completely unlikeable on a personal level, the man is crassly materialistic, vulgar trash, his whoring around with porn stars and the like is reminiscent of some African big man (come to think of it, his nepotism regarding Ivanka and Jared is as well), not what I would expect from a real national leader, a world away from people like Franco, Mannerheim or De Gaulle. Which of course wouldn't be terribly relevant if he had good political judgement and pursued sound policies...but he doesn't.


    I refer to Putin as Walt–explanation at the end of this post
     
    That seems to be missing...why Walt?

    I find him completely unlikeable on a personal level, the man is crassly materialistic, vulgar trash, his whoring around with porn stars and the like is reminiscent of some African big man (come to think of it, his nepotism regarding Ivanka and Jared is as well), not what I would expect from a real national leader, a world away from people like Franco, Mannerheim or De Gaulle.

    This reminds me of talking to my father. And my father did not grow up in America, which is likely telling in this case.

    I don’t mind any of these things, and I generally find African big men amusing and charming.

    I am also in favor of nepotism as I am a monarchist. I hate Jared and Ivanka for other reasons.

    I do agree of course that this behavior is not optimal in a head of state.

    But I have always greatly enjoyed Trump’s antics on a personal level since I first discovered him.

    That seems to be missing…why Walt?

    Sorry, missed this in the previous post.

    Vladimir = Walter

    Vladimirovich = Walterson

    Putin = Putnam

    Walter Walterson Putnam

    or Walt, for short

    Read More
    • Replies: @German_reader

    Vladimir = Walter
     
    Wouldn't it be rather Vladimir = Waldemar?
    But then I suppose there aren't that many people named Waldemar in the US today so it wouldn't make as much sense as a translation (are there actually still that many people named Walt in the US? In Germany "Walter" is a totally old-fashioned name...the only Walter I can think of is my grandfather's younger brother who was killed in action in 1942).
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  17. utu says:
    @German_reader

    Trump’s Russophilia, still frequently expressed, seems like it would prevent a wider war.
     
    What's Russophile about someone who states that Putin (just reelected by a majority of the Russian electorate and undoubtedly popular) has to "pay a big price" for the alleged gas attack? That's just projection and wishful thinking, something Trump supporters have indulged in excessively since the very start of Trump's campaign.
    I don't buy all those "Trump is really smart and has a plan, he's a valiant knight secretly fighting the Deep state on our behalf, just has to make some tactical concessions" rationalizations for his conduct either. No one forced him to hire people like Haley or Bolton, he wanted to do that.
    It seems most likely to me that Trump really is just as stupid, vulgar and uninformed as he generally comes across. He's a fitting representative of the very worst strains of US nationalism whose mindless bellicosity he seems to have fully internalized.

    most likely to me that Trump really is just as stupid, vulgar and uninformed as he generally comes across

    No question about it. It is possible that he is suffering some form of old age cognitive disorder, that he used to be smarter and could handle multitasking and do some planning. But in everything he showed in his presidency so far there is no rhyme or reason. If he had any plan, any coherent idea for the future he would staff his administration with different people. If he really wanted to do some detente with Russia he would not have Nikki Haley in the UN or John Bolton. People who believe that he is playing some kind of 6D chess and fighting on our behalf with the Swamp and the Deep State are really delusional succumbing to wishful thinking and hope dies last syndromes.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  18. @utu

    I could do a better job running America
     
    At least the awful problem of wild horses would be solved.

    At least the awful problem of wild horses would be solved.

    In addition to the truly critical problem of wild horses, many other very serious problems would be solved such as:

    * Negrophilia
    * Atomophobia
    * Feminophilia
    * Judeophilia
    * Backyardophobia
    * Russophobia
    * Supersonicboomophobia

    And that’s just the beginning.

    Read More
    • Replies: @utu
    Oh man, you are a real American kook. Your father probably wishes that he stayed where he was born and never came to this forsaken country.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  19. utu says:

    Putin MUST BE STOPPED by any means necessary, 4-star general warns war with Russia ‘soon’

    https://www.express.co.uk/news/world/943847/world-war-3-Donald-Trump-war-Syria-Russia-Iran-conflict-strike-General-Jack-Keane

    General Keane added: “There is no political solution given the fact the Iranians and Russians have successfully propped up the Assad regime.

    “That is the reality that is taking place here. The US has no leverage, the Arabs have no leverage and Europe has no leverage.

    They have essentially achieved a military victory here, finishing off the remnants of the opposition forces. That is what this chemical attack is all about.”

    Read More
    • Replies: @Dmitry
    The leadership in Russia, or at the top, is not so crazy, as to do anything that could cause this. In America, with Trump, there might be a bit more uncertainty - but it's clear his aim is to get concessions, not any real conflicts, whether with Russia, or China, or even North Korea..
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  20. @Thorfinnsson


    I find him completely unlikeable on a personal level, the man is crassly materialistic, vulgar trash, his whoring around with porn stars and the like is reminiscent of some African big man (come to think of it, his nepotism regarding Ivanka and Jared is as well), not what I would expect from a real national leader, a world away from people like Franco, Mannerheim or De Gaulle.
     
    This reminds me of talking to my father. And my father did not grow up in America, which is likely telling in this case.

    I don't mind any of these things, and I generally find African big men amusing and charming.

    I am also in favor of nepotism as I am a monarchist. I hate Jared and Ivanka for other reasons.

    I do agree of course that this behavior is not optimal in a head of state.

    But I have always greatly enjoyed Trump's antics on a personal level since I first discovered him.


    That seems to be missing…why Walt?
     
    Sorry, missed this in the previous post.

    Vladimir = Walter

    Vladimirovich = Walterson

    Putin = Putnam

    Walter Walterson Putnam

    or Walt, for short

    Vladimir = Walter

    Wouldn’t it be rather Vladimir = Waldemar?
    But then I suppose there aren’t that many people named Waldemar in the US today so it wouldn’t make as much sense as a translation (are there actually still that many people named Walt in the US? In Germany “Walter” is a totally old-fashioned name…the only Walter I can think of is my grandfather’s younger brother who was killed in action in 1942).

    Read More
    • Replies: @Thorfinnsson
    Like you realized, no one is named Waldemar. There was a great uncle in my family named Waldemar. He was a snake charmer.

    The exercise is stylistic and amusing only.

    And no Walter is not common in the new generations her either, but referring to Putin as Walt has people in stitches once they get it.
    , @utu
    Walter Ulbricht?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  21. utu says:
    @Thorfinnsson


    At least the awful problem of wild horses would be solved.
     
    In addition to the truly critical problem of wild horses, many other very serious problems would be solved such as:

    * Negrophilia
    * Atomophobia
    * Feminophilia
    * Judeophilia
    * Backyardophobia
    * Russophobia
    * Supersonicboomophobia

    And that's just the beginning.

    Oh man, you are a real American kook. Your father probably wishes that he stayed where he was born and never came to this forsaken country.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Thorfinnsson
    My father and I are tight.

    You should support me.

    If you do not it means that you are objectively wrong.

    And you know what that means.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  22. @German_reader

    Vladimir = Walter
     
    Wouldn't it be rather Vladimir = Waldemar?
    But then I suppose there aren't that many people named Waldemar in the US today so it wouldn't make as much sense as a translation (are there actually still that many people named Walt in the US? In Germany "Walter" is a totally old-fashioned name...the only Walter I can think of is my grandfather's younger brother who was killed in action in 1942).

    Like you realized, no one is named Waldemar. There was a great uncle in my family named Waldemar. He was a snake charmer.

    The exercise is stylistic and amusing only.

    And no Walter is not common in the new generations her either, but referring to Putin as Walt has people in stitches once they get it.

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

    Vladimir = Walter
     
    Wouldn't it be rather Vladimir = Waldemar?
    But then I suppose there aren't that many people named Waldemar in the US today so it wouldn't make as much sense as a translation (are there actually still that many people named Walt in the US? In Germany "Walter" is a totally old-fashioned name...the only Walter I can think of is my grandfather's younger brother who was killed in action in 1942).

    Walter Ulbricht?

    Read More
    • Replies: @German_reader
    Walter Ulbricht was born in 1893.
    Among the younger generations in Germany today there certainly are more Marvins and Mohammeds than Walters.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  24. @utu
    Oh man, you are a real American kook. Your father probably wishes that he stayed where he was born and never came to this forsaken country.

    My father and I are tight.

    You should support me.

    If you do not it means that you are objectively wrong.

    And you know what that means.

    Read More
    • Replies: @utu

    My father and I are tight.
     
    Suuure. Just do not go hunting with him. Euthanasia is illegal while hunting accidents are easy to talk yourself out of.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  25. songbird says:
    @Lemurmaniac
    what's the point of writing an article like this unless you address the question of whether you hold onto the fence or not during the nuclear blast?

    I thought “Terminator 2″ answered that question:

    You pound the fence, preferably where there is a playground with kids on swings and merry-go-rounds. That is, before the blast, to try and warn them. What you do after the blast is up to you.

    Read More
    • LOL: Anatoly Karlin
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  26. @utu
    Walter Ulbricht?

    Walter Ulbricht was born in 1893.
    Among the younger generations in Germany today there certainly are more Marvins and Mohammeds than Walters.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  27. @Beckow

    stupidly appropriate end to Western civilization
     
    Endings are never appropriate, and it would be such a waste. I agree that we have a non-zero chance of this escalating into an apocalypse. And that can kind of odds happen all the time.

    Civilizations that end over disagreements about 'who rules East Ghouta' seem slightly wobbly already. By the way, who runs West Ghouta? Could they maybe just build a wall?

    Popular hatred toward Russia in the West has reached irrational levels. It seems very widespread and at this point short of a cleansing conflict I don't see how it can subside. Since Westerners are forbidden hating anyone else, all the accumulated hostility has turned against anything Russian. It is ok to hate Russia and the hunger for strong negative emotions is very deep. The argument seems to be that Russians are so absolutely evil that they will do stupid, self-defeating things because they cannot control their own evil instincts. It is - as a prominent deep-stater said - in their DNA. The obvious solution is to make sure that the 'evil' DNA doesn't stick around. And that way lies the unsolvable cul-de-sac we are facing today.

    Maybe a lucky distraction can help, or maybe Trump is playing it up but doesn't mean it. That has been his style. At some point if we count on luck, we are bound to fail. All gamblers know this, but they can't stop gambling anyway.

    Even some of the smarter people I know have been completely accepting of this nonsensical propaganda. Only the most radical right people I know are against it. Probably a few far-lefties as well.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  28. Dmitry says:
    @Thorfinnsson
    I enjoyed this clip during the campaign, though there is occasionally a case for a general officer being interviewed.

    That said he is wrong about us having a General Patton today. The truth is that all of our general officers are pozzed, cucked, and worthless faggots who are simply LARPing.

    This is one of many reasons we must avoid a general war with Russia, China, or other serious countries.

    I hope his current immigration feud with Mad Duck Mattis leads him to discover this.

    I find him entertaining to see as well, and watched many clips during the 2016 election.

    The fact he talks about wanting to find the new General Patton or General MacArthur tells you all about his intention though – military, fighting, bombings stuff, etc, although he has been more peaceful than expected so far.

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

    stupidly appropriate end to Western civilization
     
    Endings are never appropriate, and it would be such a waste. I agree that we have a non-zero chance of this escalating into an apocalypse. And that can kind of odds happen all the time.

    Civilizations that end over disagreements about 'who rules East Ghouta' seem slightly wobbly already. By the way, who runs West Ghouta? Could they maybe just build a wall?

    Popular hatred toward Russia in the West has reached irrational levels. It seems very widespread and at this point short of a cleansing conflict I don't see how it can subside. Since Westerners are forbidden hating anyone else, all the accumulated hostility has turned against anything Russian. It is ok to hate Russia and the hunger for strong negative emotions is very deep. The argument seems to be that Russians are so absolutely evil that they will do stupid, self-defeating things because they cannot control their own evil instincts. It is - as a prominent deep-stater said - in their DNA. The obvious solution is to make sure that the 'evil' DNA doesn't stick around. And that way lies the unsolvable cul-de-sac we are facing today.

    Maybe a lucky distraction can help, or maybe Trump is playing it up but doesn't mean it. That has been his style. At some point if we count on luck, we are bound to fail. All gamblers know this, but they can't stop gambling anyway.

    Popular hatred toward Russia in the West has reached irrational levels. It seems very widespread and at this point short of a cleansing conflict I don’t see how it can subside. Since Westerners are forbidden hating anyone else, all the accumulated hostility has turned against anything Russian. It is ok to hate Russia and the hunger for strong negative emotions is very deep.

    Yes also the more distant, and the less talking with people (and in America-Russia case there’s less dialogue between ordinary people due to the language differences, except for few people who step out and make an effort – and facebook deleted one of my accounts when I used it to talk about American politics on American sites), the easier this projection of negative aspects onto an external public becomes.

    That said, it’s also very abstract – Americans are not killing our people, nor vice-versa (actually most people are quite friendly in real encounters).

    And this abstract conflict/hatred can stay ephemeral, outside of online comments and so on.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  30. utu says:
    @Thorfinnsson
    My father and I are tight.

    You should support me.

    If you do not it means that you are objectively wrong.

    And you know what that means.

    My father and I are tight.

    Suuure. Just do not go hunting with him. Euthanasia is illegal while hunting accidents are easy to talk yourself out of.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  31. Dmitry says:
    @utu
    Putin MUST BE STOPPED by any means necessary, 4-star general warns war with Russia ‘soon’
    https://www.express.co.uk/news/world/943847/world-war-3-Donald-Trump-war-Syria-Russia-Iran-conflict-strike-General-Jack-Keane

    General Keane added: “There is no political solution given the fact the Iranians and Russians have successfully propped up the Assad regime.

    “That is the reality that is taking place here. The US has no leverage, the Arabs have no leverage and Europe has no leverage.

    They have essentially achieved a military victory here, finishing off the remnants of the opposition forces. That is what this chemical attack is all about.”
     

    The leadership in Russia, or at the top, is not so crazy, as to do anything that could cause this. In America, with Trump, there might be a bit more uncertainty – but it’s clear his aim is to get concessions, not any real conflicts, whether with Russia, or China, or even North Korea..

    Read More
    • Replies: @utu
    I hope you are correct but Russia can't do or afford too deep concession. Their conventional weapons deterrence in Syria is too week. If they are really hurt it is either a humiliating retreat or a nuclear strike. Humiliating retreat means the end of Putin via some coup at Kremlin.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  32. utu says:
    @Dmitry
    The leadership in Russia, or at the top, is not so crazy, as to do anything that could cause this. In America, with Trump, there might be a bit more uncertainty - but it's clear his aim is to get concessions, not any real conflicts, whether with Russia, or China, or even North Korea..

    I hope you are correct but Russia can’t do or afford too deep concession. Their conventional weapons deterrence in Syria is too week. If they are really hurt it is either a humiliating retreat or a nuclear strike. Humiliating retreat means the end of Putin via some coup at Kremlin.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Dmitry
    Russia is bombing in Syria for some 2.5 years so far (where it changes the course of events to keep the government they invested in on top). America will bomb for a couple of days, it won't have much impact and will be a minor footnote in the story.

    Russia already, more or less, won, but only with some short-term objectives and not much long-term clarity. The cleverer ones are Iran though, who will be there when everyone else has forgotten about Syria. Well the really cleverest ones are probably the Chinese - who will likely buy the country as a transit lane in a few decades. While the real losers are the EU, who get the Syrian immigrants.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  33. Dmitry says:
    @utu
    I hope you are correct but Russia can't do or afford too deep concession. Their conventional weapons deterrence in Syria is too week. If they are really hurt it is either a humiliating retreat or a nuclear strike. Humiliating retreat means the end of Putin via some coup at Kremlin.

    Russia is bombing in Syria for some 2.5 years so far (where it changes the course of events to keep the government they invested in on top). America will bomb for a couple of days, it won’t have much impact and will be a minor footnote in the story.

    Russia already, more or less, won, but only with some short-term objectives and not much long-term clarity. The cleverer ones are Iran though, who will be there when everyone else has forgotten about Syria. Well the really cleverest ones are probably the Chinese – who will likely buy the country as a transit lane in a few decades. While the real losers are the EU, who get the Syrian immigrants.

    Read More
    • Replies: @utu
    I just do not really get you. You seem to be "Can’t We All Just Get Along?" kind of a guy. Russo-Israeli Rodney King?

    Russia can't afford having Syrian forces being bombed by the US. The same forces Russia has been actively supporting in fight against ISIS, Al-Qaeda and anti government rebellion.
    , @Mitleser

    Russia already, more or less, won
     
    As AK pointed out, Russia has not won yet.
    Regime change is still possible.
    Collapse of the Syrian state is still possible
    Being humiliated significantly is still possible.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  34. Is it just me or it seems like very weird insult? Why Marx? Why not Stalin or Lenin?

    Read More
    • LOL: Felix Keverich
    • Replies: @utu
    Yes, very weird. Perhaps this lady grew up on Marx was good and USSR was Marxist state.
    , @German_reader

    Why not Stalin or Lenin?
     
    Stalin supposedly corrupted the revolution and was just another Great Russian chauvinist, no different from the tsars (at least that's what stupid Western lefties often professed to believe).
    Lenin is trickier, but I guess it's too hard nowadays to deny all the deaths he was responsible for (and the Bolsheviks actually used poison gas to crush peasant uprisings in 1921).
    Karl Marx never held political power, so it's easier to ascribe only the noblest and most humane of intentions to him.
    Is there an exact quote of what this grotesque ambassador creature said at the UN? I'd like to know the context.
    Telling though if Karl Marx is now supposed to be a Western hero.
    , @songbird
    Joke #1: Technically, Lenin isn't buried
    Joke #2: Maybe, she is familiar with the London grave of Marx, having dropped flowers on it.

    Stalin is sort of taboo because the Party denounced him. As to Lenin, the US deported a lot of radicals to Russia, where they were disillusioned when they found out that they couldn't achieve high power. The condition of them coming back was too denounce Lenin. Otherwise, the Left would be naturally quite naive about him, as HG Wells was.
    , @Lemurmaniac
    somebody should gas her cats
    , @Thorfinnsson
    Karl Marx, proud subject of the Tsar and Autocrat of all the Russias, King of Poland, Grand Duke of Finland, by Grace of God His Majesty Nicholas I Pavlovovich Romanov.
    , @Pericles

    Amb. @KarenPierceUN says Karl Marx would turn in his grave at what #Russia has become ...

     

    What a kook.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  35. utu says:
    @Daniel Chieh
    https://twitter.com/KyleWOrton/status/983798866838544385

    Is it just me or it seems like very weird insult? Why Marx? Why not Stalin or Lenin?

    Yes, very weird. Perhaps this lady grew up on Marx was good and USSR was Marxist state.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  36. utu says:
    @Dmitry
    Russia is bombing in Syria for some 2.5 years so far (where it changes the course of events to keep the government they invested in on top). America will bomb for a couple of days, it won't have much impact and will be a minor footnote in the story.

    Russia already, more or less, won, but only with some short-term objectives and not much long-term clarity. The cleverer ones are Iran though, who will be there when everyone else has forgotten about Syria. Well the really cleverest ones are probably the Chinese - who will likely buy the country as a transit lane in a few decades. While the real losers are the EU, who get the Syrian immigrants.

    I just do not really get you. You seem to be “Can’t We All Just Get Along?” kind of a guy. Russo-Israeli Rodney King?

    Russia can’t afford having Syrian forces being bombed by the US. The same forces Russia has been actively supporting in fight against ISIS, Al-Qaeda and anti government rebellion.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  37. @Daniel Chieh
    https://twitter.com/KyleWOrton/status/983798866838544385

    Is it just me or it seems like very weird insult? Why Marx? Why not Stalin or Lenin?

    Why not Stalin or Lenin?

    Stalin supposedly corrupted the revolution and was just another Great Russian chauvinist, no different from the tsars (at least that’s what stupid Western lefties often professed to believe).
    Lenin is trickier, but I guess it’s too hard nowadays to deny all the deaths he was responsible for (and the Bolsheviks actually used poison gas to crush peasant uprisings in 1921).
    Karl Marx never held political power, so it’s easier to ascribe only the noblest and most humane of intentions to him.
    Is there an exact quote of what this grotesque ambassador creature said at the UN? I’d like to know the context.
    Telling though if Karl Marx is now supposed to be a Western hero.

    Read More
    • Replies: @songbird
    I'm surprised to hear it. I know I shouldn't be, after all the tributes to Castro, but I am. The UK's rhetoric at the UN is converging with the 3rd world's rhetoric at the UN.

    South Africa didn't keep Laura Southern out but the UK did.
    , @Hector_St_Clare
    She's not wrong though. Karl Marx would be horrified with modern Russia (he'd be horrified with modern America too, for different reasons).

    I think Russia is unquestionably less dangerous on the international scene than America, but that doesn't mean I like their current political, social and economic model.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  38. @Thorfinnsson
    Trump's Russophilia, still frequently expressed, seems like it would prevent a wider war. However he could undertake actions that he would not believe would invoke Russian retaliation but in fact do so.

    Farcically, he can of course be removed from office (or simply assassinated) in which case all bets are off.

    In any case he has shown no ability to deal with the Dweeb State or even know what he is up against. He is starting to get it based on his actions in the past month, but by now it could be too late.

    At this point in time I am glad to live in a rural area and also to no longer be in my 20s.


    There has been a remarkable show of unity over this issue in Europe, and not just the usual suspects. Days after approving it, Angela Merkel chose today to announce that Nord Stream 2 must preserve a transit role for the Ukraine. This kind of annuls its entire purpose and puts the capstone on the Kremlin’s dismal gas policy and outreach to Germany.
     
    This is something that truly requires investigation and explanation, and not just with respect to the present false flags. This Western elite unity did not exist prior to the Obama Administration, nor did it even exist during the Cold War when there was a genuine threat.

    What the hell happened?

    The best theory that I have is that many of today's Western elites attended the same graduate schools and read the same English-language publications. This theory doesn't explain Merkel, but then Merkel is a woman and a well-known opportunist weathervane.

    This Western elite unity did not exist prior to the Obama Administration, nor did it even exist during the Cold War when there was a genuine threat.

    The NSA also has a lot of dirt on each one of them. I would dismiss it as irrelevant and/or conspiracy theory, not the least because of the seemingly incompetent and disorganized nature of the American intelligence services, but now with this strange unity it needs to be taken seriously.

    Read More
    • Agree: utu
    • Replies: @Randal

    The NSA also has a lot of dirt on each one of them
     
    The strange unity goes a lot deeper than just the few in office. This obsessive anti-Russian hatred seems to permeate almost the entire political and media classes and ensures that (at least in Britain) there is no real need for the government to police dissent on this - there is virtually no dissent to police, and what little there is, is crushed by the weight of heavily biased and often irrational anti-Russian opinion in the media and from political figures.

    It is genuinely quite bizarre.

    It is, I think, a reflection of the total triumph of the political left in US sphere societies. The elites are almost wholly of the left now, culturally speaking - socially radical, internationalist, anti-patriotic. And since Russia, at least as it is represented in the US sphere, stands against many of the dogmas of the left, it is hated. And it is particularly hated by many of the endlessly active minority lobbies that drive opinion in the US sphere via the media and their unsleeping, obsessive lobbying organisations - homos especially, for not sufficiently kowtowing to the complete triumph of their dogmas as US sphere societies have done, but also nationalist lobby groups that see Russia as acting against their national interests or have historical grievances- Israeli/jewish, Ukrainian, etc.

    It's a bizarre kind of "perfect storm" situation for Russia.

    Russians should not blame themselves or their leaders - it's mostly a refusal to kowtow (especially when perceived as weak, after the collapse of the Soviet Union) that has triggered the hatred, and if the options are kowtow or be hated then honour requires the latter.

    My feeling is: if you have to destroy the world rather than knuckle under to the bullies, go ahead. Better dead than red.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  39. songbird says:
    @German_reader

    Why not Stalin or Lenin?
     
    Stalin supposedly corrupted the revolution and was just another Great Russian chauvinist, no different from the tsars (at least that's what stupid Western lefties often professed to believe).
    Lenin is trickier, but I guess it's too hard nowadays to deny all the deaths he was responsible for (and the Bolsheviks actually used poison gas to crush peasant uprisings in 1921).
    Karl Marx never held political power, so it's easier to ascribe only the noblest and most humane of intentions to him.
    Is there an exact quote of what this grotesque ambassador creature said at the UN? I'd like to know the context.
    Telling though if Karl Marx is now supposed to be a Western hero.

    I’m surprised to hear it. I know I shouldn’t be, after all the tributes to Castro, but I am. The UK’s rhetoric at the UN is converging with the 3rd world’s rhetoric at the UN.

    South Africa didn’t keep Laura Southern out but the UK did.

    Read More
    • Replies: @neutral

    South Africa didn’t keep Laura Southern out but the UK did.
     
    I can assure that it had nothing to do with some kind of respect of freedom of speech, South Africa is simply not as capable as the UK in the surveillance of thought criminals as the UK is. Once the USA becomes as non white as South Africa, the one benefit to that is that that government will be less capable of crushing dissent.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  40. Mitleser says:
    @Dmitry
    Russia is bombing in Syria for some 2.5 years so far (where it changes the course of events to keep the government they invested in on top). America will bomb for a couple of days, it won't have much impact and will be a minor footnote in the story.

    Russia already, more or less, won, but only with some short-term objectives and not much long-term clarity. The cleverer ones are Iran though, who will be there when everyone else has forgotten about Syria. Well the really cleverest ones are probably the Chinese - who will likely buy the country as a transit lane in a few decades. While the real losers are the EU, who get the Syrian immigrants.

    Russia already, more or less, won

    As AK pointed out, Russia has not won yet.
    Regime change is still possible.
    Collapse of the Syrian state is still possible
    Being humiliated significantly is still possible.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  41. songbird says:
    @Daniel Chieh
    https://twitter.com/KyleWOrton/status/983798866838544385

    Is it just me or it seems like very weird insult? Why Marx? Why not Stalin or Lenin?

    Joke #1: Technically, Lenin isn’t buried
    Joke #2: Maybe, she is familiar with the London grave of Marx, having dropped flowers on it.

    Stalin is sort of taboo because the Party denounced him. As to Lenin, the US deported a lot of radicals to Russia, where they were disillusioned when they found out that they couldn’t achieve high power. The condition of them coming back was too denounce Lenin. Otherwise, the Left would be naturally quite naive about him, as HG Wells was.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  42. Mitleser says:
    @Thorfinnsson
    Trump's Russophilia, still frequently expressed, seems like it would prevent a wider war. However he could undertake actions that he would not believe would invoke Russian retaliation but in fact do so.

    Farcically, he can of course be removed from office (or simply assassinated) in which case all bets are off.

    In any case he has shown no ability to deal with the Dweeb State or even know what he is up against. He is starting to get it based on his actions in the past month, but by now it could be too late.

    At this point in time I am glad to live in a rural area and also to no longer be in my 20s.


    There has been a remarkable show of unity over this issue in Europe, and not just the usual suspects. Days after approving it, Angela Merkel chose today to announce that Nord Stream 2 must preserve a transit role for the Ukraine. This kind of annuls its entire purpose and puts the capstone on the Kremlin’s dismal gas policy and outreach to Germany.
     
    This is something that truly requires investigation and explanation, and not just with respect to the present false flags. This Western elite unity did not exist prior to the Obama Administration, nor did it even exist during the Cold War when there was a genuine threat.

    What the hell happened?

    The best theory that I have is that many of today's Western elites attended the same graduate schools and read the same English-language publications. This theory doesn't explain Merkel, but then Merkel is a woman and a well-known opportunist weathervane.

    What the hell happened?

    Change of generations among the leaderships.
    The current Western leaders’ careers happened in the post-Soviet war era when the USA is very much dominant.
    Their predecessors were still familiar with a world where the USA had to compromise much more.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  43. There has been a remarkable show of unity over this issue in Europe, and not just the usual suspects. Days after approving it, Angela Merkel chose today to announce that Nord Stream 2 must preserve a transit role for the Ukraine. This kind of annuls its entire purpose and puts the capstone on the Kremlin’s dismal gas policy and outreach to Germany.

    Russian gas policy is a disaster: after years of shipping gas to Ukraine for free we somehow ended up owing billions of dollars to the Ukraine. Some court in Sweden ruled so. Gazprom actually appointed them to mediate trade disputes between Russia and the Ukraine.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  44. So the Russians will shoot back.

    I’m somehow sure that the Russians treacherously shooting back will be used as further proof of their culpability in the chemical attack, and of the general depravity of Putin and Russia. There will be Pearl Harbor style outrage. The public will be propagandized into a frenzy. (They already are, so just imagine.)

    Cet animal est très méchant: Quand on l’attaque, il se défend.

    Read More
    • Agree: Ron Unz
    • Replies: @utu
    Some politicians and media in the US were very upset with Russia that it expelled American diplomats saying that they had no reason for doing so while expelling Russian diplomats was entirely justified because of Skripal affair while America did nothing wrong. I just could not put my mind around it.

    It seems that for some people who thinks they are chosen or special the fundamental principles of symmetry are suspended. They live in a space with a different metric where ethics lack symmetry and chains of causality is broken. This kind of stupidity can function only in a space of distorted topology. Though the space can be easily rectified and symmetry can be restored once bombs start falling on Americans' heads. This stupidity only grew because America was lucky to be spared experiences most other peoples on this Earth were subject to on regular basis.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  45. utu says:
    @reiner Tor
    So the Russians will shoot back.

    I’m somehow sure that the Russians treacherously shooting back will be used as further proof of their culpability in the chemical attack, and of the general depravity of Putin and Russia. There will be Pearl Harbor style outrage. The public will be propagandized into a frenzy. (They already are, so just imagine.)

    Cet animal est très méchant: Quand on l'attaque, il se défend.

    Some politicians and media in the US were very upset with Russia that it expelled American diplomats saying that they had no reason for doing so while expelling Russian diplomats was entirely justified because of Skripal affair while America did nothing wrong. I just could not put my mind around it.

    It seems that for some people who thinks they are chosen or special the fundamental principles of symmetry are suspended. They live in a space with a different metric where ethics lack symmetry and chains of causality is broken. This kind of stupidity can function only in a space of distorted topology. Though the space can be easily rectified and symmetry can be restored once bombs start falling on Americans’ heads. This stupidity only grew because America was lucky to be spared experiences most other peoples on this Earth were subject to on regular basis.

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

    I’d say it’s time for our (Polish) politicians to do some goodwill PR gestures towards Russia. Russia sure as hell cannot do anything in Syria (as AK have so acutely written in the past – Syria is too far from Russian bases) but it surely will want to do something and if it will want to do something, it would have to do something near Russian bases.

    That makes things a bit scary for Polish citizen.

    Read More
    • Replies: @reiner Tor

    Russia sure as hell cannot do anything in Syria
     
    Its forces there could easily attack US warships in theater. Unless their weapons prove worthless against NATO weapons, in which case they might go nuclear right away.
    , @utu
    I just can't imagine Poland and "goodwill PR gestures towards Russia." They haven't try it in 1939 with respect to Hitler or Stalin and they won't do it now because they have guarantees from allies in the West just like in 1939. Polish politicians never cared for Polish people and were willing to sacrifice their lives to the point of biological extermination. Wasn't Churchill who said something about it that Poles are great, brave and noble, and so on but their leaders are despicable scoundrels. Not that I care for Churchill as an authority on anything.

    Poland just voted gains Russian resolution. They could have abstained. Many countries did.
    , @Dmitry
    Nobody will attack Poland.
    , @Aedib
    Calm down. If Russia do some revenge operation in East Europe; this will happen in Donbas and it will be done on the cheap way. Something like Smerching to the Stone age Ukr forces there.
    Relax; the Russians are not coming (to Poland).
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  47. @szopen
    I'd say it's time for our (Polish) politicians to do some goodwill PR gestures towards Russia. Russia sure as hell cannot do anything in Syria (as AK have so acutely written in the past - Syria is too far from Russian bases) but it surely will want to do something and if it will want to do something, it would have to do something near Russian bases.

    That makes things a bit scary for Polish citizen.

    Russia sure as hell cannot do anything in Syria

    Its forces there could easily attack US warships in theater. Unless their weapons prove worthless against NATO weapons, in which case they might go nuclear right away.

    Read More
    • Replies: @utu

    Unless their weapons prove worthless
     
    What happened to Andrei Martyanov?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  48. @Daniel Chieh
    https://twitter.com/KyleWOrton/status/983798866838544385

    Is it just me or it seems like very weird insult? Why Marx? Why not Stalin or Lenin?

    somebody should gas her cats

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  49. utu says:
    @szopen
    I'd say it's time for our (Polish) politicians to do some goodwill PR gestures towards Russia. Russia sure as hell cannot do anything in Syria (as AK have so acutely written in the past - Syria is too far from Russian bases) but it surely will want to do something and if it will want to do something, it would have to do something near Russian bases.

    That makes things a bit scary for Polish citizen.

    I just can’t imagine Poland and “goodwill PR gestures towards Russia.” They haven’t try it in 1939 with respect to Hitler or Stalin and they won’t do it now because they have guarantees from allies in the West just like in 1939. Polish politicians never cared for Polish people and were willing to sacrifice their lives to the point of biological extermination. Wasn’t Churchill who said something about it that Poles are great, brave and noble, and so on but their leaders are despicable scoundrels. Not that I care for Churchill as an authority on anything.

    Poland just voted gains Russian resolution. They could have abstained. Many countries did.

    Read More
    • Replies: @reiner Tor
    They could not have abstained. I guess you are an American, so cannot imagine what it’s like to be a junior partner in an alliance. A very junior partner, essentially dependent on the stronger partner for protection.

    If there will be a world war, it will happen with or without Poland. I don’t even think Poland could do anything at this point to avoid a Russian nuclear strike. They are a NATO member, how can the government do anything to assure the Russians that they will trust?

    But if there’s no war, then the Polish vote will be remembered. And they will get some reward from the Americans, or at least keep their goodwill.

    Small countries can easily get destroyed even if they try to stay out of war. Poland didn’t try to go to war with Germany in 1939, it was attacked. If it gave in to German demands, it’d have become a German satellite, and would have participated in the war on the side of the Axis. Like Hungary. Did we do much better than Poland? No. So?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  50. utu says:
    @reiner Tor

    Russia sure as hell cannot do anything in Syria
     
    Its forces there could easily attack US warships in theater. Unless their weapons prove worthless against NATO weapons, in which case they might go nuclear right away.

    Unless their weapons prove worthless

    What happened to Andrei Martyanov?

    Read More
    • Replies: @reiner Tor
    I personally think the Russians will be able to sink at least one American vessel (without resorting to nukes, of course), or probably a few of them, if they really tried to. I don’t think they will be able to sink many of them, but Martyanov thinks they can sink many. I know people who think they cannot even sink one vessel, or just barely.

    I don’t think even the Russians or Americans themselves know.
    , @Felix Keverich
    I did a cursory check and he seems to be busy writing angry, patriotic posts on his blog. Will be funny to watch his reaction if Russia fails to retaliate.

    Putin has been hiding under a rock for the past week: no public statements, no meeting security council...Does this look like a man ready for war?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  51. @utu

    Unless their weapons prove worthless
     
    What happened to Andrei Martyanov?

    I personally think the Russians will be able to sink at least one American vessel (without resorting to nukes, of course), or probably a few of them, if they really tried to. I don’t think they will be able to sink many of them, but Martyanov thinks they can sink many. I know people who think they cannot even sink one vessel, or just barely.

    I don’t think even the Russians or Americans themselves know.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  52. @utu

    Unless their weapons prove worthless
     
    What happened to Andrei Martyanov?

    I did a cursory check and he seems to be busy writing angry, patriotic posts on his blog. Will be funny to watch his reaction if Russia fails to retaliate.

    Putin has been hiding under a rock for the past week: no public statements, no meeting security council…Does this look like a man ready for war?

    Read More
    • Replies: @reiner Tor
    As I just looked out the window, and there was sunshine and birdsong and green trees and grass, and I thought about having a world war next week, I came to the conclusion that maybe a Russian capitulation would have its advantages.
    , @Aedib
    That silence is a sign that shit can get real. Putin was awfully quiet after Georgians invaded Ossetia, and he was awfully quiet when Maidan overthrew Yanuk.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  53. @utu
    I just can't imagine Poland and "goodwill PR gestures towards Russia." They haven't try it in 1939 with respect to Hitler or Stalin and they won't do it now because they have guarantees from allies in the West just like in 1939. Polish politicians never cared for Polish people and were willing to sacrifice their lives to the point of biological extermination. Wasn't Churchill who said something about it that Poles are great, brave and noble, and so on but their leaders are despicable scoundrels. Not that I care for Churchill as an authority on anything.

    Poland just voted gains Russian resolution. They could have abstained. Many countries did.

    They could not have abstained. I guess you are an American, so cannot imagine what it’s like to be a junior partner in an alliance. A very junior partner, essentially dependent on the stronger partner for protection.

    If there will be a world war, it will happen with or without Poland. I don’t even think Poland could do anything at this point to avoid a Russian nuclear strike. They are a NATO member, how can the government do anything to assure the Russians that they will trust?

    But if there’s no war, then the Polish vote will be remembered. And they will get some reward from the Americans, or at least keep their goodwill.

    Small countries can easily get destroyed even if they try to stay out of war. Poland didn’t try to go to war with Germany in 1939, it was attacked. If it gave in to German demands, it’d have become a German satellite, and would have participated in the war on the side of the Axis. Like Hungary. Did we do much better than Poland? No. So?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonymous
    Wasn't Hungary pretty enthusiastic about fighting on Germany's side? Unlike Romania which was dragged along.
    , @Matra
    But if there’s no war, then the Polish vote will be remembered. And they will get some reward from the Americans, or at least keep their goodwill.

    Last week 59 U.S. senators signed a letter protesting Poland's new Holocaust restitution bill. Poland's been a loyal U.S. ally - saying all all the right things, buying all the right hardware, sending its troops when needed - but all that is forgotten the moment Jews start crying. I don't think the America's rulers have very long memories.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  54. @Felix Keverich
    I did a cursory check and he seems to be busy writing angry, patriotic posts on his blog. Will be funny to watch his reaction if Russia fails to retaliate.

    Putin has been hiding under a rock for the past week: no public statements, no meeting security council...Does this look like a man ready for war?

    As I just looked out the window, and there was sunshine and birdsong and green trees and grass, and I thought about having a world war next week, I came to the conclusion that maybe a Russian capitulation would have its advantages.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Mitleser
    Inshallah, they shall and Chinese should do as well.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  55. @Thorfinnsson


    What’s Russophile about someone who states that Putin (just reelected by a majority of the Russian electorate and undoubtedly popular) has to “pay a big price” for the alleged gas attack? That’s just projection and wishful thinking, something Trump supporters have indulged in excessively since the very start of Trump’s campaign.
     
    Certainly nothing with respect to the specific tweets.

    But Trump has a long pattern of Russophilic behavior stemming from even before becoming a politician. Even back in the 1980s he suggested ending the Cold War in favor of the USA and USSR establishing a global condominium to prevent nuclear proliferation.

    More recently he insisted on removing providing lethal aid to the Ukraine from the Republican 2016 platform, and immediately upon taking office attempted to implement detente with Russia which was sabotaged by Foggy Bottom faggots and their faggot allies in Congress.

    More recent events have been disappointing to say the least, yet he keeps tweeting that he wants good relations with Russia. He received a bold faced document instructing him not to congratulate Walt (I refer to Putin as Walt--explanation at the end of this post) on his landslide win, yet did it anyway.

    The man clearly wants good relations with Russia, but is unable to get them owing to the Dweeb State (and his own personal flaws).

    I don’t buy all those “Trump is really smart and has a plan, he’s a valiant knight secretly fighting the Deep state on our behalf, just has to make some tactical concessions” rationalizations for his conduct either. No one forced him to hire people like Haley or Bolton, he wanted to do that.
     
    This is a separate issue, and I have no disagreement with you. His personnel selection in particular is appalling. The man simply didn't know what he was getting into, and he lacks several important skills and character traits to handle the situation he is in.

    I remain sympathetic as I happen to like him on a personal level.


    It seems most likely to me that Trump really is just as stupid, vulgar and uninformed as he generally comes across. He’s a fitting representative of the very worst strains of US nationalism whose mindless bellicosity he seems to have fully internalized.
     
    Well the man isn't stupid--how much money are you worth? Could you take the kind of public heat he could?

    Vulgar, yes, of course, but that was a selling point for us Deplorables.

    But at the end of the day it seems he simply isn't up to the job. I am sure you and I could do a better job running America...provided we had his piss and vinegar, pugilism, stamina, etc. You get what I am saying.

    I am not going to defend his clear deficiencies, but to me he remains likeable on a personal level and has a number of admirable and important qualities. These qualities were clearly insufficient. We need someone who possesses these qualities (and perhaps subtracts a few deficiencies) but adds true intellectual rigor.

    I'll be running in 2024 if I clear a billion by then.

    “Well the man isn’t stupid–how much money are you worth?….”

    Lots of money is a sure sign of virtue in the spiritually loathesome United States…

    Read More
    • Replies: @Thorfinnsson


    Lots of money is a sure sign of virtue in the spiritually loathesome United States…
     
    Who said anything about virtue?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  56. Anonymous[382] • Disclaimer says:

    Russia should back down as long as its air base is not attacked.

    Read More
    • Replies: @reiner Tor
    It will only embolden the US. They already backed down last year, and now the American senators are demanding a sustained air campaign.

    They now have a choice between war and dishonor. Even if they choose dishonor now, they will not avoid war later.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  57. Anonymous[382] • Disclaimer says:
    @reiner Tor
    They could not have abstained. I guess you are an American, so cannot imagine what it’s like to be a junior partner in an alliance. A very junior partner, essentially dependent on the stronger partner for protection.

    If there will be a world war, it will happen with or without Poland. I don’t even think Poland could do anything at this point to avoid a Russian nuclear strike. They are a NATO member, how can the government do anything to assure the Russians that they will trust?

    But if there’s no war, then the Polish vote will be remembered. And they will get some reward from the Americans, or at least keep their goodwill.

    Small countries can easily get destroyed even if they try to stay out of war. Poland didn’t try to go to war with Germany in 1939, it was attacked. If it gave in to German demands, it’d have become a German satellite, and would have participated in the war on the side of the Axis. Like Hungary. Did we do much better than Poland? No. So?

    Wasn’t Hungary pretty enthusiastic about fighting on Germany’s side? Unlike Romania which was dragged along.

    Read More
    • Replies: @reiner Tor
    Enthusiastic? Hell no. The Romanians were actually somewhat enthusiastic, because they had something to gain from fighting, namely Bessarabia (and some further territories).

    Hungary got most of what it wanted by fall 1940, and many in the political elite weren’t even enthusiastic to fight the Serbs (even though we had substantial territorial claims against them). Which is why our prime minister Teleki shot himself on 3 April, 1941, just a few days before the Yugoslav campaign.

    We had no claims against the USSR, and the only reason we participated was fear of losing the good graces of Hitler. There literally was no Hungarian national interest in fighting the USSR.

    True, there were a lot of people (including top level politicians) who liked Nazism and Germany, and obviously most people wanted Germany to win (instead of the USSR), but even the pro-Nazi far right didn’t like the way Hitler treated the Poles. (Fewer people cared for Jews or Russians.) The far right press wrote about the “tragedy of Poland” as a warning to Hungary that we should choose the right side. Hungarian troops sent to Poland frequently helped the Polish Home Army with weapons and warned them of German movements. Mind you, anywhere else (Belarus, Ukraine, Russia) our troops earned a reputation of extreme cruelty and incompetence. But at least there was a pro-Polish near consensus.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  58. @Anonymous
    Russia should back down as long as its air base is not attacked.

    It will only embolden the US. They already backed down last year, and now the American senators are demanding a sustained air campaign.

    They now have a choice between war and dishonor. Even if they choose dishonor now, they will not avoid war later.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonymous
    It's simply impractical for Russia to fight in Syria. If Russia sinks a US ship, the US destroys the Russian air base. What's Russia's next move then?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  59. Mitleser says:
    @reiner Tor
    As I just looked out the window, and there was sunshine and birdsong and green trees and grass, and I thought about having a world war next week, I came to the conclusion that maybe a Russian capitulation would have its advantages.

    Inshallah, they shall and Chinese should do as well.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  60. But I do think that we are now at probably the most dangerous point in world affairs since Russian and NATO troops faced off at Pristina Airport in 1999, if not since the Cold War.

    The so-called Cold War was a clown catfight compared to the serious business going on today.

    Ultimately, the USA and USSR had no real ideological differences. The “Cold War” was a fight over who gets to install liberal western values on the darkies first.

    It’s different today and USA and Russia actually have deep-seated and unfixable ideological rifts.

    Read More
    • Replies: @reiner Tor

    The so-called Cold War was a clown catfight compared to the serious business going on today.
     
    During the Cold War, the leadership of both superpowers were horrified of the idea of another world war. This is no longer true, because, at least in the US, no one believes in the possibility of nukes ever being used or of American arms ever getting defeated.

    They think they will always be victorious, and war is just a question of internal political considerations, because whenever they have a will, they will be victorious, and the destruction will only affect other countries.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  61. @Anonymous
    Wasn't Hungary pretty enthusiastic about fighting on Germany's side? Unlike Romania which was dragged along.

    Enthusiastic? Hell no. The Romanians were actually somewhat enthusiastic, because they had something to gain from fighting, namely Bessarabia (and some further territories).

    Hungary got most of what it wanted by fall 1940, and many in the political elite weren’t even enthusiastic to fight the Serbs (even though we had substantial territorial claims against them). Which is why our prime minister Teleki shot himself on 3 April, 1941, just a few days before the Yugoslav campaign.

    We had no claims against the USSR, and the only reason we participated was fear of losing the good graces of Hitler. There literally was no Hungarian national interest in fighting the USSR.

    True, there were a lot of people (including top level politicians) who liked Nazism and Germany, and obviously most people wanted Germany to win (instead of the USSR), but even the pro-Nazi far right didn’t like the way Hitler treated the Poles. (Fewer people cared for Jews or Russians.) The far right press wrote about the “tragedy of Poland” as a warning to Hungary that we should choose the right side. Hungarian troops sent to Poland frequently helped the Polish Home Army with weapons and warned them of German movements. Mind you, anywhere else (Belarus, Ukraine, Russia) our troops earned a reputation of extreme cruelty and incompetence. But at least there was a pro-Polish near consensus.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Ervin Galántay
    "We had no claims against the USSR, and the only reason we participated was fear of losing the good graces of Hitler. "

    What a load of shit.

    "There literally was no Hungarian national interest in fighting the USSR."

    Except that a big bloody wave was about to come down on our heads from the East, a thousand times more savage than Bela Kuhn's.

    Trianon was as wrenching, humiliating, and unjust as Versailles.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  62. @anonymous coward

    But I do think that we are now at probably the most dangerous point in world affairs since Russian and NATO troops faced off at Pristina Airport in 1999, if not since the Cold War.
     
    The so-called Cold War was a clown catfight compared to the serious business going on today.

    Ultimately, the USA and USSR had no real ideological differences. The "Cold War" was a fight over who gets to install liberal western values on the darkies first.

    It's different today and USA and Russia actually have deep-seated and unfixable ideological rifts.

    The so-called Cold War was a clown catfight compared to the serious business going on today.

    During the Cold War, the leadership of both superpowers were horrified of the idea of another world war. This is no longer true, because, at least in the US, no one believes in the possibility of nukes ever being used or of American arms ever getting defeated.

    They think they will always be victorious, and war is just a question of internal political considerations, because whenever they have a will, they will be victorious, and the destruction will only affect other countries.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Randal
    As I've warned before, in the teeth of those insisting the Yanks would never dare actually attack in Syria, there are senior people in the US who believe that the Russians will back down over Syria, that they will lose anyway if they don't back down, and that they would never dare start a wider war over Syria still less go nuclear. All they think they need is the right pretext, to give them political cover in the US and to a lesser extent diplomatic cover, for the consequences. Clearly, they think they have that now.

    My impression is that those types have not necessarily been reduced in influence by Trump's personnel choices, but we will only know for sure when we see the actual choices the US regime makes. Doubtless after the fact, if they do back away from the edge we'll hear the same voices triumphantly insisting there was never any chance of any other outcome, but such confidence is imo misplaced.

    The point merely emphasises what Russia and Putin are up against, and the reasons for caution, and why Syria was a genuinely risky gamble by Putin. I think it was a worthwhile gamble, because a successful regime change in Syria would have meant renewed jihadist activity in and around Russia, a US move against Iran, and increasing isolation for Russia. In the end, faced with the kind of universalist unappeasable aggressors running the US sphere you have to take a stand somewhere.
    , @peterAUS

    During the Cold War, the leadership of both superpowers were horrified of the idea of another world war. This is no longer true, because, at least in the US, no one believes in the possibility of nukes ever being used or of American arms ever getting defeated.

    They think they will always be victorious, and war is just a question of internal political considerations, because whenever they have a will, they will be victorious, and the destruction will only affect other countries.
     
    Yup.
    They got elected though. By us. Even now nobody cares.
    So.....
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  63. I cannot remember such a crisis with both sides’ ships moving closer to each other. The only similar crisis was the Cuban Missile Crisis, when the Soviet fleet was moving there, while the Americans started blockading the place, and both sides authorized their vessels to use force if needed.

    But then both sides had a point: the Americans were correct that Cuba had been their sphere of influence (so it was a kind of expansion by the Soviets) and that it was vital to their interests. The Soviets were correct that international law allowed this, and that if they managed to live with American missiles in Turkey, then the Americans should be able to live with Soviet missiles in Cuba. Also, despite their determination to fight a war if they need to, both sides genuinely were worried about the prospects of a new world war (and a nuclear one, to boot), so they both were genuinely interested in finding a way out. Because both sides had reasonable positions based on geopolitics, it was easy to find a way out.

    Right now, the Americans and their satellites are not being reasonable. They are using emotional arguments, which make no sense whatsoever. If they so much cared for children, they wouldn’t participate in the blockade of Yemen, which is already starving hundreds of thousands of Yemeni children to death. They also don’t seem to be afraid of the prospect of a shooting war with Russia. They don’t think it will result in a world war, or they don’t care.

    I seriously think the US elites are crazy (if any further proof was needed, and their support of feminism, BLM, LGBTQWERTY, etc. weren’t enough), and that it will prove near impossible to bring them to their senses. I still hope it will be possible (if there’s something I don’t want right now, it’s a nuclear war), but I’m a little bit worried.

    Read More
    • Replies: @for-the-record
    Also, despite their determination to fight a war if they need to, both sides genuinely were worried about the prospects of a new world war (and a nuclear one, to boot), so they both were genuinely interested in finding a way out.

    The parallel is by no means exact, and the current situation is in some respects more worrisome. In October 1962 the Joint Chiefs of Staff was not really looking too hard for a peaceful solution:

    That meeting convinced Kennedy that he had been well advised to shun the chiefs’ counsel. As the session started, Maxwell Taylor—by then the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff—said the chiefs had agreed on a course of action: a surprise air strike followed by surveillance to detect further threats and a blockade to stop shipments of additional weapons. Kennedy replied that he saw no “satisfactory alternatives” but considered a blockade the least likely to bring a nuclear war. Curtis LeMay was forceful in opposing anything short of direct military action. The Air Force chief dismissed the president’s apprehension that the Soviets would respond to an attack on their Cuban missiles by seizing West Berlin. To the contrary, LeMay argued: bombing the missiles would deter Moscow, while leaving them intact would only encourage the Soviets to move against Berlin. “This blockade and political action … will lead right into war,” LeMay warned, and the Army, Navy, and Marine Corps chiefs agreed.

    https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2013/08/jfk-vs-the-military/309496/
     
    In the end, Kennedy was the voice of reason and this was the determining factor. Are we really so sure the same will be the case with Trump?
    , @German_reader

    Because both sides had reasonable positions based on geopolitics, it was easy to find a way out.
     
    I agree with your general point, but I don't think it can be said it was easy to find a peaceful solution to the Cuban missile crisis. Despite JFK and Crushchev both being fundamentally rational people, who had lived through WW2 and didn't want another war, it was a very close-run thing, with several incidents that could easily have led to war due to decisions taken by military people on the spot (e.g. that Soviet sub with nuclear-armed torpedoes that had depth charges used it against it by US destroyers). There were strong pressures on Kennedy to escalate to using military force against Cuba. To his credit he resisted them.
    Which makes the present situation all the scarier. I don't think Trump with his character flaws, surrounded by war-mongering advisers like Bolton and egged on by a hysterical media, can be trusted to see the need for deescalation. There seems to be no one to rein him in, with a lot of forces pushing him towards bellicosity.
    , @European-American

    I seriously think the US elites are crazy
     
    Isn't it odd that, at a time when we elected a president whom most people would agree at least acts crazy, just when we need a sane and moderating alternative, the opposition seems as crazy if not crazier?

    So the problem isn't specific people. It's the times that seem crazy all over. I hope it's mostly just superficial hysteria.

    I just don't understand why we care that much about one particular massacre in an area where massacres happen all the time, some of them caused by us or our allies. I mean... I have theories... But none make much sense.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  64. Randal says:
    @reiner Tor

    This Western elite unity did not exist prior to the Obama Administration, nor did it even exist during the Cold War when there was a genuine threat.
     
    The NSA also has a lot of dirt on each one of them. I would dismiss it as irrelevant and/or conspiracy theory, not the least because of the seemingly incompetent and disorganized nature of the American intelligence services, but now with this strange unity it needs to be taken seriously.

    The NSA also has a lot of dirt on each one of them

    The strange unity goes a lot deeper than just the few in office. This obsessive anti-Russian hatred seems to permeate almost the entire political and media classes and ensures that (at least in Britain) there is no real need for the government to police dissent on this – there is virtually no dissent to police, and what little there is, is crushed by the weight of heavily biased and often irrational anti-Russian opinion in the media and from political figures.

    It is genuinely quite bizarre.

    It is, I think, a reflection of the total triumph of the political left in US sphere societies. The elites are almost wholly of the left now, culturally speaking – socially radical, internationalist, anti-patriotic. And since Russia, at least as it is represented in the US sphere, stands against many of the dogmas of the left, it is hated. And it is particularly hated by many of the endlessly active minority lobbies that drive opinion in the US sphere via the media and their unsleeping, obsessive lobbying organisations – homos especially, for not sufficiently kowtowing to the complete triumph of their dogmas as US sphere societies have done, but also nationalist lobby groups that see Russia as acting against their national interests or have historical grievances- Israeli/jewish, Ukrainian, etc.

    It’s a bizarre kind of “perfect storm” situation for Russia.

    Russians should not blame themselves or their leaders – it’s mostly a refusal to kowtow (especially when perceived as weak, after the collapse of the Soviet Union) that has triggered the hatred, and if the options are kowtow or be hated then honour requires the latter.

    My feeling is: if you have to destroy the world rather than knuckle under to the bullies, go ahead. Better dead than red.

    Read More
    • Replies: @reiner Tor

    My feeling is: if you have to destroy the world rather than knuckle under to the bullies, go ahead. Better dead than red.
     
    Same thing here. My daughter is in the daycare, not suspecting any of this, though. It'd be nice if she survived and lived to give birth to many happy children later on. Hopefully in a better one than the one seemingly populated by people marching like lemmings to their destruction.
    , @German_reader

    My feeling is: if you have to destroy the world rather than knuckle under to the bullies, go ahead. Better dead than red.
     
    I understand the sentiment, but frankly, I deeply resent the idea that large parts of my country (certainly the part where I live) might get destroyed for the bizarre exceptionalist fantasies of mentally deficient US nationalists and the politicians they keep electing despite their disastrous record. Something neither I nor anybody else in central Europe can influence.
    It was different when the Red army occupied the other half of Europe and of Germany, at least then a war would have been about issues genuinely central to us. But this idiocy? It shouldn't have anything to do with us and I hate the Atlanticist Quislings in politics and media enabling this.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  65. @Randal

    The NSA also has a lot of dirt on each one of them
     
    The strange unity goes a lot deeper than just the few in office. This obsessive anti-Russian hatred seems to permeate almost the entire political and media classes and ensures that (at least in Britain) there is no real need for the government to police dissent on this - there is virtually no dissent to police, and what little there is, is crushed by the weight of heavily biased and often irrational anti-Russian opinion in the media and from political figures.

    It is genuinely quite bizarre.

    It is, I think, a reflection of the total triumph of the political left in US sphere societies. The elites are almost wholly of the left now, culturally speaking - socially radical, internationalist, anti-patriotic. And since Russia, at least as it is represented in the US sphere, stands against many of the dogmas of the left, it is hated. And it is particularly hated by many of the endlessly active minority lobbies that drive opinion in the US sphere via the media and their unsleeping, obsessive lobbying organisations - homos especially, for not sufficiently kowtowing to the complete triumph of their dogmas as US sphere societies have done, but also nationalist lobby groups that see Russia as acting against their national interests or have historical grievances- Israeli/jewish, Ukrainian, etc.

    It's a bizarre kind of "perfect storm" situation for Russia.

    Russians should not blame themselves or their leaders - it's mostly a refusal to kowtow (especially when perceived as weak, after the collapse of the Soviet Union) that has triggered the hatred, and if the options are kowtow or be hated then honour requires the latter.

    My feeling is: if you have to destroy the world rather than knuckle under to the bullies, go ahead. Better dead than red.

    My feeling is: if you have to destroy the world rather than knuckle under to the bullies, go ahead. Better dead than red.

    Same thing here. My daughter is in the daycare, not suspecting any of this, though. It’d be nice if she survived and lived to give birth to many happy children later on. Hopefully in a better one than the one seemingly populated by people marching like lemmings to their destruction.

    Read More
    • Replies: @for-the-record
    My daughter is in the daycare, not suspecting any of this, though.

    Look on the bright side, my childhood was seriously marked (or perhaps marred) by repeated drills against nuclear attack, as exemplified in this classic civil defence film:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BFT8hLjHtuE
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  66. LondonBob says:

    Looks like PM May is less than enthusiatic, no real support for bombing Syria here in Britain. Could this torpedo the whole adventure?

    Read More
    • Replies: @reiner Tor
    That would be great.
    , @Randal
    Perhaps the experience of 2013 still worries May.

    It's difficult to see another such Commons defeat though - the Labour Party is still heavily infiltrated with Blairite scum, the establishment left seems to have completely given up on the quaint notion that we should abide by our treaty commitments not to wage war without UNSC approval, and jingoism seems to reign, as usual, amongst the Tories (and most of the other parties as well, in truth).

    The literally childish Blairite notions of "humanitarian" intervention and an "unreasonable veto" that can simply be ignored seem to have become almost received elite opinion in the UK. Who is there left to point out the hypocritical absurdity of breaking the law in order to enforce it?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  67. Randal says:
    @reiner Tor

    The so-called Cold War was a clown catfight compared to the serious business going on today.
     
    During the Cold War, the leadership of both superpowers were horrified of the idea of another world war. This is no longer true, because, at least in the US, no one believes in the possibility of nukes ever being used or of American arms ever getting defeated.

    They think they will always be victorious, and war is just a question of internal political considerations, because whenever they have a will, they will be victorious, and the destruction will only affect other countries.

    As I’ve warned before, in the teeth of those insisting the Yanks would never dare actually attack in Syria, there are senior people in the US who believe that the Russians will back down over Syria, that they will lose anyway if they don’t back down, and that they would never dare start a wider war over Syria still less go nuclear. All they think they need is the right pretext, to give them political cover in the US and to a lesser extent diplomatic cover, for the consequences. Clearly, they think they have that now.

    My impression is that those types have not necessarily been reduced in influence by Trump’s personnel choices, but we will only know for sure when we see the actual choices the US regime makes. Doubtless after the fact, if they do back away from the edge we’ll hear the same voices triumphantly insisting there was never any chance of any other outcome, but such confidence is imo misplaced.

    The point merely emphasises what Russia and Putin are up against, and the reasons for caution, and why Syria was a genuinely risky gamble by Putin. I think it was a worthwhile gamble, because a successful regime change in Syria would have meant renewed jihadist activity in and around Russia, a US move against Iran, and increasing isolation for Russia. In the end, faced with the kind of universalist unappeasable aggressors running the US sphere you have to take a stand somewhere.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Mikhail
    The neocon/neolib and flat out Russia hating cabal, have a clear game plan in mind, that's quite dangerous in terms of what it can trigger.

    The likes of Fox News' Brian Kilmeade, simplistically say that Russia's strength in Syria is too limited to scare off a definitive US led strike. These folks simplistically ignore what Russia could do with its arsenal not in Syria.

    At play is the potential for a kind of modern day Cuban Missile Crisis. Bluster has been reported from Russia's ambassador in Lebanon - something that Western mass media has played up.

    Neocons, neolibs and flat out Russia haters, will view a militarily weak Russia (relative to a US attack) as a means of gradually reducing Putin's popularity.

    Stay tuned.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  68. @LondonBob
    Looks like PM May is less than enthusiatic, no real support for bombing Syria here in Britain. Could this torpedo the whole adventure?

    That would be great.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  69. Randal says:
    @LondonBob
    Looks like PM May is less than enthusiatic, no real support for bombing Syria here in Britain. Could this torpedo the whole adventure?

    Perhaps the experience of 2013 still worries May.

    It’s difficult to see another such Commons defeat though – the Labour Party is still heavily infiltrated with Blairite scum, the establishment left seems to have completely given up on the quaint notion that we should abide by our treaty commitments not to wage war without UNSC approval, and jingoism seems to reign, as usual, amongst the Tories (and most of the other parties as well, in truth).

    The literally childish Blairite notions of “humanitarian” intervention and an “unreasonable veto” that can simply be ignored seem to have become almost received elite opinion in the UK. Who is there left to point out the hypocritical absurdity of breaking the law in order to enforce it?

    Read More
    • Replies: @LondonBob
    Not sure about that, I suspect more Conservative MPs would break ranks than Labour ones, 30 Conservatives broke ranks last time, May isn't nearly as enthusiatic this time as Cameron and Osborne were then. The likes of Julian Lewis and John Baron have been vocal in criticism about the proposed action already. The British people, sorry I mean Russian trolls, aren't in favour and Corbyn would benefit electorally.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  70. LondonBob says:
    @Randal
    Perhaps the experience of 2013 still worries May.

    It's difficult to see another such Commons defeat though - the Labour Party is still heavily infiltrated with Blairite scum, the establishment left seems to have completely given up on the quaint notion that we should abide by our treaty commitments not to wage war without UNSC approval, and jingoism seems to reign, as usual, amongst the Tories (and most of the other parties as well, in truth).

    The literally childish Blairite notions of "humanitarian" intervention and an "unreasonable veto" that can simply be ignored seem to have become almost received elite opinion in the UK. Who is there left to point out the hypocritical absurdity of breaking the law in order to enforce it?

    Not sure about that, I suspect more Conservative MPs would break ranks than Labour ones, 30 Conservatives broke ranks last time, May isn’t nearly as enthusiatic this time as Cameron and Osborne were then. The likes of Julian Lewis and John Baron have been vocal in criticism about the proposed action already. The British people, sorry I mean Russian trolls, aren’t in favour and Corbyn would benefit electorally.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Randal
    You may be right. Certainly it appears May agrees with you, or at any rate she fears a Commons defeat.

    Will it torpedo the whole adventure? Well France seems fully on board, and May can promise all kinds of support short of actual military action. I don't see it being a deal breaker for the Yanks making the decision, but every little helps.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  71. LondonBob says:

    https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2013/08/mps-who-voted-against-syria-motion-full-list

    Six DUP MPs voted against action too, I didn’t know that.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  72. g2k says:

    I wonder if this AK article will get to see its tenth birthday.

    https://www.unz.com/akarlin/thinking-nuclear-war/

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  73. Kimppis says:

    So it seems the sanctions are finally having a real impact? For the first time since 2014-15, that is.

    https://www.rt.com/business/423783-russian-stock-market-ruble/

    “I think the surge in inflation, the weakening of consumer and investment confidence, will weaken GDP growth rates in 2018 to zero or even negative values (from 0.0% to -1.0%). The key rate cut is postponed until the better times,” he told RT.

    Just one analyst and I’m not even sure if he’s talking about the current situation or just about some worst-case scenario.

    Well, there goes the “stable ruble” in any case. I guess a (very) weak ruble is not such a good thing after all? But shouldn’t the increases in export earnings (Russia exports energy in dollars -> receives more rubles) more than mitigate that? The budget deficit was already pretty much non-existent last year, reserves growing rapidly. I guess not?

    So where’s Mercouris?

    Oh that reminded me: where’s Martyanov? His last blog post is from 10 months ago and on Unz from a few months ago? Because his cruise missile silver bullets are needed now.

    All in all, it’s IMO telling that I’m also quite worried – just like many others here – and that just doesn’t happen often. A scary thought, for real.

    The Western media is beating the drumbeat for war, and unlike in 2003, during the Libyan Crisis, or even last year, I see hardly any skepticism about it in the comments. The few skeptics are invariably labeled Russian trolls. I am really getting the impression that the degree of popular hate in the West towards Russia is approaching what Allied citizens must have felt towards Nazi Germany by 1941. Kudos where its due: Neoliberalism.txt has programmed its peons well.

    I’ve been avoiding the MSM and especially their comment sections quite succesfully for the past few years (does wonders to your mental health), so I’m certainly out of the loop here, but that sounds almost unbelievable… at first anyway.

    But I guess I really wasn’t overreacting at all about their Russia coverage back in 2014-15 (at the latest), when I realized that it was really nothing but propaganda, if any additional “evidence” was needed at this point. The situation really is that bad.

    How is this not like the most obvious false flag ever? Why the fuck do they care? They don’t realize the potential risks, the Russian military being involved and all that?

    Is this largely due to the Skripal incident? The straw that broke the camel’s back, so to speak? The neoliberalism.txt has certainly built up the “Putler personally murders thousands of dissidents and journalists every year” meme extremely well, which is kind of amazing considering it pretty much couldn’t be farther from reality. Then you realize that nowadays we have things like Russiagate and Russian “election interference” in general, so no wonder…

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  74. Mikhail says: • Website
    @Randal
    As I've warned before, in the teeth of those insisting the Yanks would never dare actually attack in Syria, there are senior people in the US who believe that the Russians will back down over Syria, that they will lose anyway if they don't back down, and that they would never dare start a wider war over Syria still less go nuclear. All they think they need is the right pretext, to give them political cover in the US and to a lesser extent diplomatic cover, for the consequences. Clearly, they think they have that now.

    My impression is that those types have not necessarily been reduced in influence by Trump's personnel choices, but we will only know for sure when we see the actual choices the US regime makes. Doubtless after the fact, if they do back away from the edge we'll hear the same voices triumphantly insisting there was never any chance of any other outcome, but such confidence is imo misplaced.

    The point merely emphasises what Russia and Putin are up against, and the reasons for caution, and why Syria was a genuinely risky gamble by Putin. I think it was a worthwhile gamble, because a successful regime change in Syria would have meant renewed jihadist activity in and around Russia, a US move against Iran, and increasing isolation for Russia. In the end, faced with the kind of universalist unappeasable aggressors running the US sphere you have to take a stand somewhere.

    The neocon/neolib and flat out Russia hating cabal, have a clear game plan in mind, that’s quite dangerous in terms of what it can trigger.

    The likes of Fox News’ Brian Kilmeade, simplistically say that Russia’s strength in Syria is too limited to scare off a definitive US led strike. These folks simplistically ignore what Russia could do with its arsenal not in Syria.

    At play is the potential for a kind of modern day Cuban Missile Crisis. Bluster has been reported from Russia’s ambassador in Lebanon – something that Western mass media has played up.

    Neocons, neolibs and flat out Russia haters, will view a militarily weak Russia (relative to a US attack) as a means of gradually reducing Putin’s popularity.

    Stay tuned.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Randal

    These folks simplistically ignore what Russia could do with its arsenal not in Syria.
     
    They don't simplistically ignore it. They argue that Russia will not risk such escalation. Their view is that the US has escalation superiority over Syria as a result.

    Neocons, neolibs and flat out Russia haters, will view a militarily weak Russia (relative to a US attack) as a means of gradually reducing Putin’s popularity.
     
    Yes, they are positively salivating at the prospect of humiliating Russia.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  75. Rob1963 says:

    In terms of “what the hell happened” [to this batch of Western ‘leaders’] I recall the comment by George Kennan one of the key architects of NATO and Soviet containment policy who after the Soviet Union imploded was appalled at NATO’s expansion in the 90s and not taking into account Russia’s interests and having no idea of Russian fears and hopes.

    In this interview from 1998 https://mobile.nytimes.com/1998/05/02/opinion/foreign-affairs-now-a-word-from-x.html
    after railing against NATO expansion he ends with:

    Yes, tell your children, and your children’s children, that you lived in the age of Bill Clinton and William Cohen, the age of Madeleine Albright and Sandy Berger, the age of Trent Lott and Joe Lieberman, and you too were present at the creation of the post-cold-war order, when these foreign policy Titans put their heads together and produced . . . a mouse.

    We are in the age of midgets. The only good news is that we got here in one piece because there was another age — one of great statesmen who had both imagination and courage.

    As he said goodbye to me on the phone, Mr. Kennan added just one more thing: ”This has been my life, and it pains me to see it so screwed up in the end.”

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  76. Kimppis says:

    Trump’s Twitter, Jesus Christ… Oh boy, here we go!

    Atleast the ‘smart’ part is somewhat encouraging.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  77. Read More
    • Replies: @Pavlo
    America is Russia's Amalek, evidently.

    It will have to be dealt with accordingly.
    , @Thorfinnsson
    This honestly could be good news.

    Trump has long said that telegraphing military strategy to enemies is idiotic (mostly correct). Contrary to myth, he does restrain his tweeting as well (see any Stormy Daniels tweets?).

    The tweet also implies limiting the retaliation to missiles, which suggests no contact between the chair force and gayvy with RuAF.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  78. LondonBob says:

    Just cruise missiles but more than last time. Means Russia can ignore and try to shoot down as many as possible. So no big deal.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Kimppis
    Yes, that is what I think the 'smart' means as well, so they probably won't actually target the Russian bases.

    But holy fucking SHIT (!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!)... You don't see that everyday. For a few seconds I thought it was a parody account.
    , @reiner Tor
    “Zaspikin stressed that the Russian forces will confront any US aggression on Syria, by intercepting the missiles and striking their launch pads.”
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  79. Pavlo says:
    @reiner Tor
    https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/984022625440747520?s=20

    America is Russia’s Amalek, evidently.

    It will have to be dealt with accordingly.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  80. Kimppis says:
    @LondonBob
    Just cruise missiles but more than last time. Means Russia can ignore and try to shoot down as many as possible. So no big deal.

    Yes, that is what I think the ‘smart’ means as well, so they probably won’t actually target the Russian bases.

    But holy fucking SHIT (!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!)… You don’t see that everyday. For a few seconds I thought it was a parody account.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  81. @LondonBob
    Just cruise missiles but more than last time. Means Russia can ignore and try to shoot down as many as possible. So no big deal.

    “Zaspikin stressed that the Russian forces will confront any US aggression on Syria, by intercepting the missiles and striking their launch pads.”

    Read More
    • Replies: @LondonBob
    Why would they bother attacking launch sites? Not sure if they will even utilise the S400 this time either. Meaningless gesture like Shayrat.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  82. Randal says:
    @LondonBob
    Not sure about that, I suspect more Conservative MPs would break ranks than Labour ones, 30 Conservatives broke ranks last time, May isn't nearly as enthusiatic this time as Cameron and Osborne were then. The likes of Julian Lewis and John Baron have been vocal in criticism about the proposed action already. The British people, sorry I mean Russian trolls, aren't in favour and Corbyn would benefit electorally.

    You may be right. Certainly it appears May agrees with you, or at any rate she fears a Commons defeat.

    Will it torpedo the whole adventure? Well France seems fully on board, and May can promise all kinds of support short of actual military action. I don’t see it being a deal breaker for the Yanks making the decision, but every little helps.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  83. + Visitorship to my blog will soar
    + We get to settle the modern IADS vs. stealth debate once and for all
    + This is truly the dankest timeline

    - I am probably in the top global percentile for least likelihood of surviving a nuclear war

    Read More
    • LOL: reiner Tor
    • Replies: @Randal

    We get to settle the modern IADS vs. stealth debate once and for all
     
    Doubt that. If it all does kick off, some missiles will always get through, some will be shot down. The advocates of stealth will claim victory based on the damage done and the advocates of defence will just argue that Russia's defences Syria were overwhelmed by sheer numerical superiority.
    , @Daniel Chieh
    Smart missiles: the servant exceeds the master.
    , @palmtoptiger
    @Anatoly Karlin

    I am probably in the top global percentile for least likelihood of surviving a nuclear war
     
    now, now.. you can't have such trivialties as your life get in the way of your blog's popularity :)
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  84. Randal says:
    @Mikhail
    The neocon/neolib and flat out Russia hating cabal, have a clear game plan in mind, that's quite dangerous in terms of what it can trigger.

    The likes of Fox News' Brian Kilmeade, simplistically say that Russia's strength in Syria is too limited to scare off a definitive US led strike. These folks simplistically ignore what Russia could do with its arsenal not in Syria.

    At play is the potential for a kind of modern day Cuban Missile Crisis. Bluster has been reported from Russia's ambassador in Lebanon - something that Western mass media has played up.

    Neocons, neolibs and flat out Russia haters, will view a militarily weak Russia (relative to a US attack) as a means of gradually reducing Putin's popularity.

    Stay tuned.

    These folks simplistically ignore what Russia could do with its arsenal not in Syria.

    They don’t simplistically ignore it. They argue that Russia will not risk such escalation. Their view is that the US has escalation superiority over Syria as a result.

    Neocons, neolibs and flat out Russia haters, will view a militarily weak Russia (relative to a US attack) as a means of gradually reducing Putin’s popularity.

    Yes, they are positively salivating at the prospect of humiliating Russia.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Mikhail
    The likes of Kilmeade do ignore such, as he just did on Fox News within the last two hours or so.
    , @peterAUS
    Agree, so far, with all your posts.
    Scrolling down.....
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  85. LondonBob says:
    @reiner Tor
    “Zaspikin stressed that the Russian forces will confront any US aggression on Syria, by intercepting the missiles and striking their launch pads.”

    Why would they bother attacking launch sites? Not sure if they will even utilise the S400 this time either. Meaningless gesture like Shayrat.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Randal

    Meaningless gesture like Shayrat.
     
    Depends how big the gesture is. A big enough gesture acquires meaning of its own.

    Suppose, for instance, the US strikes include a decapitation attack in Damascus, and an ongoing campaign against the Syrian air force?

    Donald J. Trump
    ✔ @realDonaldTrump



    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!
     
    Trump just raised the stakes.

    Russia now has to decide whether to accept this as another Shayrat and do damage limitation (they never committed to defending Syria, only Russian forces, etc) and concede the pot on this occasion, or raise the stakes themselves by maintaining the stance that they will oppose US strikes. Now, when some missiles get through, as they inevitably will, the US sphere militarists will crow that even when told exactly what's coming the Russians could not prevent it. Passive defence is not a viable response - only a reiterated threat to target launch systems and locations. That's a big step up the escalation ladder, but if the Russians are going to do it they should make a very big noise about it now. Any US or allied deaths will be portrayed as victims of Russian aggression (and incredible as it might seem, that portrayal will get traction in the US and to a lesser extent in Europe). Only a clear and loud advance notice will defuse that dangerous situation to some extent.

    Does Russia have the nerve for the latter? Should it have?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  86. Randal says:
    @Anatoly Karlin
    https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/984022625440747520

    + Visitorship to my blog will soar
    + We get to settle the modern IADS vs. stealth debate once and for all
    + This is truly the dankest timeline

    - I am probably in the top global percentile for least likelihood of surviving a nuclear war

    We get to settle the modern IADS vs. stealth debate once and for all

    Doubt that. If it all does kick off, some missiles will always get through, some will be shot down. The advocates of stealth will claim victory based on the damage done and the advocates of defence will just argue that Russia’s defences Syria were overwhelmed by sheer numerical superiority.

    Read More
    • Agree: Kimppis
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  87. Kimppis says:

    So when is it going to start? Can’t be long now?

    What is the situation with May? France?

    Are they really going to wait until the carrier arrives? Probably not?

    Martyanov, I hope you’re OK! (Really.)

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  88. @German_reader

    Why not Stalin or Lenin?
     
    Stalin supposedly corrupted the revolution and was just another Great Russian chauvinist, no different from the tsars (at least that's what stupid Western lefties often professed to believe).
    Lenin is trickier, but I guess it's too hard nowadays to deny all the deaths he was responsible for (and the Bolsheviks actually used poison gas to crush peasant uprisings in 1921).
    Karl Marx never held political power, so it's easier to ascribe only the noblest and most humane of intentions to him.
    Is there an exact quote of what this grotesque ambassador creature said at the UN? I'd like to know the context.
    Telling though if Karl Marx is now supposed to be a Western hero.

    She’s not wrong though. Karl Marx would be horrified with modern Russia (he’d be horrified with modern America too, for different reasons).

    I think Russia is unquestionably less dangerous on the international scene than America, but that doesn’t mean I like their current political, social and economic model.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Mikhail
    Yeah I saw that Brit UN ambassador say such. Sovok objections aside, Marx was an anti-Russian bastard.
    , @German_reader

    Karl Marx would be horrified with modern Russia
     
    Karl Marx was horrified about Russia in his own day, so it wouldn't be exactly much of a change.
    And sorry, I understand you're a leftist, but the fact that representatives of major Western powers now present Karl Marx (whose ideas aren't just some benevolent humanitarianism, that's a misrepresentation) as some positive figure bothers me. That's not something I can identify with.
    , @Daniel Chieh
    My understanding of the Marxist dialectic is that it would advocate abolition/minimization of the means of production from private, bourgeoisie control and while neither the Russian coalition nor the American one explicitly promote the interests of the proletariat through public/state control, Russia runs more state-owned enterprises and is more likely to be responsive to the proletariat by that theory; the American coalition has assumed the role of the classic imperialistic bourgeoisie capitalists.

    Of course, he'll be horrified. But he wouldn't support the UK's activity either.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  89. Randal says:
    @LondonBob
    Why would they bother attacking launch sites? Not sure if they will even utilise the S400 this time either. Meaningless gesture like Shayrat.

    Meaningless gesture like Shayrat.

    Depends how big the gesture is. A big enough gesture acquires meaning of its own.

    Suppose, for instance, the US strikes include a decapitation attack in Damascus, and an ongoing campaign against the Syrian air force?

    Donald J. Trump
    ✔ @realDonaldTrump

    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!

    Trump just raised the stakes.

    Russia now has to decide whether to accept this as another Shayrat and do damage limitation (they never committed to defending Syria, only Russian forces, etc) and concede the pot on this occasion, or raise the stakes themselves by maintaining the stance that they will oppose US strikes. Now, when some missiles get through, as they inevitably will, the US sphere militarists will crow that even when told exactly what’s coming the Russians could not prevent it. Passive defence is not a viable response – only a reiterated threat to target launch systems and locations. That’s a big step up the escalation ladder, but if the Russians are going to do it they should make a very big noise about it now. Any US or allied deaths will be portrayed as victims of Russian aggression (and incredible as it might seem, that portrayal will get traction in the US and to a lesser extent in Europe). Only a clear and loud advance notice will defuse that dangerous situation to some extent.

    Does Russia have the nerve for the latter? Should it have?

    Read More
    • Replies: @reiner Tor

    Trump just raised the stakes.
     
    By taunting Russia, he makes it more humiliating for the Russians to back down. This also means it just got less likely that they will back down.
    , @Randal

    Should it have?
     
    If I were in Putin's shoes, my response would be a tweet right back at Trump as follows;

    "There was no chemical attack by the Syrians and you know it. If the US attacks Syria, we will respond, including sinking the USS Donald Cook"

    And I would follow through in it (though in the event I would pick another ship probably, just for convenience and so as to evade any extra US countermeasures in response to the threat), and let the chips fall where they may. The point is to flag up the intention to kill Americans in response to their attack, in advance, so as to reduce their ability to portray such measures as "Russian aggression".

    Of course, fortunately Putin is a much more cautious and responsible man than I am.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  90. @Randal

    Meaningless gesture like Shayrat.
     
    Depends how big the gesture is. A big enough gesture acquires meaning of its own.

    Suppose, for instance, the US strikes include a decapitation attack in Damascus, and an ongoing campaign against the Syrian air force?

    Donald J. Trump
    ✔ @realDonaldTrump



    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!
     
    Trump just raised the stakes.

    Russia now has to decide whether to accept this as another Shayrat and do damage limitation (they never committed to defending Syria, only Russian forces, etc) and concede the pot on this occasion, or raise the stakes themselves by maintaining the stance that they will oppose US strikes. Now, when some missiles get through, as they inevitably will, the US sphere militarists will crow that even when told exactly what's coming the Russians could not prevent it. Passive defence is not a viable response - only a reiterated threat to target launch systems and locations. That's a big step up the escalation ladder, but if the Russians are going to do it they should make a very big noise about it now. Any US or allied deaths will be portrayed as victims of Russian aggression (and incredible as it might seem, that portrayal will get traction in the US and to a lesser extent in Europe). Only a clear and loud advance notice will defuse that dangerous situation to some extent.

    Does Russia have the nerve for the latter? Should it have?

    Trump just raised the stakes.

    By taunting Russia, he makes it more humiliating for the Russians to back down. This also means it just got less likely that they will back down.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  91. @Daniel Chieh
    https://twitter.com/KyleWOrton/status/983798866838544385

    Is it just me or it seems like very weird insult? Why Marx? Why not Stalin or Lenin?

    Karl Marx, proud subject of the Tsar and Autocrat of all the Russias, King of Poland, Grand Duke of Finland, by Grace of God His Majesty Nicholas I Pavlovovich Romanov.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  92. Mikhail says: • Website
    @Randal

    These folks simplistically ignore what Russia could do with its arsenal not in Syria.
     
    They don't simplistically ignore it. They argue that Russia will not risk such escalation. Their view is that the US has escalation superiority over Syria as a result.

    Neocons, neolibs and flat out Russia haters, will view a militarily weak Russia (relative to a US attack) as a means of gradually reducing Putin’s popularity.
     
    Yes, they are positively salivating at the prospect of humiliating Russia.

    The likes of Kilmeade do ignore such, as he just did on Fox News within the last two hours or so.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  93. Mikhail says: • Website
    @Hector_St_Clare
    She's not wrong though. Karl Marx would be horrified with modern Russia (he'd be horrified with modern America too, for different reasons).

    I think Russia is unquestionably less dangerous on the international scene than America, but that doesn't mean I like their current political, social and economic model.

    Yeah I saw that Brit UN ambassador say such. Sovok objections aside, Marx was an anti-Russian bastard.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  94. @Stonehands
    “Well the man isn’t stupid–how much money are you worth?....”

    Lots of money is a sure sign of virtue in the spiritually loathesome United States...

    Lots of money is a sure sign of virtue in the spiritually loathesome United States…

    Who said anything about virtue?

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

    Meaningless gesture like Shayrat.
     
    Depends how big the gesture is. A big enough gesture acquires meaning of its own.

    Suppose, for instance, the US strikes include a decapitation attack in Damascus, and an ongoing campaign against the Syrian air force?

    Donald J. Trump
    ✔ @realDonaldTrump



    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!
     
    Trump just raised the stakes.

    Russia now has to decide whether to accept this as another Shayrat and do damage limitation (they never committed to defending Syria, only Russian forces, etc) and concede the pot on this occasion, or raise the stakes themselves by maintaining the stance that they will oppose US strikes. Now, when some missiles get through, as they inevitably will, the US sphere militarists will crow that even when told exactly what's coming the Russians could not prevent it. Passive defence is not a viable response - only a reiterated threat to target launch systems and locations. That's a big step up the escalation ladder, but if the Russians are going to do it they should make a very big noise about it now. Any US or allied deaths will be portrayed as victims of Russian aggression (and incredible as it might seem, that portrayal will get traction in the US and to a lesser extent in Europe). Only a clear and loud advance notice will defuse that dangerous situation to some extent.

    Does Russia have the nerve for the latter? Should it have?

    Should it have?

    If I were in Putin’s shoes, my response would be a tweet right back at Trump as follows;

    “There was no chemical attack by the Syrians and you know it. If the US attacks Syria, we will respond, including sinking the USS Donald Cook”

    And I would follow through in it (though in the event I would pick another ship probably, just for convenience and so as to evade any extra US countermeasures in response to the threat), and let the chips fall where they may. The point is to flag up the intention to kill Americans in response to their attack, in advance, so as to reduce their ability to portray such measures as “Russian aggression”.

    Of course, fortunately Putin is a much more cautious and responsible man than I am.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Swedish Family

    If I were in Putin’s shoes, my response would be a tweet right back at Trump as follows;

    “There was no chemical attack by the Syrians and you know it. If the US attacks Syria, we will respond, including sinking the USS Donald Cook”

    And I would follow through in it (though in the event I would pick another ship probably, just for convenience and so as to evade any extra US countermeasures in response to the threat), and let the chips fall where they may. The point is to flag up the intention to kill Americans in response to their attack, in advance, so as to reduce their ability to portray such measures as “Russian aggression”.
     
    This is exactly my thinking too. Trump made a blunder here by referencing Russia's threat of retaliation in his tweet ("Russia vows to shoot down any and all missiles fired at Syria"). If he were smart, he would have stayed quiet about that part to make it easier to sell a possible Russian retaliation as "unprovoked aggression," or whatever term the PR people at Pentagon come up with.

    To add to that, I think the key here is for the Russians to build an awareness in the EU of how serious this situation is. What about putting all Russian nuclear forces on red alert? Maybe that would wake the European people from their stupor?
    , @LondonBob
    Russian overreaction is just what the neocons want. This won't alter the long term trend and is futile act that actually damages the US. Take a leaf out of Iran and Hezbollah's book, retaliation at a place and time of your own choosing.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  96. @Anatoly Karlin
    https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/984022625440747520

    + Visitorship to my blog will soar
    + We get to settle the modern IADS vs. stealth debate once and for all
    + This is truly the dankest timeline

    - I am probably in the top global percentile for least likelihood of surviving a nuclear war

    Smart missiles: the servant exceeds the master.

    Read More
    • LOL: reiner Tor
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  97. Tucker: “What is the American national interest that will be served by regime change?”
    Senator: “If you care about Israel… we have a strategic interest there.”

    And people tell me I’m exaggerating when I’m using the term ZOG unironically.
    INB4 “oh he’s just a GOP Christian evangelical, ZOG is still unproven”.

    Say again?

    The great majority of those Democratic donors are very committed Zionists and will work overtime to accomplish the objectives and interests of Israel. And it isn’t just donors either. The owners of media of course also play in, as well as the editors in chief. As Orwell said: to notice what is in front of your nose requires a constant struggle.

    I don’t think I’ve ever felt more strongly pro-Russian than now.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  98. @reiner Tor
    https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/984022625440747520?s=20

    This honestly could be good news.

    Trump has long said that telegraphing military strategy to enemies is idiotic (mostly correct). Contrary to myth, he does restrain his tweeting as well (see any Stormy Daniels tweets?).

    The tweet also implies limiting the retaliation to missiles, which suggests no contact between the chair force and gayvy with RuAF.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Randal

    The tweet also implies limiting the retaliation to missiles, which suggests no contact between the chair force and gayvy with RuAF.
     
    What is it you think will be carrying and launching those missiles?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  99. Aedib says:
    @Felix Keverich
    I did a cursory check and he seems to be busy writing angry, patriotic posts on his blog. Will be funny to watch his reaction if Russia fails to retaliate.

    Putin has been hiding under a rock for the past week: no public statements, no meeting security council...Does this look like a man ready for war?

    That silence is a sign that shit can get real. Putin was awfully quiet after Georgians invaded Ossetia, and he was awfully quiet when Maidan overthrew Yanuk.

    Read More
    • Agree: Randal, reiner Tor
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  100. Does Russia have the weapons to respond in theatre? Do the strategic bombers have the anti-ship missiles?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Randal

    Does Russia have the weapons to respond in theatre? Do the strategic bombers have the anti-ship missiles?
     
    Yes to both.

    Noticeably, the pro-Russian site Southfront very pointedly carried a story yesterday about anti-ship missiles in theatre:

    Russian Figter Jet Currying Kh-35 Cruise Anti-Ship Missiles Spotted Over Syria’s Tartus
    , @palmtoptiger
    @Lemurmaniac

    yes. Tu-22M3s or Su-34s can carry various anti-ship missiles like Х-35 etc. on land there's also the Bastion complex which even according to Wikipedia Syria has (fielding the P-800 Onyx which is Mach 2.6, a 200-300kg warhead depending on variant, and has a beyond-horizon range of up to 500km). various attack subs which may or not be around the Mediterranean can also carry P-800 Onyx or P-1000 Vulcan, which are all really heavy and dangerous missiles all quite capable of sinking big naval vessels (though not sure about a Nimitz class carrier with just 1 missile and conventional warhead).

    I maintain the thing is not so much about capability - that's well present, Russia can sink pretty much everything the US has in the Mediterranean within an hour probably - it's more about the will to openly move to a WW3. which I don't think Putin has.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  101. Randal says:

    How’s this for chutzpah, as the Skripal narrative rots on the floor in front of us (carefully not investigated or even mentioned much by the establishment media):

    But The Times reports that the UK’s Prime Minister Theresa May has urged Mr Trump to provide more evidence of the suspected chemical attack.

    Read More
    • Replies: @reiner Tor
    I have no lol button left. But here it is: LOL.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  102. Randal says:
    @Thorfinnsson
    This honestly could be good news.

    Trump has long said that telegraphing military strategy to enemies is idiotic (mostly correct). Contrary to myth, he does restrain his tweeting as well (see any Stormy Daniels tweets?).

    The tweet also implies limiting the retaliation to missiles, which suggests no contact between the chair force and gayvy with RuAF.

    The tweet also implies limiting the retaliation to missiles, which suggests no contact between the chair force and gayvy with RuAF.

    What is it you think will be carrying and launching those missiles?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Thorfinnsson


    What is it you think will be carrying and launching those missiles?
     
    Gayvy warships, though perhaps also chair force bombers launching from standoff range.

    This isn't good, but its different from attempting to gain air superiority in the theater.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  103. @Randal

    Should it have?
     
    If I were in Putin's shoes, my response would be a tweet right back at Trump as follows;

    "There was no chemical attack by the Syrians and you know it. If the US attacks Syria, we will respond, including sinking the USS Donald Cook"

    And I would follow through in it (though in the event I would pick another ship probably, just for convenience and so as to evade any extra US countermeasures in response to the threat), and let the chips fall where they may. The point is to flag up the intention to kill Americans in response to their attack, in advance, so as to reduce their ability to portray such measures as "Russian aggression".

    Of course, fortunately Putin is a much more cautious and responsible man than I am.

    If I were in Putin’s shoes, my response would be a tweet right back at Trump as follows;

    “There was no chemical attack by the Syrians and you know it. If the US attacks Syria, we will respond, including sinking the USS Donald Cook”

    And I would follow through in it (though in the event I would pick another ship probably, just for convenience and so as to evade any extra US countermeasures in response to the threat), and let the chips fall where they may. The point is to flag up the intention to kill Americans in response to their attack, in advance, so as to reduce their ability to portray such measures as “Russian aggression”.

    This is exactly my thinking too. Trump made a blunder here by referencing Russia’s threat of retaliation in his tweet (“Russia vows to shoot down any and all missiles fired at Syria”). If he were smart, he would have stayed quiet about that part to make it easier to sell a possible Russian retaliation as “unprovoked aggression,” or whatever term the PR people at Pentagon come up with.

    To add to that, I think the key here is for the Russians to build an awareness in the EU of how serious this situation is. What about putting all Russian nuclear forces on red alert? Maybe that would wake the European people from their stupor?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Randal

    To add to that, I think the key here is for the Russians to build an awareness in the EU of how serious this situation is. What about putting all Russian nuclear forces on red alert? Maybe that would wake the European people from their stupor?
     
    Either Russia has to fold and start damage limitation, or they should be doing exactly that kind of thing and announcing it publicly. They should state publicly that the nuclear alert is a direct response to Trump's open threat, as well.

    And if they aren't already, they should as a priority also be pushing China hard to make some kind of gestures, at least.
    , @Randal

    Trump made a blunder here by referencing Russia’s threat of retaliation in his tweet (“Russia vows to shoot down any and all missiles fired at Syria”). If he were smart, he would have stayed quiet about that part to make it easier to sell a possible Russian retaliation as “unprovoked aggression,” or whatever term the PR people at Pentagon come up with.
     
    You could see that another way, though, as contributing to structuring popular expectations of any Russian response as essentially passive defence - trying to shoot down the incoming missiles, only. This is how the US regime wants people thinking, because they will seek to use the shock value of any US or allied deaths that do occur as propaganda against Russia. While the Russians have made plenty of references to responding against launch platforms, I don't think the implications have really been taken on board by US sphere populations (and that's no accident). Any deaths will indeed be "unprovoked aggression" by Russia.

    So yes, he made reference to retaliation, but on the other hand he focussed attention on passive defence, with "retaliation" limited to shooting down missiles. That's how the US regime wants it, because it's a no-win situation for Russia.

    That's why I suggested they need to make the consequences clearer now, if they intend to do anything other than fold.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  104. Randal says:
    @Lemurmaniac
    Does Russia have the weapons to respond in theatre? Do the strategic bombers have the anti-ship missiles?

    Does Russia have the weapons to respond in theatre? Do the strategic bombers have the anti-ship missiles?

    Yes to both.

    Noticeably, the pro-Russian site Southfront very pointedly carried a story yesterday about anti-ship missiles in theatre:

    Russian Figter Jet Currying Kh-35 Cruise Anti-Ship Missiles Spotted Over Syria’s Tartus

    Read More
    • Replies: @Lemurmaniac
    this guy is a Russian poster, i can verify

    https://kek.gg/i/8dXYpD.png
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  105. @Randal

    The tweet also implies limiting the retaliation to missiles, which suggests no contact between the chair force and gayvy with RuAF.
     
    What is it you think will be carrying and launching those missiles?

    What is it you think will be carrying and launching those missiles?

    Gayvy warships, though perhaps also chair force bombers launching from standoff range.

    This isn’t good, but its different from attempting to gain air superiority in the theater.

    Read More
    • Replies: @reiner Tor
    But the Russians just promised to retaliate, no matter what.

    And Trump just taunted Putin. I find it unlikely that Putin won’t respond. He has to, if he has any self-respect.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  106. Randal says:
    @Swedish Family

    If I were in Putin’s shoes, my response would be a tweet right back at Trump as follows;

    “There was no chemical attack by the Syrians and you know it. If the US attacks Syria, we will respond, including sinking the USS Donald Cook”

    And I would follow through in it (though in the event I would pick another ship probably, just for convenience and so as to evade any extra US countermeasures in response to the threat), and let the chips fall where they may. The point is to flag up the intention to kill Americans in response to their attack, in advance, so as to reduce their ability to portray such measures as “Russian aggression”.
     
    This is exactly my thinking too. Trump made a blunder here by referencing Russia's threat of retaliation in his tweet ("Russia vows to shoot down any and all missiles fired at Syria"). If he were smart, he would have stayed quiet about that part to make it easier to sell a possible Russian retaliation as "unprovoked aggression," or whatever term the PR people at Pentagon come up with.

    To add to that, I think the key here is for the Russians to build an awareness in the EU of how serious this situation is. What about putting all Russian nuclear forces on red alert? Maybe that would wake the European people from their stupor?

    To add to that, I think the key here is for the Russians to build an awareness in the EU of how serious this situation is. What about putting all Russian nuclear forces on red alert? Maybe that would wake the European people from their stupor?

    Either Russia has to fold and start damage limitation, or they should be doing exactly that kind of thing and announcing it publicly. They should state publicly that the nuclear alert is a direct response to Trump’s open threat, as well.

    And if they aren’t already, they should as a priority also be pushing China hard to make some kind of gestures, at least.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  107. @reiner Tor
    I cannot remember such a crisis with both sides' ships moving closer to each other. The only similar crisis was the Cuban Missile Crisis, when the Soviet fleet was moving there, while the Americans started blockading the place, and both sides authorized their vessels to use force if needed.

    But then both sides had a point: the Americans were correct that Cuba had been their sphere of influence (so it was a kind of expansion by the Soviets) and that it was vital to their interests. The Soviets were correct that international law allowed this, and that if they managed to live with American missiles in Turkey, then the Americans should be able to live with Soviet missiles in Cuba. Also, despite their determination to fight a war if they need to, both sides genuinely were worried about the prospects of a new world war (and a nuclear one, to boot), so they both were genuinely interested in finding a way out. Because both sides had reasonable positions based on geopolitics, it was easy to find a way out.

    Right now, the Americans and their satellites are not being reasonable. They are using emotional arguments, which make no sense whatsoever. If they so much cared for children, they wouldn't participate in the blockade of Yemen, which is already starving hundreds of thousands of Yemeni children to death. They also don't seem to be afraid of the prospect of a shooting war with Russia. They don't think it will result in a world war, or they don't care.

    I seriously think the US elites are crazy (if any further proof was needed, and their support of feminism, BLM, LGBTQWERTY, etc. weren't enough), and that it will prove near impossible to bring them to their senses. I still hope it will be possible (if there's something I don't want right now, it's a nuclear war), but I'm a little bit worried.

    Also, despite their determination to fight a war if they need to, both sides genuinely were worried about the prospects of a new world war (and a nuclear one, to boot), so they both were genuinely interested in finding a way out.

    The parallel is by no means exact, and the current situation is in some respects more worrisome. In October 1962 the Joint Chiefs of Staff was not really looking too hard for a peaceful solution:

    That meeting convinced Kennedy that he had been well advised to shun the chiefs’ counsel. As the session started, Maxwell Taylor—by then the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff—said the chiefs had agreed on a course of action: a surprise air strike followed by surveillance to detect further threats and a blockade to stop shipments of additional weapons. Kennedy replied that he saw no “satisfactory alternatives” but considered a blockade the least likely to bring a nuclear war. Curtis LeMay was forceful in opposing anything short of direct military action. The Air Force chief dismissed the president’s apprehension that the Soviets would respond to an attack on their Cuban missiles by seizing West Berlin. To the contrary, LeMay argued: bombing the missiles would deter Moscow, while leaving them intact would only encourage the Soviets to move against Berlin. “This blockade and political action … will lead right into war,” LeMay warned, and the Army, Navy, and Marine Corps chiefs agreed.

    https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2013/08/jfk-vs-the-military/309496/

    In the end, Kennedy was the voice of reason and this was the determining factor. Are we really so sure the same will be the case with Trump?

    Read More
    • Replies: @reiner Tor

    Are we really so sure the same will be the case with Trump?
     
    I actually think he's among the most unreasonable voices in an already mad administration.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  108. LondonBob says:
    @Randal

    Should it have?
     
    If I were in Putin's shoes, my response would be a tweet right back at Trump as follows;

    "There was no chemical attack by the Syrians and you know it. If the US attacks Syria, we will respond, including sinking the USS Donald Cook"

    And I would follow through in it (though in the event I would pick another ship probably, just for convenience and so as to evade any extra US countermeasures in response to the threat), and let the chips fall where they may. The point is to flag up the intention to kill Americans in response to their attack, in advance, so as to reduce their ability to portray such measures as "Russian aggression".

    Of course, fortunately Putin is a much more cautious and responsible man than I am.

    Russian overreaction is just what the neocons want. This won’t alter the long term trend and is futile act that actually damages the US. Take a leaf out of Iran and Hezbollah’s book, retaliation at a place and time of your own choosing.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Randal

    Russian overreaction is just what the neocons want.
     
    You're probably correct. That's why I noted that fortunately Putin is a more cautious and responsible man than I am.

    This won’t alter the long term trend
     
    That's not certain, though. It could certainly result in the fall of Syria if the attacks are on the larger side of the range (if for instance it involves a decapitation strike and an ongoing campaign against the Syrian military, which will reinvigorate rebel support).
    , @reiner Tor

    retaliation at a place and time of your own choosing
     
    That will embolden the neocons, put you at a serious psychological disadvantage, also because if long enough time passes, the retaliation will look like an unprovoked attack. So you will look both weak and dangerous.

    Unfortunately neocons are like dogs or little children, you need to teach them a lesson then and there.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  109. Aedib says:

    https://edition.cnn.com/2018/04/11/politics/trump-missiles-tweet/index.html

    Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov said Wednesday that Russia hopes all parties involved in Syria will avoid any steps that could “significantly destabilize” an already “fragile situation.”
    Peskov added there were no plans for Putin to call Trump, French President Emmanuel Macron or UK Prime Minister Theresa May amid the crisis.

    It seems Putin will not fold.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  110. @reiner Tor

    My feeling is: if you have to destroy the world rather than knuckle under to the bullies, go ahead. Better dead than red.
     
    Same thing here. My daughter is in the daycare, not suspecting any of this, though. It'd be nice if she survived and lived to give birth to many happy children later on. Hopefully in a better one than the one seemingly populated by people marching like lemmings to their destruction.

    My daughter is in the daycare, not suspecting any of this, though.

    Look on the bright side, my childhood was seriously marked (or perhaps marred) by repeated drills against nuclear attack, as exemplified in this classic civil defence film:

    Read More
    • Replies: @reiner Tor
    I'd be happier if she had to participate in such drills (I bet you children can even enjoy it, at least out of the classroom), but no nuclear war took place.
    , @Philip Owen
    As a Scout in the '60's I took part in a UK, post Cuba, Civil Defence exercise aimed at recovery from a nuclear attack.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  111. @Randal

    Does Russia have the weapons to respond in theatre? Do the strategic bombers have the anti-ship missiles?
     
    Yes to both.

    Noticeably, the pro-Russian site Southfront very pointedly carried a story yesterday about anti-ship missiles in theatre:

    Russian Figter Jet Currying Kh-35 Cruise Anti-Ship Missiles Spotted Over Syria’s Tartus

    this guy is a Russian poster, i can verify

    Read More
    • Replies: @Randal
    LOL!

    Apologies, I thought I was addressing an adult. I'll leave you to your playpen.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  112. Randal says:
    @Lemurmaniac
    this guy is a Russian poster, i can verify

    https://kek.gg/i/8dXYpD.png

    LOL!

    Apologies, I thought I was addressing an adult. I’ll leave you to your playpen.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Lemurmaniac
    Then red-bar me, you big brain nibba.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  113. @Randal
    How's this for chutzpah, as the Skripal narrative rots on the floor in front of us (carefully not investigated or even mentioned much by the establishment media):

    "But The Times reports that the UK's Prime Minister Theresa May has urged Mr Trump to provide more evidence of the suspected chemical attack.

    I have no lol button left. But here it is: LOL.

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

    Apologies, I thought I was addressing an adult. I'll leave you to your playpen.

    Then red-bar me, you big brain nibba.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  115. Randal says:
    @LondonBob
    Russian overreaction is just what the neocons want. This won't alter the long term trend and is futile act that actually damages the US. Take a leaf out of Iran and Hezbollah's book, retaliation at a place and time of your own choosing.

    Russian overreaction is just what the neocons want.

    You’re probably correct. That’s why I noted that fortunately Putin is a more cautious and responsible man than I am.

    This won’t alter the long term trend

    That’s not certain, though. It could certainly result in the fall of Syria if the attacks are on the larger side of the range (if for instance it involves a decapitation strike and an ongoing campaign against the Syrian military, which will reinvigorate rebel support).

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  116. @Thorfinnsson


    What is it you think will be carrying and launching those missiles?
     
    Gayvy warships, though perhaps also chair force bombers launching from standoff range.

    This isn't good, but its different from attempting to gain air superiority in the theater.

    But the Russians just promised to retaliate, no matter what.

    And Trump just taunted Putin. I find it unlikely that Putin won’t respond. He has to, if he has any self-respect.

    Read More
    • Replies: @GeorgeK

    And Trump just taunted Putin. I find it unlikely that Putin won’t respond. He has to, if he has any self-respect.
     
    Putin doesn’t respond to insults - he’s been called worse: “Hitler”, “dictator” etc. He doesn’t personalize an issue - something that Western politicians/pundits and especially Trump for whom everything is personal, don’t understand.

    This doesn’t mean that Russia won’t retaliate to the coming USGov attacks as it warned it would. But unless there are unacceptable and deliberate Russian casualties - as happened with Turkey’s shootdown of a Russian plane - Putin will leave direct lines of communication open.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  117. @for-the-record
    Also, despite their determination to fight a war if they need to, both sides genuinely were worried about the prospects of a new world war (and a nuclear one, to boot), so they both were genuinely interested in finding a way out.

    The parallel is by no means exact, and the current situation is in some respects more worrisome. In October 1962 the Joint Chiefs of Staff was not really looking too hard for a peaceful solution:

    That meeting convinced Kennedy that he had been well advised to shun the chiefs’ counsel. As the session started, Maxwell Taylor—by then the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff—said the chiefs had agreed on a course of action: a surprise air strike followed by surveillance to detect further threats and a blockade to stop shipments of additional weapons. Kennedy replied that he saw no “satisfactory alternatives” but considered a blockade the least likely to bring a nuclear war. Curtis LeMay was forceful in opposing anything short of direct military action. The Air Force chief dismissed the president’s apprehension that the Soviets would respond to an attack on their Cuban missiles by seizing West Berlin. To the contrary, LeMay argued: bombing the missiles would deter Moscow, while leaving them intact would only encourage the Soviets to move against Berlin. “This blockade and political action … will lead right into war,” LeMay warned, and the Army, Navy, and Marine Corps chiefs agreed.

    https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2013/08/jfk-vs-the-military/309496/
     
    In the end, Kennedy was the voice of reason and this was the determining factor. Are we really so sure the same will be the case with Trump?

    Are we really so sure the same will be the case with Trump?

    I actually think he’s among the most unreasonable voices in an already mad administration.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  118. @LondonBob
    Russian overreaction is just what the neocons want. This won't alter the long term trend and is futile act that actually damages the US. Take a leaf out of Iran and Hezbollah's book, retaliation at a place and time of your own choosing.

    retaliation at a place and time of your own choosing

    That will embolden the neocons, put you at a serious psychological disadvantage, also because if long enough time passes, the retaliation will look like an unprovoked attack. So you will look both weak and dangerous.

    Unfortunately neocons are like dogs or little children, you need to teach them a lesson then and there.

    Read More
    • Replies: @LondonBob
    Hezbollah has never been stronger, weakness is allowing yourself to being goaded.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  119. @for-the-record
    My daughter is in the daycare, not suspecting any of this, though.

    Look on the bright side, my childhood was seriously marked (or perhaps marred) by repeated drills against nuclear attack, as exemplified in this classic civil defence film:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BFT8hLjHtuE

    I’d be happier if she had to participate in such drills (I bet you children can even enjoy it, at least out of the classroom), but no nuclear war took place.

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

    Read More
    • Replies: @Daniel Chieh
    Welcome back, iffen.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  121. LondonBob says:
    @reiner Tor

    retaliation at a place and time of your own choosing
     
    That will embolden the neocons, put you at a serious psychological disadvantage, also because if long enough time passes, the retaliation will look like an unprovoked attack. So you will look both weak and dangerous.

    Unfortunately neocons are like dogs or little children, you need to teach them a lesson then and there.

    Hezbollah has never been stronger, weakness is allowing yourself to being goaded.

    Read More
    • Replies: @reiner Tor
    Hezbollah has reasonable foes. Israel is quite reasonable compared to the US neocons.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  122. neutral says:
    @songbird
    I'm surprised to hear it. I know I shouldn't be, after all the tributes to Castro, but I am. The UK's rhetoric at the UN is converging with the 3rd world's rhetoric at the UN.

    South Africa didn't keep Laura Southern out but the UK did.

    South Africa didn’t keep Laura Southern out but the UK did.

    I can assure that it had nothing to do with some kind of respect of freedom of speech, South Africa is simply not as capable as the UK in the surveillance of thought criminals as the UK is. Once the USA becomes as non white as South Africa, the one benefit to that is that that government will be less capable of crushing dissent.

    Read More
    • Replies: @songbird
    I should have typed "Lauren."

    Interesting interpretation. Germans and Russians were pretty good at surveillance, and I don't imagine blacks are. Or at least, I can't think of examples. Even of black criminals who came up with a good plan, after staking a place out. But there is always the possibility that they could outsource to someone who is good at it, like the Chinese. It wouldn't necessarily need to be labor intensive, just AI.

    It is sort of a point of morbid curiosity with me how quickly Europe would spiral into civil war without the thousands of people working in surveillance, trying to tamp down on things. It is hard to say because the media are partisans, but otherwise, I'd say pretty quickly.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  123. @LondonBob
    Hezbollah has never been stronger, weakness is allowing yourself to being goaded.

    Hezbollah has reasonable foes. Israel is quite reasonable compared to the US neocons.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  124. @iffen
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=snTaSJk0n_Y

    Welcome back, iffen.

    Read More
    • Agree: Talha
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  125. And what about the OPCW inspectors who, it was announced yesterday, are shortly to arrive in Syria at the express invitation of the Russian and Syrian governments (and whose inspection the UN Security Council refused to endorse yesterday evening)? I am sure they must be receiving lots of pressure not to go, if only for “safety” reasons. The Russian Foreign Ministry’s Maria Zakharova has a slightly different take on the situation:

    “Are the OPCW inspectors aware that smart missiles are about to destroy all evidence of the chemical weapons use on the ground? Or is that the actual plan – to cover up all evidence of this fabricated attack with smart missile strikes, so that international inspectors had no evidence to look for?” Zakharova asked.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Randal

    And what about the OPCW inspectors who, it was announced yesterday, are shortly to arrive in Syria
     
    I'd certainly be choosing my accommodation in Damascus carefully, if I were one of them.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  126. Dmitry says:
    @szopen
    I'd say it's time for our (Polish) politicians to do some goodwill PR gestures towards Russia. Russia sure as hell cannot do anything in Syria (as AK have so acutely written in the past - Syria is too far from Russian bases) but it surely will want to do something and if it will want to do something, it would have to do something near Russian bases.

    That makes things a bit scary for Polish citizen.

    Nobody will attack Poland.

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

    American and Russian UN ambassadors yesterday – behind the scenes.

    Read More
    • Replies: @reiner Tor
    The German diplomats in Moscow cultivated a very nice relationship with their Soviet hosts up until the declaration of war. It probably reflected their personal sympathies. The German ambassador, von Schulenburg often hinted at the coming invasion, trying to warn his hosts of the coming invasion.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  128. Randal says:
    @Swedish Family

    If I were in Putin’s shoes, my response would be a tweet right back at Trump as follows;

    “There was no chemical attack by the Syrians and you know it. If the US attacks Syria, we will respond, including sinking the USS Donald Cook”

    And I would follow through in it (though in the event I would pick another ship probably, just for convenience and so as to evade any extra US countermeasures in response to the threat), and let the chips fall where they may. The point is to flag up the intention to kill Americans in response to their attack, in advance, so as to reduce their ability to portray such measures as “Russian aggression”.
     
    This is exactly my thinking too. Trump made a blunder here by referencing Russia's threat of retaliation in his tweet ("Russia vows to shoot down any and all missiles fired at Syria"). If he were smart, he would have stayed quiet about that part to make it easier to sell a possible Russian retaliation as "unprovoked aggression," or whatever term the PR people at Pentagon come up with.

    To add to that, I think the key here is for the Russians to build an awareness in the EU of how serious this situation is. What about putting all Russian nuclear forces on red alert? Maybe that would wake the European people from their stupor?

    Trump made a blunder here by referencing Russia’s threat of retaliation in his tweet (“Russia vows to shoot down any and all missiles fired at Syria”). If he were smart, he would have stayed quiet about that part to make it easier to sell a possible Russian retaliation as “unprovoked aggression,” or whatever term the PR people at Pentagon come up with.

    You could see that another way, though, as contributing to structuring popular expectations of any Russian response as essentially passive defence – trying to shoot down the incoming missiles, only. This is how the US regime wants people thinking, because they will seek to use the shock value of any US or allied deaths that do occur as propaganda against Russia. While the Russians have made plenty of references to responding against launch platforms, I don’t think the implications have really been taken on board by US sphere populations (and that’s no accident). Any deaths will indeed be “unprovoked aggression” by Russia.

    So yes, he made reference to retaliation, but on the other hand he focussed attention on passive defence, with “retaliation” limited to shooting down missiles. That’s how the US regime wants it, because it’s a no-win situation for Russia.

    That’s why I suggested they need to make the consequences clearer now, if they intend to do anything other than fold.

    Read More
    • Replies: @reiner Tor
    Let me put here this article:

    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/russian-envoy-threatens-war-against-us-over-syria-strikes-lc2k578cf

    NATO wars start when the other side chooses to shoot back.

    Cet animal est très méchant: Quand on l'attaque, il se défend.
    , @Swedish Family

    So yes, he made reference to retaliation, but on the other hand he focussed attention on passive defence, with “retaliation” limited to shooting down missiles. That’s how the US regime wants it, because it’s a no-win situation for Russia.

    That’s why I suggested they need to make the consequences clearer now, if they intend to do anything other than fold.
     
    Very good point. I missed that distinction. And I agree with the words in your second paragraph, of course.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  129. Randal says:
    @for-the-record
    And what about the OPCW inspectors who, it was announced yesterday, are shortly to arrive in Syria at the express invitation of the Russian and Syrian governments (and whose inspection the UN Security Council refused to endorse yesterday evening)? I am sure they must be receiving lots of pressure not to go, if only for "safety" reasons. The Russian Foreign Ministry's Maria Zakharova has a slightly different take on the situation:

    “Are the OPCW inspectors aware that smart missiles are about to destroy all evidence of the chemical weapons use on the ground? Or is that the actual plan – to cover up all evidence of this fabricated attack with smart missile strikes, so that international inspectors had no evidence to look for?” Zakharova asked.
     

    And what about the OPCW inspectors who, it was announced yesterday, are shortly to arrive in Syria

    I’d certainly be choosing my accommodation in Damascus carefully, if I were one of them.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  130. @Dmitry
    American and Russian UN ambassadors yesterday - behind the scenes.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DxQzRzTbDag

    The German diplomats in Moscow cultivated a very nice relationship with their Soviet hosts up until the declaration of war. It probably reflected their personal sympathies. The German ambassador, von Schulenburg often hinted at the coming invasion, trying to warn his hosts of the coming invasion.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  131. @reiner Tor
    I cannot remember such a crisis with both sides' ships moving closer to each other. The only similar crisis was the Cuban Missile Crisis, when the Soviet fleet was moving there, while the Americans started blockading the place, and both sides authorized their vessels to use force if needed.

    But then both sides had a point: the Americans were correct that Cuba had been their sphere of influence (so it was a kind of expansion by the Soviets) and that it was vital to their interests. The Soviets were correct that international law allowed this, and that if they managed to live with American missiles in Turkey, then the Americans should be able to live with Soviet missiles in Cuba. Also, despite their determination to fight a war if they need to, both sides genuinely were worried about the prospects of a new world war (and a nuclear one, to boot), so they both were genuinely interested in finding a way out. Because both sides had reasonable positions based on geopolitics, it was easy to find a way out.

    Right now, the Americans and their satellites are not being reasonable. They are using emotional arguments, which make no sense whatsoever. If they so much cared for children, they wouldn't participate in the blockade of Yemen, which is already starving hundreds of thousands of Yemeni children to death. They also don't seem to be afraid of the prospect of a shooting war with Russia. They don't think it will result in a world war, or they don't care.

    I seriously think the US elites are crazy (if any further proof was needed, and their support of feminism, BLM, LGBTQWERTY, etc. weren't enough), and that it will prove near impossible to bring them to their senses. I still hope it will be possible (if there's something I don't want right now, it's a nuclear war), but I'm a little bit worried.

    Because both sides had reasonable positions based on geopolitics, it was easy to find a way out.

    I agree with your general point, but I don’t think it can be said it was easy to find a peaceful solution to the Cuban missile crisis. Despite JFK and Crushchev both being fundamentally rational people, who had lived through WW2 and didn’t want another war, it was a very close-run thing, with several incidents that could easily have led to war due to decisions taken by military people on the spot (e.g. that Soviet sub with nuclear-armed torpedoes that had depth charges used it against it by US destroyers). There were strong pressures on Kennedy to escalate to using military force against Cuba. To his credit he resisted them.
    Which makes the present situation all the scarier. I don’t think Trump with his character flaws, surrounded by war-mongering advisers like Bolton and egged on by a hysterical media, can be trusted to see the need for deescalation. There seems to be no one to rein him in, with a lot of forces pushing him towards bellicosity.

    Read More
    • Agree: for-the-record
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  132. GeorgeK says:
    @reiner Tor
    But the Russians just promised to retaliate, no matter what.

    And Trump just taunted Putin. I find it unlikely that Putin won’t respond. He has to, if he has any self-respect.

    And Trump just taunted Putin. I find it unlikely that Putin won’t respond. He has to, if he has any self-respect.

    Putin doesn’t respond to insults – he’s been called worse: “Hitler”, “dictator” etc. He doesn’t personalize an issue – something that Western politicians/pundits and especially Trump for whom everything is personal, don’t understand.

    This doesn’t mean that Russia won’t retaliate to the coming USGov attacks as it warned it would. But unless there are unacceptable and deliberate Russian casualties – as happened with Turkey’s shootdown of a Russian plane – Putin will leave direct lines of communication open.

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

    The NSA also has a lot of dirt on each one of them
     
    The strange unity goes a lot deeper than just the few in office. This obsessive anti-Russian hatred seems to permeate almost the entire political and media classes and ensures that (at least in Britain) there is no real need for the government to police dissent on this - there is virtually no dissent to police, and what little there is, is crushed by the weight of heavily biased and often irrational anti-Russian opinion in the media and from political figures.

    It is genuinely quite bizarre.

    It is, I think, a reflection of the total triumph of the political left in US sphere societies. The elites are almost wholly of the left now, culturally speaking - socially radical, internationalist, anti-patriotic. And since Russia, at least as it is represented in the US sphere, stands against many of the dogmas of the left, it is hated. And it is particularly hated by many of the endlessly active minority lobbies that drive opinion in the US sphere via the media and their unsleeping, obsessive lobbying organisations - homos especially, for not sufficiently kowtowing to the complete triumph of their dogmas as US sphere societies have done, but also nationalist lobby groups that see Russia as acting against their national interests or have historical grievances- Israeli/jewish, Ukrainian, etc.

    It's a bizarre kind of "perfect storm" situation for Russia.

    Russians should not blame themselves or their leaders - it's mostly a refusal to kowtow (especially when perceived as weak, after the collapse of the Soviet Union) that has triggered the hatred, and if the options are kowtow or be hated then honour requires the latter.

    My feeling is: if you have to destroy the world rather than knuckle under to the bullies, go ahead. Better dead than red.

    My feeling is: if you have to destroy the world rather than knuckle under to the bullies, go ahead. Better dead than red.

    I understand the sentiment, but frankly, I deeply resent the idea that large parts of my country (certainly the part where I live) might get destroyed for the bizarre exceptionalist fantasies of mentally deficient US nationalists and the politicians they keep electing despite their disastrous record. Something neither I nor anybody else in central Europe can influence.
    It was different when the Red army occupied the other half of Europe and of Germany, at least then a war would have been about issues genuinely central to us. But this idiocy? It shouldn’t have anything to do with us and I hate the Atlanticist Quislings in politics and media enabling this.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Daniel Chieh


    It was different when the Red army occupied the other half of Europe and of Germany, at least then a war would have been about issues genuinely central to us.
     
    Fermi's Paradox answered: As a technology increases with time approaching infinity, the likelihood of a species eradicating itself through high scalable weaponry triggered by an act of incidental, but enormous stupidity, approaches one.
    , @Ron Unz

    I deeply resent the idea that large parts of my country (certainly the part where I live) might get destroyed for the bizarre exceptionalist fantasies of mentally deficient US nationalists and the politicians they keep electing despite their disastrous record.
     
    Charles de Gaulle called this "annihilation without representation."

    But you are wrong. Unlike Caribbean Crisis which prompted de Gaulle's remark, European politicians in general and German ones in particular are very much a part of this mad rush to war.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  134. @Randal

    Trump made a blunder here by referencing Russia’s threat of retaliation in his tweet (“Russia vows to shoot down any and all missiles fired at Syria”). If he were smart, he would have stayed quiet about that part to make it easier to sell a possible Russian retaliation as “unprovoked aggression,” or whatever term the PR people at Pentagon come up with.
     
    You could see that another way, though, as contributing to structuring popular expectations of any Russian response as essentially passive defence - trying to shoot down the incoming missiles, only. This is how the US regime wants people thinking, because they will seek to use the shock value of any US or allied deaths that do occur as propaganda against Russia. While the Russians have made plenty of references to responding against launch platforms, I don't think the implications have really been taken on board by US sphere populations (and that's no accident). Any deaths will indeed be "unprovoked aggression" by Russia.

    So yes, he made reference to retaliation, but on the other hand he focussed attention on passive defence, with "retaliation" limited to shooting down missiles. That's how the US regime wants it, because it's a no-win situation for Russia.

    That's why I suggested they need to make the consequences clearer now, if they intend to do anything other than fold.

    Let me put here this article:

    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/russian-envoy-threatens-war-against-us-over-syria-strikes-lc2k578cf

    NATO wars start when the other side chooses to shoot back.

    Cet animal est très méchant: Quand on l’attaque, il se défend.

    Read More
    • Replies: @reiner Tor
    Originally it was shared by for-the-record in the other thread.
    , @Randal

    NATO wars start when the other side chooses to shoot back.
     
    Funnily enough there's another country that adopts the same attitude - we are entitled to attack whenever we want and if you retaliate it's an outrageous act of aggression that will entitle us to do whatever we want in response:

    Israeli media and officials are fueling the current escalation over Syria.


    “If the Iranians act against Israel from Syrian territory, it will be Syrian President Bashar al-Assad and his government that will pay the price,” senior Israeli defense officials were quoted by the country’s media on April 11. “Assad’s regime and Assad himself will disappear from the map and the world if the Iranians do try to harm Israel or its interests from Syrian territory.”

    “Our recommendation to Iran is that it does not try to act, because Israel is determined to continue on this issue to the very end.”

    The comments came in response to claims by Iranian officials to retaliate to the recent Israeli strike on the T4 airbase in Syria where some Iranian servicemembers were killed.

     

    And, surprise surprise, look what they use as their ultimate victimological rationalisation for extreme, lawless aggression and violence:

    “As we approach Holocaust Remembrance Day, Yom Hashoah, Israel should clarify that it takes a moral stance against killers who use weapons of mass murder against civilians.
    ....
    Separately, Housing Minister Yoav Galant, a former commander of the IDF Southern Command, vowed to assasinate Assad:


    “The world will be a better place without Assad. Five days before Holocaust Memorial Day, the world has once again received a horrific reminder from Syria. "

     

    https://southfront.org/saber-rattling-israeli-officials-vow-to-assassinate-assad-attack-syria/
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  135. @German_reader

    My feeling is: if you have to destroy the world rather than knuckle under to the bullies, go ahead. Better dead than red.
     
    I understand the sentiment, but frankly, I deeply resent the idea that large parts of my country (certainly the part where I live) might get destroyed for the bizarre exceptionalist fantasies of mentally deficient US nationalists and the politicians they keep electing despite their disastrous record. Something neither I nor anybody else in central Europe can influence.
    It was different when the Red army occupied the other half of Europe and of Germany, at least then a war would have been about issues genuinely central to us. But this idiocy? It shouldn't have anything to do with us and I hate the Atlanticist Quislings in politics and media enabling this.

    It was different when the Red army occupied the other half of Europe and of Germany, at least then a war would have been about issues genuinely central to us.

    Fermi’s Paradox answered: As a technology increases with time approaching infinity, the likelihood of a species eradicating itself through high scalable weaponry triggered by an act of incidental, but enormous stupidity, approaches one.

    Read More
    • Agree: reiner Tor, Beckow
    • Replies: @Philip Owen
    Taleb makes a similar argument.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  136. @reiner Tor
    Let me put here this article:

    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/russian-envoy-threatens-war-against-us-over-syria-strikes-lc2k578cf

    NATO wars start when the other side chooses to shoot back.

    Cet animal est très méchant: Quand on l'attaque, il se défend.

    Originally it was shared by for-the-record in the other thread.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  137. @Hector_St_Clare
    She's not wrong though. Karl Marx would be horrified with modern Russia (he'd be horrified with modern America too, for different reasons).

    I think Russia is unquestionably less dangerous on the international scene than America, but that doesn't mean I like their current political, social and economic model.

    Karl Marx would be horrified with modern Russia

    Karl Marx was horrified about Russia in his own day, so it wouldn’t be exactly much of a change.
    And sorry, I understand you’re a leftist, but the fact that representatives of major Western powers now present Karl Marx (whose ideas aren’t just some benevolent humanitarianism, that’s a misrepresentation) as some positive figure bothers me. That’s not something I can identify with.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Mikhail
    Agree.

    Some have even added Lenin to that spin.
    , @Dmitry
    Marx is a fundamentally evil thought-system, but still very interesting to study his theory, in particular as only really systematic socialist/communist theory.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  138. @Hector_St_Clare
    She's not wrong though. Karl Marx would be horrified with modern Russia (he'd be horrified with modern America too, for different reasons).

    I think Russia is unquestionably less dangerous on the international scene than America, but that doesn't mean I like their current political, social and economic model.

    My understanding of the Marxist dialectic is that it would advocate abolition/minimization of the means of production from private, bourgeoisie control and while neither the Russian coalition nor the American one explicitly promote the interests of the proletariat through public/state control, Russia runs more state-owned enterprises and is more likely to be responsive to the proletariat by that theory; the American coalition has assumed the role of the classic imperialistic bourgeoisie capitalists.

    Of course, he’ll be horrified. But he wouldn’t support the UK’s activity either.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  139. Randal says:
    @reiner Tor
    Let me put here this article:

    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/russian-envoy-threatens-war-against-us-over-syria-strikes-lc2k578cf

    NATO wars start when the other side chooses to shoot back.

    Cet animal est très méchant: Quand on l'attaque, il se défend.

    NATO wars start when the other side chooses to shoot back.

    Funnily enough there’s another country that adopts the same attitude – we are entitled to attack whenever we want and if you retaliate it’s an outrageous act of aggression that will entitle us to do whatever we want in response:

    Israeli media and officials are fueling the current escalation over Syria.

    “If the Iranians act against Israel from Syrian territory, it will be Syrian President Bashar al-Assad and his government that will pay the price,” senior Israeli defense officials were quoted by the country’s media on April 11. “Assad’s regime and Assad himself will disappear from the map and the world if the Iranians do try to harm Israel or its interests from Syrian territory.”

    “Our recommendation to Iran is that it does not try to act, because Israel is determined to continue on this issue to the very end.”

    The comments came in response to claims by Iranian officials to retaliate to the recent Israeli strike on the T4 airbase in Syria where some Iranian servicemembers were killed.

    And, surprise surprise, look what they use as their ultimate victimological rationalisation for extreme, lawless aggression and violence:

    “As we approach Holocaust Remembrance Day, Yom Hashoah, Israel should clarify that it takes a moral stance against killers who use weapons of mass murder against civilians.
    ….
    Separately, Housing Minister Yoav Galant, a former commander of the IDF Southern Command, vowed to assasinate Assad:

    “The world will be a better place without Assad. Five days before Holocaust Memorial Day, the world has once again received a horrific reminder from Syria. ”

    https://southfront.org/saber-rattling-israeli-officials-vow-to-assassinate-assad-attack-syria/

    Read More
    • Replies: @reiner Tor
    "The Jew tells you that he was beaten, but doesn't tell you why."

    Unfortunately gentiles don't seem to be immune to this kind of psychopathic sentiment. Little kids are like that. "He hurt me!" "But you hurt him first." "He hurt me! He shouldn't have hurt me!" "But you hurt him first. He only hurt you because you hurt him." "He hurt me!"
    , @reiner Tor
    Netanyahu said: "Assad's regime and Assad himself will disappear from the map and the world..." Remember the brouhaha when then Iranian president Ahmadinejad said a similar thing about the Zionist regime? (Quoting Khomeini.)
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  140. @Randal

    NATO wars start when the other side chooses to shoot back.
     
    Funnily enough there's another country that adopts the same attitude - we are entitled to attack whenever we want and if you retaliate it's an outrageous act of aggression that will entitle us to do whatever we want in response:

    Israeli media and officials are fueling the current escalation over Syria.


    “If the Iranians act against Israel from Syrian territory, it will be Syrian President Bashar al-Assad and his government that will pay the price,” senior Israeli defense officials were quoted by the country’s media on April 11. “Assad’s regime and Assad himself will disappear from the map and the world if the Iranians do try to harm Israel or its interests from Syrian territory.”

    “Our recommendation to Iran is that it does not try to act, because Israel is determined to continue on this issue to the very end.”

    The comments came in response to claims by Iranian officials to retaliate to the recent Israeli strike on the T4 airbase in Syria where some Iranian servicemembers were killed.

     

    And, surprise surprise, look what they use as their ultimate victimological rationalisation for extreme, lawless aggression and violence:

    “As we approach Holocaust Remembrance Day, Yom Hashoah, Israel should clarify that it takes a moral stance against killers who use weapons of mass murder against civilians.
    ....
    Separately, Housing Minister Yoav Galant, a former commander of the IDF Southern Command, vowed to assasinate Assad:


    “The world will be a better place without Assad. Five days before Holocaust Memorial Day, the world has once again received a horrific reminder from Syria. "

     

    https://southfront.org/saber-rattling-israeli-officials-vow-to-assassinate-assad-attack-syria/

    “The Jew tells you that he was beaten, but doesn’t tell you why.”

    Unfortunately gentiles don’t seem to be immune to this kind of psychopathic sentiment. Little kids are like that. “He hurt me!” “But you hurt him first.” “He hurt me! He shouldn’t have hurt me!” “But you hurt him first. He only hurt you because you hurt him.” “He hurt me!”

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  141. Lack of self awareness from Russian imperialists is becoming hilarious at this point – Putin himself was showing animations of nuclear strike on US territory just several weeks ago and now they are trying to present themselves as being very hurt that many people in the West don’t like them at all, lol :) And this is just one example of many possible ones.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  142. Aedib says:
    @szopen
    I'd say it's time for our (Polish) politicians to do some goodwill PR gestures towards Russia. Russia sure as hell cannot do anything in Syria (as AK have so acutely written in the past - Syria is too far from Russian bases) but it surely will want to do something and if it will want to do something, it would have to do something near Russian bases.

    That makes things a bit scary for Polish citizen.

    Calm down. If Russia do some revenge operation in East Europe; this will happen in Donbas and it will be done on the cheap way. Something like Smerching to the Stone age Ukr forces there.
    Relax; the Russians are not coming (to Poland).

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

    Trump made a blunder here by referencing Russia’s threat of retaliation in his tweet (“Russia vows to shoot down any and all missiles fired at Syria”). If he were smart, he would have stayed quiet about that part to make it easier to sell a possible Russian retaliation as “unprovoked aggression,” or whatever term the PR people at Pentagon come up with.
     
    You could see that another way, though, as contributing to structuring popular expectations of any Russian response as essentially passive defence - trying to shoot down the incoming missiles, only. This is how the US regime wants people thinking, because they will seek to use the shock value of any US or allied deaths that do occur as propaganda against Russia. While the Russians have made plenty of references to responding against launch platforms, I don't think the implications have really been taken on board by US sphere populations (and that's no accident). Any deaths will indeed be "unprovoked aggression" by Russia.

    So yes, he made reference to retaliation, but on the other hand he focussed attention on passive defence, with "retaliation" limited to shooting down missiles. That's how the US regime wants it, because it's a no-win situation for Russia.

    That's why I suggested they need to make the consequences clearer now, if they intend to do anything other than fold.

    So yes, he made reference to retaliation, but on the other hand he focussed attention on passive defence, with “retaliation” limited to shooting down missiles. That’s how the US regime wants it, because it’s a no-win situation for Russia.

    That’s why I suggested they need to make the consequences clearer now, if they intend to do anything other than fold.

    Very good point. I missed that distinction. And I agree with the words in your second paragraph, of course.

    Read More
    • Replies: @LondonBob
    Not how I see it, Trump saying he is ok if they attempt to intercept the missiles. If it does go ahead a somewhat larger missile strike with an attempt to intercept them is an optimal outcome.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  144. Pericles says:
    @Daniel Chieh
    https://twitter.com/KyleWOrton/status/983798866838544385

    Is it just me or it seems like very weird insult? Why Marx? Why not Stalin or Lenin?

    Amb. @KarenPierceUN says Karl Marx would turn in his grave at what #Russia has become …

    What a kook.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  145. LondonBob says:
    @Swedish Family

    So yes, he made reference to retaliation, but on the other hand he focussed attention on passive defence, with “retaliation” limited to shooting down missiles. That’s how the US regime wants it, because it’s a no-win situation for Russia.

    That’s why I suggested they need to make the consequences clearer now, if they intend to do anything other than fold.
     
    Very good point. I missed that distinction. And I agree with the words in your second paragraph, of course.

    Not how I see it, Trump saying he is ok if they attempt to intercept the missiles. If it does go ahead a somewhat larger missile strike with an attempt to intercept them is an optimal outcome.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Randal

    Trump saying he is ok if they attempt to intercept the missiles
     
    Don't think he needs to say that.

    If it does go ahead a somewhat larger missile strike with an attempt to intercept them is an optimal outcome.
     
    Optimal as in "least worst". It still:

    Reinforces the dangerous and lawless "R2P"-style precedent set by these claims that allegations of chemical attacks justify unilateral military action;

    Damages the vulnerable Syrian government (how much depends on how extensive the strikes are);

    Emboldens all the worst types in US sphere politics and media, much as the Trump victory gave the (mostly) same folks a well-deserved slap in the face. The more restrained the Russians are the more emboldened these types will be;

    Makes it easier to argue for another strike when the next provocation takes place;

    Damages Russian prestige and probably the marketability of their weapon systems, depending on how things pan out.

    At worst it could result in the overthrow of the Syrian government.
    , @Swedish Family

    Not how I see it, Trump saying he is ok if they attempt to intercept the missiles. If it does go ahead a somewhat larger missile strike with an attempt to intercept them is an optimal outcome.
     
    If they go for dispensable targets such as airstrips, hangars, empty barracks, and so on, I'm with you.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  146. Looks like Russia will fold. Though Mattis has also backtracked a bit.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Dmitry
    Russia is not 'folding'. America will come and do symbolic airstrikes for a couple days (which makes no difference). After, Russian aviation will continue doing its years of airstrikes (which makes a difference).

    Although, again, in the long-term, the cleverer ones here are the Iranians who are established on the ground, and ultimately - at the end of it all - probably China, who are waiting to buy the whole region in a few decades.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  147. Randal says:
    @LondonBob
    Not how I see it, Trump saying he is ok if they attempt to intercept the missiles. If it does go ahead a somewhat larger missile strike with an attempt to intercept them is an optimal outcome.

    Trump saying he is ok if they attempt to intercept the missiles

    Don’t think he needs to say that.

    If it does go ahead a somewhat larger missile strike with an attempt to intercept them is an optimal outcome.

    Optimal as in “least worst”. It still:

    Reinforces the dangerous and lawless “R2P”-style precedent set by these claims that allegations of chemical attacks justify unilateral military action;

    Damages the vulnerable Syrian government (how much depends on how extensive the strikes are);

    Emboldens all the worst types in US sphere politics and media, much as the Trump victory gave the (mostly) same folks a well-deserved slap in the face. The more restrained the Russians are the more emboldened these types will be;

    Makes it easier to argue for another strike when the next provocation takes place;

    Damages Russian prestige and probably the marketability of their weapon systems, depending on how things pan out.

    At worst it could result in the overthrow of the Syrian government.

    Read More
    • Replies: @reiner Tor
    I'm of the view that Russia can now choose between war and dishonor. Even if it chooses dishonor, it still won't avoid war. Because, as you wrote, it only emboldens the most stupid elements in the US. For example I have heard a few times the Deir ez-Zor incident being used as an example of how Putin will always fold.

    But in my personal situation, it's great if there won't be a war this time. Next week I'll be in cities which will almost certainly be nuclear targets.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  148. At worst it could result in the overthrow of the Syrian government.

    Syrian rebel militants to launch counter-offensive if US strikes Assad troops – commander

    Syrian militants will launch an offensive to capture government-held areas, if the US goes ahead with a strike and weakens the Syrian Army’s positions, a rebel commander has said . . .

    We will try to take advantage of this strike on the battlefield first of all, since these strikes will lead to the dispersion of the regime’s forces, the chaos in its ranks and the rout of the regime. Such circumstances will subsequently prepare the armed forces of revolution for launching attacks, during which it will be possible to regain control of certain areas and capture new ones,” Fateh Hassoun told RIA Novosti, also arguing that the possible US strike would pave the way for “real” negotiations.

    https://www.rt.com/news/423827-fsa-commander-syria-offensive/

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  149. @Randal

    Trump saying he is ok if they attempt to intercept the missiles
     
    Don't think he needs to say that.

    If it does go ahead a somewhat larger missile strike with an attempt to intercept them is an optimal outcome.
     
    Optimal as in "least worst". It still:

    Reinforces the dangerous and lawless "R2P"-style precedent set by these claims that allegations of chemical attacks justify unilateral military action;

    Damages the vulnerable Syrian government (how much depends on how extensive the strikes are);

    Emboldens all the worst types in US sphere politics and media, much as the Trump victory gave the (mostly) same folks a well-deserved slap in the face. The more restrained the Russians are the more emboldened these types will be;

    Makes it easier to argue for another strike when the next provocation takes place;

    Damages Russian prestige and probably the marketability of their weapon systems, depending on how things pan out.

    At worst it could result in the overthrow of the Syrian government.

    I’m of the view that Russia can now choose between war and dishonor. Even if it chooses dishonor, it still won’t avoid war. Because, as you wrote, it only emboldens the most stupid elements in the US. For example I have heard a few times the Deir ez-Zor incident being used as an example of how Putin will always fold.

    But in my personal situation, it’s great if there won’t be a war this time. Next week I’ll be in cities which will almost certainly be nuclear targets.

    Read More
    • Replies: @for-the-record
    I’m of the view that Russia can now choose between war and dishonor. Even if it chooses dishonor, it still won’t avoid war.

    It's perhaps even more apt now than when Churchill uttered it in 1938.
    , @German_reader

    But in my personal situation, it’s great if there won’t be a war this time. Next week I’ll be in cities which will almost certainly be nuclear targets.
     
    I don't know, personally I wouldn't be keen on surviving a nuclear war.
    Do we actually have a good idea what the Russians would target in Europe in case of a general nuclear war against NATO countries?
    , @Dmitry

    I’m of the view that Russia can now choose between war and dishonor. Even if it chooses dishonor, it still won’t avoid war. Because, as you wrote, it only emboldens the most stupid elements in the US.
     
    Attacking the Americans would be physical and economic suicide. And for what?

    And there's nothing really to gain - not any oil, no compatriots' lives to save, no Russian-speaking citizens, not worthwhile territory, no historically important territory, no economic benefits. Just killing some Jihadists and possible some gas exploration contracts.

    And even the 'chessboard' situation in Syria does not change from some symbolic/small America strike, which will be forgotten about in a few weeks.

    It's more like a case of dumb and dumber in Syria right now - with competing incompetent projects clashing with each other.

    The only people who have been really negatively affected by the entire Syria war (apart from the Arabs), is the EU - which has been flooded with Syrian immigrants. It's the EU people who should be most angry about the entire debacle and looking at every solution to return the Syrians to Syria. For the rest of the world, it's surprising how much governments (although not the public) care.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  150. @reiner Tor
    I'm of the view that Russia can now choose between war and dishonor. Even if it chooses dishonor, it still won't avoid war. Because, as you wrote, it only emboldens the most stupid elements in the US. For example I have heard a few times the Deir ez-Zor incident being used as an example of how Putin will always fold.

    But in my personal situation, it's great if there won't be a war this time. Next week I'll be in cities which will almost certainly be nuclear targets.

    I’m of the view that Russia can now choose between war and dishonor. Even if it chooses dishonor, it still won’t avoid war.

    It’s perhaps even more apt now than when Churchill uttered it in 1938.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  151. @reiner Tor
    I'm of the view that Russia can now choose between war and dishonor. Even if it chooses dishonor, it still won't avoid war. Because, as you wrote, it only emboldens the most stupid elements in the US. For example I have heard a few times the Deir ez-Zor incident being used as an example of how Putin will always fold.

    But in my personal situation, it's great if there won't be a war this time. Next week I'll be in cities which will almost certainly be nuclear targets.

    But in my personal situation, it’s great if there won’t be a war this time. Next week I’ll be in cities which will almost certainly be nuclear targets.

    I don’t know, personally I wouldn’t be keen on surviving a nuclear war.
    Do we actually have a good idea what the Russians would target in Europe in case of a general nuclear war against NATO countries?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Thorfinnsson
    I don't think it's realistic that the war will begin with a nuclear exchange, let alone an attack on Europe.

    The war would start with CENTCOM clearing out Russia from Syria in alliance with Britain, France, Saudi Arabia, and the UAE.

    Russia would attempt to retaliate in the theater, but it wouldn't be able to accomplish much owing to the preponderance of forces arrayed against it and the fact that aircraft in Russia would not be granted overflight rights to reach Mediterranean.

    The Tu-160 could no doubt penetrate Turkish airspace without being intercepted, but they are not currently equipped for an anti-shipping role. The Russians could no doubt improvise this capability quickly (they're probably already doing so), but numbers are limited.

    If the Russians pull off successful missile shots, then I guess we'll find out how good these missiles and the Aegis BMD are.

    After losing and evacuating in Syria, Russia would have the choice of surrendering or retaliating. Surrender could potentially lead to a coup d'etat against Putin by the siloviki.

    Retaliation would obviously fall in the Ukraine and the Baltics. NATO bases and depots would be hit with ballistic missile strikes.

    Russia lacks the power to advance beyond these areas, and NATO would not be able to immediately eject Russia.

    The front would then stalemate. I don't think the West is fundamentally capable anymore of any form of diplomacy, let alone armastice, so that's when the risk of a nuclear exchange would grow.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  152. One truly does reap what one sows:

    @VanessaBeeley

    Visit to #EasternGhouta today. Zamalka residents told me that they were displaced from their homes by #NusraFront fighters fm EU, officials told me over 280 British passport holders among them. I was also told these “fighters” will go to #Idlib – Turkey – back to EU.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  153. Matra says:
    @reiner Tor
    They could not have abstained. I guess you are an American, so cannot imagine what it’s like to be a junior partner in an alliance. A very junior partner, essentially dependent on the stronger partner for protection.

    If there will be a world war, it will happen with or without Poland. I don’t even think Poland could do anything at this point to avoid a Russian nuclear strike. They are a NATO member, how can the government do anything to assure the Russians that they will trust?

    But if there’s no war, then the Polish vote will be remembered. And they will get some reward from the Americans, or at least keep their goodwill.

    Small countries can easily get destroyed even if they try to stay out of war. Poland didn’t try to go to war with Germany in 1939, it was attacked. If it gave in to German demands, it’d have become a German satellite, and would have participated in the war on the side of the Axis. Like Hungary. Did we do much better than Poland? No. So?

    But if there’s no war, then the Polish vote will be remembered. And they will get some reward from the Americans, or at least keep their goodwill.

    Last week 59 U.S. senators signed a letter protesting Poland’s new Holocaust restitution bill. Poland’s been a loyal U.S. ally – saying all all the right things, buying all the right hardware, sending its troops when needed – but all that is forgotten the moment Jews start crying. I don’t think the America’s rulers have very long memories.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  154. @Anatoly Karlin
    https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/984022625440747520

    + Visitorship to my blog will soar
    + We get to settle the modern IADS vs. stealth debate once and for all
    + This is truly the dankest timeline

    - I am probably in the top global percentile for least likelihood of surviving a nuclear war

    I am probably in the top global percentile for least likelihood of surviving a nuclear war

    now, now.. you can’t have such trivialties as your life get in the way of your blog’s popularity :)

    Read More
    • Agree: Anatoly Karlin
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  155. A stupid question:

    Why doesn’t Syria simply declare that it will no longer accept unauthorised flights (US, UK, France, Turkey) in its airspace, and Russia simultaneously announce that it will actively support the Syrian government in this endeavour? They would certainly have international law (!) on their side.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  156. @Lemurmaniac
    Does Russia have the weapons to respond in theatre? Do the strategic bombers have the anti-ship missiles?

    yes. Tu-22M3s or Su-34s can carry various anti-ship missiles like Х-35 etc. on land there’s also the Bastion complex which even according to Wikipedia Syria has (fielding the P-800 Onyx which is Mach 2.6, a 200-300kg warhead depending on variant, and has a beyond-horizon range of up to 500km). various attack subs which may or not be around the Mediterranean can also carry P-800 Onyx or P-1000 Vulcan, which are all really heavy and dangerous missiles all quite capable of sinking big naval vessels (though not sure about a Nimitz class carrier with just 1 missile and conventional warhead).

    I maintain the thing is not so much about capability – that’s well present, Russia can sink pretty much everything the US has in the Mediterranean within an hour probably – it’s more about the will to openly move to a WW3. which I don’t think Putin has.

    Read More
    • Replies: @dfordoom

    the thing is not so much about capability – that’s well present, Russia can sink pretty much everything the US has in the Mediterranean within an hour probably – it’s more about the will to openly move to a WW3. which I don’t think Putin has.
     
    Putin is a sane human being. He doesn't want World War 3. Unfortunately when you're dealing with rabid lunatics like the Americans being a sane human being is a major disadvantage. At the very least you have to make the rabid lunatics think that you're as crazy as they are.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  157. Mikhail says: • Website
    @German_reader

    Karl Marx would be horrified with modern Russia
     
    Karl Marx was horrified about Russia in his own day, so it wouldn't be exactly much of a change.
    And sorry, I understand you're a leftist, but the fact that representatives of major Western powers now present Karl Marx (whose ideas aren't just some benevolent humanitarianism, that's a misrepresentation) as some positive figure bothers me. That's not something I can identify with.

    Agree.

    Some have even added Lenin to that spin.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  158. Remember how a few hours ago Theresa May was urging caution, and cnot to rush into action in the absence of definitive proof? Well this is what the BBC is now reporting:

    Theresa May ‘to act on Syria without MPs’ vote’ – sources

    Theresa May looks ready to join military action against the Assad regime in Syria without first seeking parliamentary consent, well-placed sources have told the BBC.

    The prime minister is said by government insiders to see the need for a response as urgent.

    She wants to prevent a repeat of the apparent chemical attack near Damascus, which she described as “abhorrent”.

    http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-43719284

    Read More
    • Replies: @Randal

    The prime minister is said by government insiders to see the need for a response as urgent.
     
    I'm sure it is urgent. People are starting to ask awkward questions.


    She wants to prevent a repeat of the apparent chemical attack near Damascus, which she described as “abhorrent”.
     
    Whereas, as many have pointed out, intentionally causing a massive famine affecting millions of people and causing the horrible slow deaths of many hundreds of children in Yemen - no biggie for Theresa or for Donald.

    These scumbag politicians are such openly shameless hypocrites, and the media types who enable them by ignoring their shameless hypocrisy are no better.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  159. Theresa May is too indecisive for many senior Tory MPs. She should show more leadership, which in this case means more followership of the Donald.

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/04/09/donald-trump-says-major-decision-coming-syria-next-24-48-hours/

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  160. @German_reader

    Trump’s Russophilia, still frequently expressed, seems like it would prevent a wider war.
     
    What's Russophile about someone who states that Putin (just reelected by a majority of the Russian electorate and undoubtedly popular) has to "pay a big price" for the alleged gas attack? That's just projection and wishful thinking, something Trump supporters have indulged in excessively since the very start of Trump's campaign.
    I don't buy all those "Trump is really smart and has a plan, he's a valiant knight secretly fighting the Deep state on our behalf, just has to make some tactical concessions" rationalizations for his conduct either. No one forced him to hire people like Haley or Bolton, he wanted to do that.
    It seems most likely to me that Trump really is just as stupid, vulgar and uninformed as he generally comes across. He's a fitting representative of the very worst strains of US nationalism whose mindless bellicosity he seems to have fully internalized.

    Trump is not an American nationalist.

    He is an Israeli nationalist.

    He is putting Israeli interests above American interests.

    The lesson for American nationalists is clear. Never trust a candidate who has a son-in-law named Kushner.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  161. Randal says:
    @for-the-record
    Remember how a few hours ago Theresa May was urging caution, and cnot to rush into action in the absence of definitive proof? Well this is what the BBC is now reporting:

    Theresa May 'to act on Syria without MPs' vote' - sources

    Theresa May looks ready to join military action against the Assad regime in Syria without first seeking parliamentary consent, well-placed sources have told the BBC.

    The prime minister is said by government insiders to see the need for a response as urgent.

    She wants to prevent a repeat of the apparent chemical attack near Damascus, which she described as "abhorrent".

    http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-43719284
     

    The prime minister is said by government insiders to see the need for a response as urgent.

    I’m sure it is urgent. People are starting to ask awkward questions.

    She wants to prevent a repeat of the apparent chemical attack near Damascus, which she described as “abhorrent”.

    Whereas, as many have pointed out, intentionally causing a massive famine affecting millions of people and causing the horrible slow deaths of many hundreds of children in Yemen – no biggie for Theresa or for Donald.

    These scumbag politicians are such openly shameless hypocrites, and the media types who enable them by ignoring their shameless hypocrisy are no better.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  162. The best move for Putin would be to doggedly continue, or even escalate, the offensive against Al-Qaeda and ISIS in Syria west of the Euphrates, and simply ignore any American air attacks – while of course using all available anti-aircraft missiles to shoot down any cruise missiles targeting Russian or allied military units.

    Assad could relinquish Syria’s claim to Sheba Farms to Lebanon, shoring up Lebanese goodwill.

    Hungary could veto all EU economic sanctions as a step towards de-escalating the drift towards war, while opening up new markets for Hungarian exports.

    American nationalists need to concentrate on electing a better congress in 2018 and electing a better president in 2020.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Randal

    The best move for Putin would be to doggedly continue, or even escalate, the offensive against Al-Qaeda and ISIS in Syria west of the Euphrates, and simply ignore any American air attacks – while of course using all available anti-aircraft missiles to shoot down any cruise missiles targeting Russian or allied military units.
     
    This is probably the most sensible and cautious option, and therefore most likely the one that will appeal most to Putin. Though he is capable of a daring surprise response (as in Crimea).

    American nationalists need to concentrate on electing a better congress in 2018 and electing a better president in 2020.
     
    Good luck with that.

    And I mean that in both the cynical and the genuine sense.
    , @Swedish Family

    The best move for Putin would be to doggedly continue, or even escalate, the offensive against Al-Qaeda and ISIS in Syria west of the Euphrates, and simply ignore any American air attacks – while of course using all available anti-aircraft missiles to shoot down any cruise missiles targeting Russian or allied military units.
     
    This would be my preferred course of action too, I think, but there remains the question of how much Russia can afford to back down. The argument that this is only the beginning of a greater push to "go Iran" on Russia has merit to it, and if that is indeed what Washington has in plan, then the people in Kremlin must think long and hard about when and where and how to assert themselves.

    What complicates this somewhat, I think, is that it's hard to say if Russia will be in a stronger or weaker position visavi Washington and Brussels 3-5 years from now. With Nazi Germany, for instance, everyone I have ever read agrees that they would have had a far stronger position had they pushed back the invasion of Poland 5 years or more. In hindsight, then, they made a huge error in invading too soon (thankfully). Against this, one may argue that these things become obvious only after the fact. Perhaps the Nazis felt that they had no other choice but to get going in the early fall of 1939.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  163. Dmitry says:
    @reiner Tor
    Looks like Russia will fold. Though Mattis has also backtracked a bit.

    Russia is not ‘folding’. America will come and do symbolic airstrikes for a couple days (which makes no difference). After, Russian aviation will continue doing its years of airstrikes (which makes a difference).

    Although, again, in the long-term, the cleverer ones here are the Iranians who are established on the ground, and ultimately – at the end of it all – probably China, who are waiting to buy the whole region in a few decades.

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


    What’s Russophile about someone who states that Putin (just reelected by a majority of the Russian electorate and undoubtedly popular) has to “pay a big price” for the alleged gas attack? That’s just projection and wishful thinking, something Trump supporters have indulged in excessively since the very start of Trump’s campaign.
     
    Certainly nothing with respect to the specific tweets.

    But Trump has a long pattern of Russophilic behavior stemming from even before becoming a politician. Even back in the 1980s he suggested ending the Cold War in favor of the USA and USSR establishing a global condominium to prevent nuclear proliferation.

    More recently he insisted on removing providing lethal aid to the Ukraine from the Republican 2016 platform, and immediately upon taking office attempted to implement detente with Russia which was sabotaged by Foggy Bottom faggots and their faggot allies in Congress.

    More recent events have been disappointing to say the least, yet he keeps tweeting that he wants good relations with Russia. He received a bold faced document instructing him not to congratulate Walt (I refer to Putin as Walt--explanation at the end of this post) on his landslide win, yet did it anyway.

    The man clearly wants good relations with Russia, but is unable to get them owing to the Dweeb State (and his own personal flaws).

    I don’t buy all those “Trump is really smart and has a plan, he’s a valiant knight secretly fighting the Deep state on our behalf, just has to make some tactical concessions” rationalizations for his conduct either. No one forced him to hire people like Haley or Bolton, he wanted to do that.
     
    This is a separate issue, and I have no disagreement with you. His personnel selection in particular is appalling. The man simply didn't know what he was getting into, and he lacks several important skills and character traits to handle the situation he is in.

    I remain sympathetic as I happen to like him on a personal level.


    It seems most likely to me that Trump really is just as stupid, vulgar and uninformed as he generally comes across. He’s a fitting representative of the very worst strains of US nationalism whose mindless bellicosity he seems to have fully internalized.
     
    Well the man isn't stupid--how much money are you worth? Could you take the kind of public heat he could?

    Vulgar, yes, of course, but that was a selling point for us Deplorables.

    But at the end of the day it seems he simply isn't up to the job. I am sure you and I could do a better job running America...provided we had his piss and vinegar, pugilism, stamina, etc. You get what I am saying.

    I am not going to defend his clear deficiencies, but to me he remains likeable on a personal level and has a number of admirable and important qualities. These qualities were clearly insufficient. We need someone who possesses these qualities (and perhaps subtracts a few deficiencies) but adds true intellectual rigor.

    I'll be running in 2024 if I clear a billion by then.

    I’m amused by the naive Western faith in the “lone hero” when collective action by a strong community is the only thing that has ever had any chance of challenging the political status quo.

    Kind of like a certain other community I can’t think of right now that has managed to amass tremendous power that way…whom we absolutely should not learn from, but continue being radical individualists.

    Ah well, I’m sure our hero will come after Trump and make it unnecessary to reform our culture in a collectivist direction with united interests and economic interdependence, and we can continue competitively stepping on each other’s faces. We just need a hero with “the right character”.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Thorfinnsson
    You're not wrong, but in this case one man actually does hold the power.


    Kind of like a certain other community I can’t think of right now that has managed to amass tremendous power that way…whom we absolutely should not learn from, but continue being radical individualists.

    Ah well, I’m sure our hero will come after Trump and make it unnecessary to reform our culture in a collectivist direction with united interests and economic interdependence, and we can continue competitively stepping on each other’s faces. We just need a hero with “the right character”.
     
    Kevin MacDonald has described National Socialism in this fashion.
    , @Talha

    I’m amused by the naive Western faith in the “lone hero” when collective action by a strong community is the only thing that has ever had any chance of challenging the political status quo.
     
    And they project this onto others as well.

    All Westerners know about how the Crusaders were rolled back is one or two names; usually Sultan Salahuddin (ra).

    Rarely does anybody reflect that he was a spiritual disciple of the son of the famous Sufi teacher and reformer Shaykh Abdul-Qadir Jilani (ra) and that the armies that were raised up were from a population that had been spiritually transformed through the work of the many, many students of that man. The tears, the night vigil prayers, etc. - they had to be ready to make those sacrifices.

    Everyone wants to look at the top of the pyramid and not reflect on how much more effort was put into building up the base until it gets to its ultimate height.

    Peace.

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

    Karl Marx would be horrified with modern Russia
     
    Karl Marx was horrified about Russia in his own day, so it wouldn't be exactly much of a change.
    And sorry, I understand you're a leftist, but the fact that representatives of major Western powers now present Karl Marx (whose ideas aren't just some benevolent humanitarianism, that's a misrepresentation) as some positive figure bothers me. That's not something I can identify with.

    Marx is a fundamentally evil thought-system, but still very interesting to study his theory, in particular as only really systematic socialist/communist theory.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  166. anon[128] • Disclaimer says:

    Here is the final and decisive reason why bomb Syria. You cannot argue with this.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  167. As a peace gesture, Russia could extradite Semion Mogilevich to America to stand trial.

    As an added bonus, this would remind people that the “Russian mafia” is more Jewish than Russian.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  168. Dmitry says:
    @reiner Tor
    I'm of the view that Russia can now choose between war and dishonor. Even if it chooses dishonor, it still won't avoid war. Because, as you wrote, it only emboldens the most stupid elements in the US. For example I have heard a few times the Deir ez-Zor incident being used as an example of how Putin will always fold.

    But in my personal situation, it's great if there won't be a war this time. Next week I'll be in cities which will almost certainly be nuclear targets.

    I’m of the view that Russia can now choose between war and dishonor. Even if it chooses dishonor, it still won’t avoid war. Because, as you wrote, it only emboldens the most stupid elements in the US.

    Attacking the Americans would be physical and economic suicide. And for what?

    And there’s nothing really to gain – not any oil, no compatriots’ lives to save, no Russian-speaking citizens, not worthwhile territory, no historically important territory, no economic benefits. Just killing some Jihadists and possible some gas exploration contracts.

    And even the ‘chessboard’ situation in Syria does not change from some symbolic/small America strike, which will be forgotten about in a few weeks.

    It’s more like a case of dumb and dumber in Syria right now – with competing incompetent projects clashing with each other.

    The only people who have been really negatively affected by the entire Syria war (apart from the Arabs), is the EU – which has been flooded with Syrian immigrants. It’s the EU people who should be most angry about the entire debacle and looking at every solution to return the Syrians to Syria. For the rest of the world, it’s surprising how much governments (although not the public) care.

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

    But in my personal situation, it’s great if there won’t be a war this time. Next week I’ll be in cities which will almost certainly be nuclear targets.
     
    I don't know, personally I wouldn't be keen on surviving a nuclear war.
    Do we actually have a good idea what the Russians would target in Europe in case of a general nuclear war against NATO countries?

    I don’t think it’s realistic that the war will begin with a nuclear exchange, let alone an attack on Europe.

    The war would start with CENTCOM clearing out Russia from Syria in alliance with Britain, France, Saudi Arabia, and the UAE.

    Russia would attempt to retaliate in the theater, but it wouldn’t be able to accomplish much owing to the preponderance of forces arrayed against it and the fact that aircraft in Russia would not be granted overflight rights to reach Mediterranean.

    The Tu-160 could no doubt penetrate Turkish airspace without being intercepted, but they are not currently equipped for an anti-shipping role. The Russians could no doubt improvise this capability quickly (they’re probably already doing so), but numbers are limited.

    If the Russians pull off successful missile shots, then I guess we’ll find out how good these missiles and the Aegis BMD are.

    After losing and evacuating in Syria, Russia would have the choice of surrendering or retaliating. Surrender could potentially lead to a coup d’etat against Putin by the siloviki.

    Retaliation would obviously fall in the Ukraine and the Baltics. NATO bases and depots would be hit with ballistic missile strikes.

    Russia lacks the power to advance beyond these areas, and NATO would not be able to immediately eject Russia.

    The front would then stalemate. I don’t think the West is fundamentally capable anymore of any form of diplomacy, let alone armastice, so that’s when the risk of a nuclear exchange would grow.

    Read More
    • Replies: @reiner Tor

    Russia would not be granted overflight rights to reach Mediterranean.
     
    Caspian, Iran, Iraq, Syria route? Though Iraq has Americans.

    Or they could just attack some American bases in the Gulf, like Qatar or Kuwait. Maybe there are some American vessels there, too. It would raise oil prices immediately, so a double win.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  170. Randal says:
    @John Gruskos
    The best move for Putin would be to doggedly continue, or even escalate, the offensive against Al-Qaeda and ISIS in Syria west of the Euphrates, and simply ignore any American air attacks - while of course using all available anti-aircraft missiles to shoot down any cruise missiles targeting Russian or allied military units.

    Assad could relinquish Syria's claim to Sheba Farms to Lebanon, shoring up Lebanese goodwill.

    Hungary could veto all EU economic sanctions as a step towards de-escalating the drift towards war, while opening up new markets for Hungarian exports.

    American nationalists need to concentrate on electing a better congress in 2018 and electing a better president in 2020.

    The best move for Putin would be to doggedly continue, or even escalate, the offensive against Al-Qaeda and ISIS in Syria west of the Euphrates, and simply ignore any American air attacks – while of course using all available anti-aircraft missiles to shoot down any cruise missiles targeting Russian or allied military units.

    This is probably the most sensible and cautious option, and therefore most likely the one that will appeal most to Putin. Though he is capable of a daring surprise response (as in Crimea).

    American nationalists need to concentrate on electing a better congress in 2018 and electing a better president in 2020.

    Good luck with that.

    And I mean that in both the cynical and the genuine sense.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  171. @AaronB
    I'm amused by the naive Western faith in the "lone hero" when collective action by a strong community is the only thing that has ever had any chance of challenging the political status quo.

    Kind of like a certain other community I can't think of right now that has managed to amass tremendous power that way...whom we absolutely should not learn from, but continue being radical individualists.

    Ah well, I'm sure our hero will come after Trump and make it unnecessary to reform our culture in a collectivist direction with united interests and economic interdependence, and we can continue competitively stepping on each other's faces. We just need a hero with "the right character".

    You’re not wrong, but in this case one man actually does hold the power.

    Kind of like a certain other community I can’t think of right now that has managed to amass tremendous power that way…whom we absolutely should not learn from, but continue being radical individualists.

    Ah well, I’m sure our hero will come after Trump and make it unnecessary to reform our culture in a collectivist direction with united interests and economic interdependence, and we can continue competitively stepping on each other’s faces. We just need a hero with “the right character”.

    Kevin MacDonald has described National Socialism in this fashion.

    Read More
    • Replies: @AaronB
    I wouldn't call it Nationalist Socialism at this particular historical moment because that's just poor strategy...we don't have to be so obvious.... and ham fisted...its our weakness that we can't be flexible with appearances and have to be so crudely obvious.

    But the same idea by any other name...everyone has pointed out the similarities between Judaism and national socialism but it shows you the power of being flexible with appearances and labels that no one cares.

    Trump is rapidly discovering how little power he actually has. Power is never concentrated in one man - our western mythology deceives us about the power of the individual.

    If we don't learn that lesson we will just be flailing about in the dark like fools...

    The "hero" will not save us. Why doesn't the alt-right set up a charitable organization that receives thousands of small donations and use it to offer financial support to everyone fired by SJWs, for instance? Because building that kind of social capital might actually begin forming a formidable community.

    The big secret is that "group identity" must have a solid base in our lower animal self interest - simply talking about white identity will get you nowhere, yet that's all anyone does. It's too abstract.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  172. @Thorfinnsson
    I don't think it's realistic that the war will begin with a nuclear exchange, let alone an attack on Europe.

    The war would start with CENTCOM clearing out Russia from Syria in alliance with Britain, France, Saudi Arabia, and the UAE.

    Russia would attempt to retaliate in the theater, but it wouldn't be able to accomplish much owing to the preponderance of forces arrayed against it and the fact that aircraft in Russia would not be granted overflight rights to reach Mediterranean.

    The Tu-160 could no doubt penetrate Turkish airspace without being intercepted, but they are not currently equipped for an anti-shipping role. The Russians could no doubt improvise this capability quickly (they're probably already doing so), but numbers are limited.

    If the Russians pull off successful missile shots, then I guess we'll find out how good these missiles and the Aegis BMD are.

    After losing and evacuating in Syria, Russia would have the choice of surrendering or retaliating. Surrender could potentially lead to a coup d'etat against Putin by the siloviki.

    Retaliation would obviously fall in the Ukraine and the Baltics. NATO bases and depots would be hit with ballistic missile strikes.

    Russia lacks the power to advance beyond these areas, and NATO would not be able to immediately eject Russia.

    The front would then stalemate. I don't think the West is fundamentally capable anymore of any form of diplomacy, let alone armastice, so that's when the risk of a nuclear exchange would grow.

    Russia would not be granted overflight rights to reach Mediterranean.

    Caspian, Iran, Iraq, Syria route? Though Iraq has Americans.

    Or they could just attack some American bases in the Gulf, like Qatar or Kuwait. Maybe there are some American vessels there, too. It would raise oil prices immediately, so a double win.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Thorfinnsson


    Caspian, Iran, Iraq, Syria route? Though Iraq has Americans.
     
    Obviously they would find a way to strike us. The issue is that the distance and hostile airspace would limit sortie generation. US and allies can deploy far more airpower and don't need to cross hostile airspace.


    Or they could just attack some American bases in the Gulf, like Qatar or Kuwait. Maybe there are some American vessels there, too. It would raise oil prices immediately, so a double win.
     
    Almost certainly those bases would be attacked. The question then is--how many long-range cruise missiles does Russia have?

    Air base damage is also easy to repair, though if Russia gets lucky it could take out some coalition aircraft and stores.

    But these aircraft would be replaced by new ones from Western Europe, CONUS, and possibly Japan.

    Bottom line is the USA and its allies have overwhelming escalation dominance in Syria.

    I'm not convinced oil prices will rise substantially either. I don't see any reason the powers that be can't manipulate the NYMEX and LME to prevent this provided there's no actual shortage of supply.

    Granted, Russia could create this shortage of supply by actually blowing up oil targets in Saudi Arabia and the UAE. Not sure Russia's ally China would react favorably to that, but China does have a large strategic reserve. Depending on how many tanker cars and locomotives are available Russia (and the 'stans) could plausibly replace Persian Gulf imports.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  173. @Randal

    NATO wars start when the other side chooses to shoot back.
     
    Funnily enough there's another country that adopts the same attitude - we are entitled to attack whenever we want and if you retaliate it's an outrageous act of aggression that will entitle us to do whatever we want in response:

    Israeli media and officials are fueling the current escalation over Syria.


    “If the Iranians act against Israel from Syrian territory, it will be Syrian President Bashar al-Assad and his government that will pay the price,” senior Israeli defense officials were quoted by the country’s media on April 11. “Assad’s regime and Assad himself will disappear from the map and the world if the Iranians do try to harm Israel or its interests from Syrian territory.”

    “Our recommendation to Iran is that it does not try to act, because Israel is determined to continue on this issue to the very end.”

    The comments came in response to claims by Iranian officials to retaliate to the recent Israeli strike on the T4 airbase in Syria where some Iranian servicemembers were killed.

     

    And, surprise surprise, look what they use as their ultimate victimological rationalisation for extreme, lawless aggression and violence:

    “As we approach Holocaust Remembrance Day, Yom Hashoah, Israel should clarify that it takes a moral stance against killers who use weapons of mass murder against civilians.
    ....
    Separately, Housing Minister Yoav Galant, a former commander of the IDF Southern Command, vowed to assasinate Assad:


    “The world will be a better place without Assad. Five days before Holocaust Memorial Day, the world has once again received a horrific reminder from Syria. "

     

    https://southfront.org/saber-rattling-israeli-officials-vow-to-assassinate-assad-attack-syria/

    Netanyahu said: “Assad’s regime and Assad himself will disappear from the map and the world…” Remember the brouhaha when then Iranian president Ahmadinejad said a similar thing about the Zionist regime? (Quoting Khomeini.)

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

    Houthis launch Scuds at Riyadh, heavy selling of Donetsk later.

    People are veryunimaginitive, retaliation happens through proxies, such as Shia militia attacking the US in Iraq.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Thorfinnsson

    People are veryunimaginitive, retaliation happens through proxies, such as Shia militia attacking the US in Iraq.
     

    Imaginative:

    Russia gets China to pressure Pakistan to close its ports to ISAF cargo.

    NATO army in Afghanistan completely cut off from outside supply.

    USA pressures India into launching Operation Cold Start.

    China responds by invading Arunachal Pradesh.

    What began as a civil war in Syria turns into an all-out war on the Indian subcontinent.

    As Cold Start bogs down without opening up a supply line to NATO forces in Afghanistan, the USA and its Gulf allies attack Iran in an effort to open up an air route to an increasingly desperate ISAF which has began extorting food from the civilian population.

    This scenario is at least good news for you Europeans! :)

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  175. m___ says:

    How smart one has to be to understand geopolitics, how smart has one have to be to figurehead in Washington, …about as smart as to shoot some missiles into Syrian core territory.

    We live in societies that cater to believe systems that are “holy” surrealistic. Believe systems, rather then due diligence, apes in cages. How smart does one have to be to understand that economical growth, how banks use arithmetic, leads to head collision, …the wall is near, now let’s punch a hole, do not depend on the hole the elites of scrap tend to blow in the soil in Syria. For individuals with some cognitive ease it is now to play the outlier camp, say pull Julian Assange out of oblivion, desert the sitting duck cruiser ships, block parliament gates, have true and tested, outliers comment and direct something that cannot be distorted by intermediate system mongers.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  176. @reiner Tor

    Russia would not be granted overflight rights to reach Mediterranean.
     
    Caspian, Iran, Iraq, Syria route? Though Iraq has Americans.

    Or they could just attack some American bases in the Gulf, like Qatar or Kuwait. Maybe there are some American vessels there, too. It would raise oil prices immediately, so a double win.

    Caspian, Iran, Iraq, Syria route? Though Iraq has Americans.

    Obviously they would find a way to strike us. The issue is that the distance and hostile airspace would limit sortie generation. US and allies can deploy far more airpower and don’t need to cross hostile airspace.

    Or they could just attack some American bases in the Gulf, like Qatar or Kuwait. Maybe there are some American vessels there, too. It would raise oil prices immediately, so a double win.

    Almost certainly those bases would be attacked. The question then is–how many long-range cruise missiles does Russia have?

    Air base damage is also easy to repair, though if Russia gets lucky it could take out some coalition aircraft and stores.

    But these aircraft would be replaced by new ones from Western Europe, CONUS, and possibly Japan.

    Bottom line is the USA and its allies have overwhelming escalation dominance in Syria.

    I’m not convinced oil prices will rise substantially either. I don’t see any reason the powers that be can’t manipulate the NYMEX and LME to prevent this provided there’s no actual shortage of supply.

    Granted, Russia could create this shortage of supply by actually blowing up oil targets in Saudi Arabia and the UAE. Not sure Russia’s ally China would react favorably to that, but China does have a large strategic reserve. Depending on how many tanker cars and locomotives are available Russia (and the ‘stans) could plausibly replace Persian Gulf imports.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Randal

    Granted, Russia could create this shortage of supply by actually blowing up oil targets in Saudi Arabia and the UAE.
     
    Remember Iran would almost certainly be in the fight on Russia's side from day one. That widens and complicates the tasks for the US and its accomplices considerably, as well as giving a number of useful capabilities to the Russian side, such as bases and missiles. And I've certainly heard reports that Iran has stated an intention to target Arab oil facilities from the outset of a war.

    As for China, one has to assume they know they would be next in line if Russia were defeated by the US, so they'd be pretty amenable to selling arms for oil on a grand scale, even if much of the oil deliveries are delayed indefinitely.

    Not disagreeing about escalation superiority, but I do think the costs would be very considerable if it really kicked off to that extent.
    , @Philip Owen
    The railmcapacity isn't there.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  177. AaronB says:
    @Thorfinnsson
    You're not wrong, but in this case one man actually does hold the power.


    Kind of like a certain other community I can’t think of right now that has managed to amass tremendous power that way…whom we absolutely should not learn from, but continue being radical individualists.

    Ah well, I’m sure our hero will come after Trump and make it unnecessary to reform our culture in a collectivist direction with united interests and economic interdependence, and we can continue competitively stepping on each other’s faces. We just need a hero with “the right character”.
     
    Kevin MacDonald has described National Socialism in this fashion.

    I wouldn’t call it Nationalist Socialism at this particular historical moment because that’s just poor strategy…we don’t have to be so obvious…. and ham fisted…its our weakness that we can’t be flexible with appearances and have to be so crudely obvious.

    But the same idea by any other name…everyone has pointed out the similarities between Judaism and national socialism but it shows you the power of being flexible with appearances and labels that no one cares.

    Trump is rapidly discovering how little power he actually has. Power is never concentrated in one man – our western mythology deceives us about the power of the individual.

    If we don’t learn that lesson we will just be flailing about in the dark like fools…

    The “hero” will not save us. Why doesn’t the alt-right set up a charitable organization that receives thousands of small donations and use it to offer financial support to everyone fired by SJWs, for instance? Because building that kind of social capital might actually begin forming a formidable community.

    The big secret is that “group identity” must have a solid base in our lower animal self interest – simply talking about white identity will get you nowhere, yet that’s all anyone does. It’s too abstract.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Thorfinnsson


    I wouldn’t call it Nationalist Socialism at this particular historical moment because that’s just poor strategy…we don’t have to be so obvious…. and ham fisted…its our weakness that we can’t be flexible with appearances and have to be so crudely obvious.

    But the same idea by any other name…everyone has pointed out the similarities between Judaism and national socialism but it shows you the power of being flexible with appearances and labels that no one cares.
     
    Sure. Reviving Nazism is a LARPy dead-end. It's no different than the ridiculous dweebs who LARP as Norse pagans.

    That said Northern Europeans don't do guile very well compared to some other peoples, and that's not only the Jews.


    Trump is rapidly discovering how little power he actually has. Power is never concentrated in one man – our western mythology deceives us about the power of the individual.

    If we don’t learn that lesson we will just be flailing about in the dark like fools…
     
    This is true, but he has more power than the snakes around him claim. Unfortunately he doesn't read more than 140 characters at a time.

    It's true that Congress has to appropriate funds for THE WALL and that state National Guards are controlled by the states, but there's nothing stopping Trump from deploying the chair force's surveillance drones to the border for instance.

    Mad Duck Mattis will refuse. Fine, fire him. Fire the next dweeb who refuses too. Keeping firing military dweebs until you get your Grant. Lincoln was never afraid to fire generals who didn't fight.

    Trump has discovered that he has considerable power over trade policy, and he has his own people there and has from day one thanks to his friendship with Wilbur Ross. He needs to start getting his own people elsewhere.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  178. @LondonBob
    Houthis launch Scuds at Riyadh, heavy selling of Donetsk later.

    People are veryunimaginitive, retaliation happens through proxies, such as Shia militia attacking the US in Iraq.

    People are veryunimaginitive, retaliation happens through proxies, such as Shia militia attacking the US in Iraq.

    Imaginative:

    Russia gets China to pressure Pakistan to close its ports to ISAF cargo.

    NATO army in Afghanistan completely cut off from outside supply.

    USA pressures India into launching Operation Cold Start.

    China responds by invading Arunachal Pradesh.

    What began as a civil war in Syria turns into an all-out war on the Indian subcontinent.

    As Cold Start bogs down without opening up a supply line to NATO forces in Afghanistan, the USA and its Gulf allies attack Iran in an effort to open up an air route to an increasingly desperate ISAF which has began extorting food from the civilian population.

    This scenario is at least good news for you Europeans! :)

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


    Caspian, Iran, Iraq, Syria route? Though Iraq has Americans.
     
    Obviously they would find a way to strike us. The issue is that the distance and hostile airspace would limit sortie generation. US and allies can deploy far more airpower and don't need to cross hostile airspace.


    Or they could just attack some American bases in the Gulf, like Qatar or Kuwait. Maybe there are some American vessels there, too. It would raise oil prices immediately, so a double win.
     
    Almost certainly those bases would be attacked. The question then is--how many long-range cruise missiles does Russia have?

    Air base damage is also easy to repair, though if Russia gets lucky it could take out some coalition aircraft and stores.

    But these aircraft would be replaced by new ones from Western Europe, CONUS, and possibly Japan.

    Bottom line is the USA and its allies have overwhelming escalation dominance in Syria.

    I'm not convinced oil prices will rise substantially either. I don't see any reason the powers that be can't manipulate the NYMEX and LME to prevent this provided there's no actual shortage of supply.

    Granted, Russia could create this shortage of supply by actually blowing up oil targets in Saudi Arabia and the UAE. Not sure Russia's ally China would react favorably to that, but China does have a large strategic reserve. Depending on how many tanker cars and locomotives are available Russia (and the 'stans) could plausibly replace Persian Gulf imports.

    Granted, Russia could create this shortage of supply by actually blowing up oil targets in Saudi Arabia and the UAE.

    Remember Iran would almost certainly be in the fight on Russia’s side from day one. That widens and complicates the tasks for the US and its accomplices considerably, as well as giving a number of useful capabilities to the Russian side, such as bases and missiles. And I’ve certainly heard reports that Iran has stated an intention to target Arab oil facilities from the outset of a war.

    As for China, one has to assume they know they would be next in line if Russia were defeated by the US, so they’d be pretty amenable to selling arms for oil on a grand scale, even if much of the oil deliveries are delayed indefinitely.

    Not disagreeing about escalation superiority, but I do think the costs would be very considerable if it really kicked off to that extent.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Thorfinnsson

    Remember Iran would almost certainly be in the fight on Russia’s side from day one. That widens and complicates the tasks for the US and its accomplices considerably, as well as giving a number of useful capabilities to the Russian side, such as bases and missiles.
     

    Iranian support and basing would be a big asset to Russia of course, but it doesn't solve the fundamental issue.

    Russia has ~700 combat aircraft and low warstocks of modern PGMs. Unsure on the situation of Soviet-era antiship guided missiles. If those were preserved they'll be a big asset.

    The chair force alone has over 2,000 combat aircraft, and in addition to better basing than the Russians there is far more tanker support to increase sortie generation. Warstocks are large.

    To that we can add the gayvy, the muh reenz, and of course allies. Britain & France combined are about equal to Russia in combat aircraft with more modern warstocks, and the GCC are about equal to Britain & France.

    In practice I would expect GCC air forces to perform poorly owing to well known issues with Arabalonian animals.

    And I’ve certainly heard reports that Iran has stated an intention to target Arab oil facilities from the outset of a war.
     

    Iran doesn't have much in the way of guided missiles, and overwhelming allied airpower in Arabia means they wouldn't do much damage without Russian support.

    I don't think the damage would be that substantial.

    Closing the Straits of Hormuz would have an impact, but not only would the mines ultimately be cleared but oil can be shipped from Yanbu on the Red Sea, which is connected by pipeline to the Persian Gulf infrastructure. Don't know the capacity of the pipeline or port.

    Honestly the best hope here would be a sudden ground invasion of Saudi Arabia with Iraqi support.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  180. @AaronB
    I wouldn't call it Nationalist Socialism at this particular historical moment because that's just poor strategy...we don't have to be so obvious.... and ham fisted...its our weakness that we can't be flexible with appearances and have to be so crudely obvious.

    But the same idea by any other name...everyone has pointed out the similarities between Judaism and national socialism but it shows you the power of being flexible with appearances and labels that no one cares.

    Trump is rapidly discovering how little power he actually has. Power is never concentrated in one man - our western mythology deceives us about the power of the individual.

    If we don't learn that lesson we will just be flailing about in the dark like fools...

    The "hero" will not save us. Why doesn't the alt-right set up a charitable organization that receives thousands of small donations and use it to offer financial support to everyone fired by SJWs, for instance? Because building that kind of social capital might actually begin forming a formidable community.

    The big secret is that "group identity" must have a solid base in our lower animal self interest - simply talking about white identity will get you nowhere, yet that's all anyone does. It's too abstract.

    I wouldn’t call it Nationalist Socialism at this particular historical moment because that’s just poor strategy…we don’t have to be so obvious…. and ham fisted…its our weakness that we can’t be flexible with appearances and have to be so crudely obvious.

    But the same idea by any other name…everyone has pointed out the similarities between Judaism and national socialism but it shows you the power of being flexible with appearances and labels that no one cares.

    Sure. Reviving Nazism is a LARPy dead-end. It’s no different than the ridiculous dweebs who LARP as Norse pagans.

    That said Northern Europeans don’t do guile very well compared to some other peoples, and that’s not only the Jews.

    Trump is rapidly discovering how little power he actually has. Power is never concentrated in one man – our western mythology deceives us about the power of the individual.

    If we don’t learn that lesson we will just be flailing about in the dark like fools…

    This is true, but he has more power than the snakes around him claim. Unfortunately he doesn’t read more than 140 characters at a time.

    It’s true that Congress has to appropriate funds for THE WALL and that state National Guards are controlled by the states, but there’s nothing stopping Trump from deploying the chair force’s surveillance drones to the border for instance.

    Mad Duck Mattis will refuse. Fine, fire him. Fire the next dweeb who refuses too. Keeping firing military dweebs until you get your Grant. Lincoln was never afraid to fire generals who didn’t fight.

    Trump has discovered that he has considerable power over trade policy, and he has his own people there and has from day one thanks to his friendship with Wilbur Ross. He needs to start getting his own people elsewhere.

    Read More
    • Replies: @AaronB
    The British were masters of guile...they were not known as "perfidious Albion" for nothing. Northern Europe became temporarily so powerful through science that it could dispense with guile. That age has passed. There can be no power - or even self-defense - without guile in a world of relative equals. Guile is also the special weapon of the weak.

    But I am not talking so much about political guile, which northern Europeans will learn again. I am talking about not taking appearances and labels so seriously - our stupid and gloomy northern European "seriousness". We need to learn to play with appearances, because at bottom it is all illusion. Once we aren't so serious we may even learn to create beauty again. Our "realism" and belief in "truth" has made us ugly and stupid and inflexible.

    But I'm just talking crazy again...

    Trump may have more power than he knows, but he himself is viscerally influenced by whatever group he is surrounded by and identifies with in a thousand subliminal ways. It's a sticky web none of us can escape and makes our romantic claims for individualism hollow. We all belong to a group whether we admit it or not - admitting it can become a source of power.

    If you want to lose weight, become friends with a group of skinny people...
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  181. @Randal

    Granted, Russia could create this shortage of supply by actually blowing up oil targets in Saudi Arabia and the UAE.
     
    Remember Iran would almost certainly be in the fight on Russia's side from day one. That widens and complicates the tasks for the US and its accomplices considerably, as well as giving a number of useful capabilities to the Russian side, such as bases and missiles. And I've certainly heard reports that Iran has stated an intention to target Arab oil facilities from the outset of a war.

    As for China, one has to assume they know they would be next in line if Russia were defeated by the US, so they'd be pretty amenable to selling arms for oil on a grand scale, even if much of the oil deliveries are delayed indefinitely.

    Not disagreeing about escalation superiority, but I do think the costs would be very considerable if it really kicked off to that extent.

    Remember Iran would almost certainly be in the fight on Russia’s side from day one. That widens and complicates the tasks for the US and its accomplices considerably, as well as giving a number of useful capabilities to the Russian side, such as bases and missiles.

    Iranian support and basing would be a big asset to Russia of course, but it doesn’t solve the fundamental issue.

    Russia has ~700 combat aircraft and low warstocks of modern PGMs. Unsure on the situation of Soviet-era antiship guided missiles. If those were preserved they’ll be a big asset.

    The chair force alone has over 2,000 combat aircraft, and in addition to better basing than the Russians there is far more tanker support to increase sortie generation. Warstocks are large.

    To that we can add the gayvy, the muh reenz, and of course allies. Britain & France combined are about equal to Russia in combat aircraft with more modern warstocks, and the GCC are about equal to Britain & France.

    In practice I would expect GCC air forces to perform poorly owing to well known issues with Arabalonian animals.

    And I’ve certainly heard reports that Iran has stated an intention to target Arab oil facilities from the outset of a war.

    Iran doesn’t have much in the way of guided missiles, and overwhelming allied airpower in Arabia means they wouldn’t do much damage without Russian support.

    I don’t think the damage would be that substantial.

    Closing the Straits of Hormuz would have an impact, but not only would the mines ultimately be cleared but oil can be shipped from Yanbu on the Red Sea, which is connected by pipeline to the Persian Gulf infrastructure. Don’t know the capacity of the pipeline or port.

    Honestly the best hope here would be a sudden ground invasion of Saudi Arabia with Iraqi support.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Kimppis
    Not that I disagree with you for the most part, but isn't the Russian total closer to 1000? I also don't think Britain & France combined have quite as many combat aircraft as Russia, more like 60-70%. (And then there's of course Russia's IADS, not that it really matters in this scenario.) Do they have more modern warstocks? Maybe more modern but probably MUCH smaller? Who knows? (Again: not saying that it really matters here.)

    But if shit really hits the fan, the small Russian force in Syria is actually a good thing in a way, because it means the number of potential casualties is also limited. So it shouldn't be impossible for Russia to "equalize the score," or atleast close to that.

    Just hit American bases in the region with cruise missiles (the Martyanov.. Doctrine), maybe some ships as well if at all possible and get the fuck out. Lastly, additional missile strikes in Eastern Europe: ABM sites and NATO bases in the Baltics, Poland? But no ground invasion, obviously, not an inch.
    , @Randal

    Iranian support and basing would be a big asset to Russia of course, but it doesn’t solve the fundamental issue.
     
    We don't disagree on the fundamentals - Russia can't defend a position in the ME.

    All I'm saying is it won't be a cakewalk for the US if Russia chooses to make an issue of it. Losses and costs will likely be significant.

    Iran doesn’t have much in the way of guided missiles, and overwhelming allied airpower in Arabia means they wouldn’t do much damage without Russian support.

    I don’t think the damage would be that substantial.
     
    Iran has very substantial missile forces, even allowing for exaggeration by the usual suspects, and oil facilities aren't exactly mobile or hardened targets. The east-west pipeline is unlikely to stay active either once fighting starts.

    Regardless, there will be no oil coming out of the Gulf for some considerable time after the start of hostilities - probably the US will have to physically occupy the eastern bank. The price will go through the roof on the first day, and likely stay there for quite some time.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  182. @LondonBob
    Not how I see it, Trump saying he is ok if they attempt to intercept the missiles. If it does go ahead a somewhat larger missile strike with an attempt to intercept them is an optimal outcome.

    Not how I see it, Trump saying he is ok if they attempt to intercept the missiles. If it does go ahead a somewhat larger missile strike with an attempt to intercept them is an optimal outcome.

    If they go for dispensable targets such as airstrips, hangars, empty barracks, and so on, I’m with you.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  183. @John Gruskos
    The best move for Putin would be to doggedly continue, or even escalate, the offensive against Al-Qaeda and ISIS in Syria west of the Euphrates, and simply ignore any American air attacks - while of course using all available anti-aircraft missiles to shoot down any cruise missiles targeting Russian or allied military units.

    Assad could relinquish Syria's claim to Sheba Farms to Lebanon, shoring up Lebanese goodwill.

    Hungary could veto all EU economic sanctions as a step towards de-escalating the drift towards war, while opening up new markets for Hungarian exports.

    American nationalists need to concentrate on electing a better congress in 2018 and electing a better president in 2020.

    The best move for Putin would be to doggedly continue, or even escalate, the offensive against Al-Qaeda and ISIS in Syria west of the Euphrates, and simply ignore any American air attacks – while of course using all available anti-aircraft missiles to shoot down any cruise missiles targeting Russian or allied military units.

    This would be my preferred course of action too, I think, but there remains the question of how much Russia can afford to back down. The argument that this is only the beginning of a greater push to “go Iran” on Russia has merit to it, and if that is indeed what Washington has in plan, then the people in Kremlin must think long and hard about when and where and how to assert themselves.

    What complicates this somewhat, I think, is that it’s hard to say if Russia will be in a stronger or weaker position visavi Washington and Brussels 3-5 years from now. With Nazi Germany, for instance, everyone I have ever read agrees that they would have had a far stronger position had they pushed back the invasion of Poland 5 years or more. In hindsight, then, they made a huge error in invading too soon (thankfully). Against this, one may argue that these things become obvious only after the fact. Perhaps the Nazis felt that they had no other choice but to get going in the early fall of 1939.

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

    Remember Iran would almost certainly be in the fight on Russia’s side from day one. That widens and complicates the tasks for the US and its accomplices considerably, as well as giving a number of useful capabilities to the Russian side, such as bases and missiles.
     

    Iranian support and basing would be a big asset to Russia of course, but it doesn't solve the fundamental issue.

    Russia has ~700 combat aircraft and low warstocks of modern PGMs. Unsure on the situation of Soviet-era antiship guided missiles. If those were preserved they'll be a big asset.

    The chair force alone has over 2,000 combat aircraft, and in addition to better basing than the Russians there is far more tanker support to increase sortie generation. Warstocks are large.

    To that we can add the gayvy, the muh reenz, and of course allies. Britain & France combined are about equal to Russia in combat aircraft with more modern warstocks, and the GCC are about equal to Britain & France.

    In practice I would expect GCC air forces to perform poorly owing to well known issues with Arabalonian animals.

    And I’ve certainly heard reports that Iran has stated an intention to target Arab oil facilities from the outset of a war.
     

    Iran doesn't have much in the way of guided missiles, and overwhelming allied airpower in Arabia means they wouldn't do much damage without Russian support.

    I don't think the damage would be that substantial.

    Closing the Straits of Hormuz would have an impact, but not only would the mines ultimately be cleared but oil can be shipped from Yanbu on the Red Sea, which is connected by pipeline to the Persian Gulf infrastructure. Don't know the capacity of the pipeline or port.

    Honestly the best hope here would be a sudden ground invasion of Saudi Arabia with Iraqi support.

    Not that I disagree with you for the most part, but isn’t the Russian total closer to 1000? I also don’t think Britain & France combined have quite as many combat aircraft as Russia, more like 60-70%. (And then there’s of course Russia’s IADS, not that it really matters in this scenario.) Do they have more modern warstocks? Maybe more modern but probably MUCH smaller? Who knows? (Again: not saying that it really matters here.)

    But if shit really hits the fan, the small Russian force in Syria is actually a good thing in a way, because it means the number of potential casualties is also limited. So it shouldn’t be impossible for Russia to “equalize the score,” or atleast close to that.

    Just hit American bases in the region with cruise missiles (the Martyanov.. Doctrine), maybe some ships as well if at all possible and get the fuck out. Lastly, additional missile strikes in Eastern Europe: ABM sites and NATO bases in the Baltics, Poland? But no ground invasion, obviously, not an inch.

    Read More
    • Replies: @reiner Tor

    But if shit really hits the fan, the small Russian force in Syria is actually a good thing in a way, because it means the number of potential casualties is also limited. So it shouldn’t be impossible for Russia to “equalize the score,” or atleast close to that.
     
    I would argue they’d have to at least equalize the score. Otherwise, again, the neocons will be emboldened. Also Russia cannot afford losses as easily as Americans, because it has smaller forces to begin with.
    , @Dmitry

    Just hit American bases in the region with cruise missiles (the Martyanov.. Doctrine), maybe some ships as well if at all possible and get the fuck out. Lastly, additional missile strikes in Eastern Europe: ABM sites and NATO bases in the Baltics, Poland? But no ground invasion, obviously, not an inch.

     

    If you want to start nuclear apocalypse. Actually there is no reason for direct conflict at all, and both sides will be working hard to avoid directly hitting any of each other's assets in Syria.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  185. Anonymous[202] • Disclaimer says:
    @reiner Tor
    It will only embolden the US. They already backed down last year, and now the American senators are demanding a sustained air campaign.

    They now have a choice between war and dishonor. Even if they choose dishonor now, they will not avoid war later.

    It’s simply impractical for Russia to fight in Syria. If Russia sinks a US ship, the US destroys the Russian air base. What’s Russia’s next move then?

    Read More
    • Replies: @reiner Tor
    A couple bigger ships could be worth more than the whole Russian base. If they could kill the big prize, the carrier (questionable; I also don’t know if it’d be wise), then they’d already inflict more casualties on the US then the losing their whole fleet in the region and the Syrian base. Then the US could only escalate by attacking Russian territory.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  186. @Anonymous
    It's simply impractical for Russia to fight in Syria. If Russia sinks a US ship, the US destroys the Russian air base. What's Russia's next move then?

    A couple bigger ships could be worth more than the whole Russian base. If they could kill the big prize, the carrier (questionable; I also don’t know if it’d be wise), then they’d already inflict more casualties on the US then the losing their whole fleet in the region and the Syrian base. Then the US could only escalate by attacking Russian territory.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Dmitry

    If they could kill the big prize, the carrier (questionable; I also don’t know if it’d be wise)
     
    If you like the idea of everyone dying in nuclear apocalypse. And over a meaningless shithole, which affects neither of the countries involved.

    No, to attack an aircraft carrier would not be wise. And nothing like this will happen, as we may have an incompetent government, but we don't have psychos in our government.
    , @John Gruskos

    I also don’t know if it’d be wise
     
    It would not be wise. It would not cow or intimidate the American people, it would whip them into a rage like Fort Sumter and Pearl Harbor did.

    Remember, the real war is not US vs. Russian Federation. There are no real geopolitical points of dispute between America's real interests and Russia's real interests.

    The real war is between the nationalists, social conservatives, populists and libertarians of all nations on the one hand, and a cabal of totalitarian cultural Marxist globalist elitists on the other hand (with Sunni extremists hovering like jackals in the background, waiting to feast on the corpses of the European nations after the hoped-for globalist victory).

    2010 - present, the nationalists have been increasingly winning elections across the European Christian world, and the globalists are scared.

    They need a major war as an excuse to violently crack down on nationalists, before the latter have enjoyed too much electoral success.

    The #1 task of all nationalists at this time should be to avoid the outbreak of a major war.

    Putin's smart move would be to ignore American air attacks, resist the temptation to sink the vulnerable US navy ships and the ungarrisoned Baltic states which will be dangled temptingly in front of him, and patiently continue to destroy the Al-Qaeda and ISIS strongholds in Syria west of the Euphrates, like an ox plowing a field while ignoring the stinging flies. And for God's sake, make sure his Middle Eastern allies aren't really using poison gas!

    Orban's smart move would be to veto all EU economic sanctions. Many people who don't feel free to speak their minds would secretly welcome the opportunities for profit that would be thus opened up and the jobs that would be created. More importantly, economic sanctions are always the first step towards war. First come sanctions, then proxy war, then air war, then boots on the ground. By vetoing the sanctions, he would be literally setting back the drift towards war. And he shouldn't delude himself that his regime will be allowed to continue in the crisis of a major war. Having loyally supported the sanctions will not save him.

    Would Hungary's special relationship with Poland survive a Hungarian veto of EU sanctions against Russia? Perhaps Putin needs act boldly to end the anachronistic Russo-Polish tensions. An offer to let Poland mediate the Russia-Ukraine dispute?

    Putin has plenty of domestic political capital to spare. Any move that would draw attention to the real nature of this conflict would be wise. Tear down monuments to Bolsheviks, especially non-Russian Bolsheviks, especially Jewish Bolsheviks. (Anything named for 1/4 Jewish Lenin could be renamed for patriotic Russian statesmen assassinated by Jews such as Alexander II and Stolypin, or patriotic writers who criticized Jews such as Dostoevsky and Solzhenitsyn, or Prince Sviatoslav Khazar-bane) Crack down on organized crime, especially non-Russian organized crime, especially Jewish organized crime.

    Act boldly to end anachronistic Russo-Ukrainian tensions. Praise Prince Daniel of Galicia's doomed heroism against the Mongols. Strike a medal with Alexander Nevsky on one side and Prince Daniel on the other to commemorate the difficult decisions taken by different branches of the Rus in a tragic time. Vigorously denounce the Soviet (not Russian) crimes against the Ukrainian people. Stress the non-Russian nature of Georgian Stalin and the Jewish Bolsheviks. Point out how Kaganovich was involved in both the destruction of the Cathedral of Christ the Savior in Moscow and the Holodomor, and likewise Femen (financed by Jed Sunden) vandalized the Kiev memorial to the victims of Communism as an act of solidarity with Pussy Riot's desecration of the Cathedral of Christ the Savior.

    Trump also needs to be wary of a major war. In the crisis environment of a major war, with his supporters muzzled or imprisoned, he would be easily removed from office via impeachment or 25th amendment and tried for treason, and all his personal assets seized and his family left impoverished and disgraced. As much as he relishes betraying his supporters, he should be aware that doing so does nothing to diminish the hatred which the globalists will always feel against him for even pretending to be a nationalist.

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


    I wouldn’t call it Nationalist Socialism at this particular historical moment because that’s just poor strategy…we don’t have to be so obvious…. and ham fisted…its our weakness that we can’t be flexible with appearances and have to be so crudely obvious.

    But the same idea by any other name…everyone has pointed out the similarities between Judaism and national socialism but it shows you the power of being flexible with appearances and labels that no one cares.
     
    Sure. Reviving Nazism is a LARPy dead-end. It's no different than the ridiculous dweebs who LARP as Norse pagans.

    That said Northern Europeans don't do guile very well compared to some other peoples, and that's not only the Jews.


    Trump is rapidly discovering how little power he actually has. Power is never concentrated in one man – our western mythology deceives us about the power of the individual.

    If we don’t learn that lesson we will just be flailing about in the dark like fools…
     
    This is true, but he has more power than the snakes around him claim. Unfortunately he doesn't read more than 140 characters at a time.

    It's true that Congress has to appropriate funds for THE WALL and that state National Guards are controlled by the states, but there's nothing stopping Trump from deploying the chair force's surveillance drones to the border for instance.

    Mad Duck Mattis will refuse. Fine, fire him. Fire the next dweeb who refuses too. Keeping firing military dweebs until you get your Grant. Lincoln was never afraid to fire generals who didn't fight.

    Trump has discovered that he has considerable power over trade policy, and he has his own people there and has from day one thanks to his friendship with Wilbur Ross. He needs to start getting his own people elsewhere.

    The British were masters of guile…they were not known as “perfidious Albion” for nothing. Northern Europe became temporarily so powerful through science that it could dispense with guile. That age has passed. There can be no power – or even self-defense – without guile in a world of relative equals. Guile is also the special weapon of the weak.

    But I am not talking so much about political guile, which northern Europeans will learn again. I am talking about not taking appearances and labels so seriously – our stupid and gloomy northern European “seriousness”. We need to learn to play with appearances, because at bottom it is all illusion. Once we aren’t so serious we may even learn to create beauty again. Our “realism” and belief in “truth” has made us ugly and stupid and inflexible.

    But I’m just talking crazy again…

    Trump may have more power than he knows, but he himself is viscerally influenced by whatever group he is surrounded by and identifies with in a thousand subliminal ways. It’s a sticky web none of us can escape and makes our romantic claims for individualism hollow. We all belong to a group whether we admit it or not – admitting it can become a source of power.

    If you want to lose weight, become friends with a group of skinny people…

    Read More
    • Replies: @Swedish Family

    Once we aren’t so serious we may even learn to create beauty again. Our “realism” and belief in “truth” has made us ugly and stupid and inflexible.

    But I’m just talking crazy again…
     
    Not at all. This is all very interesting. Would you agree that Slavs are, on the whole, free of this straitjacket?
    , @DFH

    The British were masters of guile…they were not known as “perfidious Albion” for nothing
     
    Actually they were known as perfidious Albion for nothing, British foreign policy was far more consistent and trustworthy than that of most of the other great powers, Revolutionary France and Wilhelmine Germany in particular
    , @inertial

    The British were masters of guile…they were not known as “perfidious Albion” for nothing.
     
    Britain was called “perfidious Albion” not so much for their guile but for straightforward betrayals. Thinks of USA promising Russia not to expand NATO and then going, "Ha ha ha, you trusted us." This kind of thing has been a staple of the Anglo-Saxon foreign politics for a long time.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  188. @Kimppis
    Not that I disagree with you for the most part, but isn't the Russian total closer to 1000? I also don't think Britain & France combined have quite as many combat aircraft as Russia, more like 60-70%. (And then there's of course Russia's IADS, not that it really matters in this scenario.) Do they have more modern warstocks? Maybe more modern but probably MUCH smaller? Who knows? (Again: not saying that it really matters here.)

    But if shit really hits the fan, the small Russian force in Syria is actually a good thing in a way, because it means the number of potential casualties is also limited. So it shouldn't be impossible for Russia to "equalize the score," or atleast close to that.

    Just hit American bases in the region with cruise missiles (the Martyanov.. Doctrine), maybe some ships as well if at all possible and get the fuck out. Lastly, additional missile strikes in Eastern Europe: ABM sites and NATO bases in the Baltics, Poland? But no ground invasion, obviously, not an inch.

    But if shit really hits the fan, the small Russian force in Syria is actually a good thing in a way, because it means the number of potential casualties is also limited. So it shouldn’t be impossible for Russia to “equalize the score,” or atleast close to that.

    I would argue they’d have to at least equalize the score. Otherwise, again, the neocons will be emboldened. Also Russia cannot afford losses as easily as Americans, because it has smaller forces to begin with.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  189. Dmitry says:
    @reiner Tor
    A couple bigger ships could be worth more than the whole Russian base. If they could kill the big prize, the carrier (questionable; I also don’t know if it’d be wise), then they’d already inflict more casualties on the US then the losing their whole fleet in the region and the Syrian base. Then the US could only escalate by attacking Russian territory.

    If they could kill the big prize, the carrier (questionable; I also don’t know if it’d be wise)

    If you like the idea of everyone dying in nuclear apocalypse. And over a meaningless shithole, which affects neither of the countries involved.

    No, to attack an aircraft carrier would not be wise. And nothing like this will happen, as we may have an incompetent government, but we don’t have psychos in our government.

    Read More
    • Replies: @peterAUS
    Yup.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  190. @AaronB
    The British were masters of guile...they were not known as "perfidious Albion" for nothing. Northern Europe became temporarily so powerful through science that it could dispense with guile. That age has passed. There can be no power - or even self-defense - without guile in a world of relative equals. Guile is also the special weapon of the weak.

    But I am not talking so much about political guile, which northern Europeans will learn again. I am talking about not taking appearances and labels so seriously - our stupid and gloomy northern European "seriousness". We need to learn to play with appearances, because at bottom it is all illusion. Once we aren't so serious we may even learn to create beauty again. Our "realism" and belief in "truth" has made us ugly and stupid and inflexible.

    But I'm just talking crazy again...

    Trump may have more power than he knows, but he himself is viscerally influenced by whatever group he is surrounded by and identifies with in a thousand subliminal ways. It's a sticky web none of us can escape and makes our romantic claims for individualism hollow. We all belong to a group whether we admit it or not - admitting it can become a source of power.

    If you want to lose weight, become friends with a group of skinny people...

    Once we aren’t so serious we may even learn to create beauty again. Our “realism” and belief in “truth” has made us ugly and stupid and inflexible.

    But I’m just talking crazy again…

    Not at all. This is all very interesting. Would you agree that Slavs are, on the whole, free of this straitjacket?

    Read More
    • Replies: @AaronB
    Yes, I would agree that Slavs are much freer than we are of this straight jacket. The general arc goes from West to East - starting in America, the quintessence of Western "realism" - and hence ugliness and stupidity.

    But I don't think anything is set in stone - nations alter character all the time.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  191. Randal says:
    @Thorfinnsson

    Remember Iran would almost certainly be in the fight on Russia’s side from day one. That widens and complicates the tasks for the US and its accomplices considerably, as well as giving a number of useful capabilities to the Russian side, such as bases and missiles.
     

    Iranian support and basing would be a big asset to Russia of course, but it doesn't solve the fundamental issue.

    Russia has ~700 combat aircraft and low warstocks of modern PGMs. Unsure on the situation of Soviet-era antiship guided missiles. If those were preserved they'll be a big asset.

    The chair force alone has over 2,000 combat aircraft, and in addition to better basing than the Russians there is far more tanker support to increase sortie generation. Warstocks are large.

    To that we can add the gayvy, the muh reenz, and of course allies. Britain & France combined are about equal to Russia in combat aircraft with more modern warstocks, and the GCC are about equal to Britain & France.

    In practice I would expect GCC air forces to perform poorly owing to well known issues with Arabalonian animals.

    And I’ve certainly heard reports that Iran has stated an intention to target Arab oil facilities from the outset of a war.
     

    Iran doesn't have much in the way of guided missiles, and overwhelming allied airpower in Arabia means they wouldn't do much damage without Russian support.

    I don't think the damage would be that substantial.

    Closing the Straits of Hormuz would have an impact, but not only would the mines ultimately be cleared but oil can be shipped from Yanbu on the Red Sea, which is connected by pipeline to the Persian Gulf infrastructure. Don't know the capacity of the pipeline or port.

    Honestly the best hope here would be a sudden ground invasion of Saudi Arabia with Iraqi support.

    Iranian support and basing would be a big asset to Russia of course, but it doesn’t solve the fundamental issue.

    We don’t disagree on the fundamentals – Russia can’t defend a position in the ME.

    All I’m saying is it won’t be a cakewalk for the US if Russia chooses to make an issue of it. Losses and costs will likely be significant.

    Iran doesn’t have much in the way of guided missiles, and overwhelming allied airpower in Arabia means they wouldn’t do much damage without Russian support.

    I don’t think the damage would be that substantial.

    Iran has very substantial missile forces, even allowing for exaggeration by the usual suspects, and oil facilities aren’t exactly mobile or hardened targets. The east-west pipeline is unlikely to stay active either once fighting starts.

    Regardless, there will be no oil coming out of the Gulf for some considerable time after the start of hostilities – probably the US will have to physically occupy the eastern bank. The price will go through the roof on the first day, and likely stay there for quite some time.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Thorfinnsson


    We don’t disagree on the fundamentals – Russia can’t defend a position in the ME.

    All I’m saying is it won’t be a cakewalk for the US if Russia chooses to make an issue of it. Losses and costs will likely be significant.
     
    No doubt about it. And, obviously, there's a very real possibility of events escalating out of control.


    Iran has very substantial missile forces, even allowing for exaggeration by the usual suspects, and oil facilities aren’t exactly mobile or hardened targets. The east-west pipeline is unlikely to stay active either once fighting starts.
     
    Iran's missiles have limited accuracy. Without a nuclear payload damage will therefore be limited.

    I wouldn't bet on Iran being able to hit the East-West pipeline to begin with, let alone keep it out of action. Pipelines are also like railroads--not too hard to repair. Ofc pumping stations take longer to repair and maybe Iran could hit it with special forces--provided they have such forces already in Saudi Arabia (hard to infiltrate desert).


    Regardless, there will be no oil coming out of the Gulf for some considerable time after the start of hostilities – probably the US will have to physically occupy the eastern bank. The price will go through the roof on the first day, and likely stay there for quite some time.
     
    I hope you're right so my shares in Exxon Mobil, Chevron, and Shell skyrocket. :)
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  192. Dmitry says:
    @Kimppis
    Not that I disagree with you for the most part, but isn't the Russian total closer to 1000? I also don't think Britain & France combined have quite as many combat aircraft as Russia, more like 60-70%. (And then there's of course Russia's IADS, not that it really matters in this scenario.) Do they have more modern warstocks? Maybe more modern but probably MUCH smaller? Who knows? (Again: not saying that it really matters here.)

    But if shit really hits the fan, the small Russian force in Syria is actually a good thing in a way, because it means the number of potential casualties is also limited. So it shouldn't be impossible for Russia to "equalize the score," or atleast close to that.

    Just hit American bases in the region with cruise missiles (the Martyanov.. Doctrine), maybe some ships as well if at all possible and get the fuck out. Lastly, additional missile strikes in Eastern Europe: ABM sites and NATO bases in the Baltics, Poland? But no ground invasion, obviously, not an inch.

    Just hit American bases in the region with cruise missiles (the Martyanov.. Doctrine), maybe some ships as well if at all possible and get the fuck out. Lastly, additional missile strikes in Eastern Europe: ABM sites and NATO bases in the Baltics, Poland? But no ground invasion, obviously, not an inch.

    If you want to start nuclear apocalypse. Actually there is no reason for direct conflict at all, and both sides will be working hard to avoid directly hitting any of each other’s assets in Syria.

    Read More
    • Replies: @reiner Tor
    It’s strange. You say that Syria (and by extension, the Russian forces there) is not worth a nuclear apocalypse, and you accuse anyone proposing to hit US vessels over their attack on Syrian forces of being a psycho. But you think that a US vessel would be well worth a nuclear apocalypse, and you don’t think that the Americans who would actually launch nuclear missiles over the loss of a few ships were psychos.

    If Syria is not worth a nuclear apocalypse, then no one should start a war against a nuclear power over it. But apparently the USA is willing to do exactly that. So are they psychos or not? If not, then why are people proposing shooting back at them a psychos?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  193. @Randal

    Iranian support and basing would be a big asset to Russia of course, but it doesn’t solve the fundamental issue.
     
    We don't disagree on the fundamentals - Russia can't defend a position in the ME.

    All I'm saying is it won't be a cakewalk for the US if Russia chooses to make an issue of it. Losses and costs will likely be significant.

    Iran doesn’t have much in the way of guided missiles, and overwhelming allied airpower in Arabia means they wouldn’t do much damage without Russian support.

    I don’t think the damage would be that substantial.
     
    Iran has very substantial missile forces, even allowing for exaggeration by the usual suspects, and oil facilities aren't exactly mobile or hardened targets. The east-west pipeline is unlikely to stay active either once fighting starts.

    Regardless, there will be no oil coming out of the Gulf for some considerable time after the start of hostilities - probably the US will have to physically occupy the eastern bank. The price will go through the roof on the first day, and likely stay there for quite some time.

    We don’t disagree on the fundamentals – Russia can’t defend a position in the ME.

    All I’m saying is it won’t be a cakewalk for the US if Russia chooses to make an issue of it. Losses and costs will likely be significant.

    No doubt about it. And, obviously, there’s a very real possibility of events escalating out of control.

    Iran has very substantial missile forces, even allowing for exaggeration by the usual suspects, and oil facilities aren’t exactly mobile or hardened targets. The east-west pipeline is unlikely to stay active either once fighting starts.

    Iran’s missiles have limited accuracy. Without a nuclear payload damage will therefore be limited.

    I wouldn’t bet on Iran being able to hit the East-West pipeline to begin with, let alone keep it out of action. Pipelines are also like railroads–not too hard to repair. Ofc pumping stations take longer to repair and maybe Iran could hit it with special forces–provided they have such forces already in Saudi Arabia (hard to infiltrate desert).

    Regardless, there will be no oil coming out of the Gulf for some considerable time after the start of hostilities – probably the US will have to physically occupy the eastern bank. The price will go through the roof on the first day, and likely stay there for quite some time.

    I hope you’re right so my shares in Exxon Mobil, Chevron, and Shell skyrocket. :)

    Read More
    • Replies: @Randal

    I wouldn’t bet on Iran being able to hit the East-West pipeline to begin with, let alone keep it out of action. Pipelines are also like railroads–not too hard to repair. Ofc pumping stations take longer to repair and maybe Iran could hit it with special forces–provided they have such forces already in Saudi Arabia (hard to infiltrate desert).
     
    The pipeline starts in shiite rich eastern provinces and runs past Riyadh. I don't think it's beyond Iran's abilities to have a few likely lads ready and equipped to blow up key sections if war breaks out.

    I hope you’re right so my shares in Exxon Mobil, Chevron, and Shell skyrocket.
     
    Count on it. It's an ill wind....
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  194. Randal says:
    @Thorfinnsson


    We don’t disagree on the fundamentals – Russia can’t defend a position in the ME.

    All I’m saying is it won’t be a cakewalk for the US if Russia chooses to make an issue of it. Losses and costs will likely be significant.
     
    No doubt about it. And, obviously, there's a very real possibility of events escalating out of control.


    Iran has very substantial missile forces, even allowing for exaggeration by the usual suspects, and oil facilities aren’t exactly mobile or hardened targets. The east-west pipeline is unlikely to stay active either once fighting starts.
     
    Iran's missiles have limited accuracy. Without a nuclear payload damage will therefore be limited.

    I wouldn't bet on Iran being able to hit the East-West pipeline to begin with, let alone keep it out of action. Pipelines are also like railroads--not too hard to repair. Ofc pumping stations take longer to repair and maybe Iran could hit it with special forces--provided they have such forces already in Saudi Arabia (hard to infiltrate desert).


    Regardless, there will be no oil coming out of the Gulf for some considerable time after the start of hostilities – probably the US will have to physically occupy the eastern bank. The price will go through the roof on the first day, and likely stay there for quite some time.
     
    I hope you're right so my shares in Exxon Mobil, Chevron, and Shell skyrocket. :)

    I wouldn’t bet on Iran being able to hit the East-West pipeline to begin with, let alone keep it out of action. Pipelines are also like railroads–not too hard to repair. Ofc pumping stations take longer to repair and maybe Iran could hit it with special forces–provided they have such forces already in Saudi Arabia (hard to infiltrate desert).

    The pipeline starts in shiite rich eastern provinces and runs past Riyadh. I don’t think it’s beyond Iran’s abilities to have a few likely lads ready and equipped to blow up key sections if war breaks out.

    I hope you’re right so my shares in Exxon Mobil, Chevron, and Shell skyrocket.

    Count on it. It’s an ill wind….

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  195. Talha says:
    @AaronB
    I'm amused by the naive Western faith in the "lone hero" when collective action by a strong community is the only thing that has ever had any chance of challenging the political status quo.

    Kind of like a certain other community I can't think of right now that has managed to amass tremendous power that way...whom we absolutely should not learn from, but continue being radical individualists.

    Ah well, I'm sure our hero will come after Trump and make it unnecessary to reform our culture in a collectivist direction with united interests and economic interdependence, and we can continue competitively stepping on each other's faces. We just need a hero with "the right character".

    I’m amused by the naive Western faith in the “lone hero” when collective action by a strong community is the only thing that has ever had any chance of challenging the political status quo.

    And they project this onto others as well.

    All Westerners know about how the Crusaders were rolled back is one or two names; usually Sultan Salahuddin (ra).

    Rarely does anybody reflect that he was a spiritual disciple of the son of the famous Sufi teacher and reformer Shaykh Abdul-Qadir Jilani (ra) and that the armies that were raised up were from a population that had been spiritually transformed through the work of the many, many students of that man. The tears, the night vigil prayers, etc. – they had to be ready to make those sacrifices.

    Everyone wants to look at the top of the pyramid and not reflect on how much more effort was put into building up the base until it gets to its ultimate height.

    Peace.

    Read More
    • Replies: @AaronB
    Right, it's a western myth. Great men are figure heads for vast processes involving countless people and forces beyond us. They do make a unique contribution, but it is nothing on its own.

    The myth of individualism and self-reliance has become a pernicious and self destructive ball and chain that is literally blinding us to the need to rebuild social capital and communal bonds.

    Thanks for the Saladin example Tala, it's very apposite.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  196. @Dmitry

    Just hit American bases in the region with cruise missiles (the Martyanov.. Doctrine), maybe some ships as well if at all possible and get the fuck out. Lastly, additional missile strikes in Eastern Europe: ABM sites and NATO bases in the Baltics, Poland? But no ground invasion, obviously, not an inch.

     

    If you want to start nuclear apocalypse. Actually there is no reason for direct conflict at all, and both sides will be working hard to avoid directly hitting any of each other's assets in Syria.

    It’s strange. You say that Syria (and by extension, the Russian forces there) is not worth a nuclear apocalypse, and you accuse anyone proposing to hit US vessels over their attack on Syrian forces of being a psycho. But you think that a US vessel would be well worth a nuclear apocalypse, and you don’t think that the Americans who would actually launch nuclear missiles over the loss of a few ships were psychos.

    If Syria is not worth a nuclear apocalypse, then no one should start a war against a nuclear power over it. But apparently the USA is willing to do exactly that. So are they psychos or not? If not, then why are people proposing shooting back at them a psychos?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Dmitry
    If you intentionally destroy a US aircraft carrier, what would be the consequences?

    I don't think there is precedent, since WW2, when the Japanese did it.
    , @Talha

    But apparently the USA is willing to do exactly that. So are they psychos or not? If not, then why are people proposing shooting back at them a psychos?
     
    If NY and Moscow go up in an irradiated cloud, we will have our answer - they were both psychos.

    And again, it will be even more evidence, that High-IQ is dysgenic. Just sayin'...

    Peace.
    , @Parbes
    In short: Because this guy "Dmitry" is a Russian Chabad Jewish (or part-Jewish, or whatever) liberast type with pro-U.S. and pro-Israel leanings - probably a new addition to the hasbara stable, judging from his recent appearance on this website; but even if not, it doesn't make any difference. He propagandizes against the secular nationalist Syrian government in a "clever underhanded" (or so he thinks, LOL) manner simply because "the Syrians are Israel's adversary". Notice all his supposedly "sly" propaganda talking points, delivered in an "affable" manner, all stating/implying the same thing over and over: Syria is a dump not worth defending for Russia or anybody; Russia should just roll over and let the U.S. 'n' friends have fun bombing Syria for a little bit; nothing will come of it and Russia won't lose anything; the bombing will just last a couple of days and be inconsequential anyway, etc., etc.

    In fact, what the rogue U.S. regime and its criminal allies are planning is a huge, nation-wrecking strike on Syria which will destroy that country's sovereign secular nationalist government, kill untold numbers of people, and deliver the ruined remnants of the country in near Stone Age conditions into the hands of Saudi-aligned Islamic extremists in a "wink-wink" relationship with Israel (who will then turn it into a training ground and base for jihadi terrorist armies to be used for further operations against "adversaries" of the Anglo-Zionist empire).

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  197. Dmitry says:
    @reiner Tor
    It’s strange. You say that Syria (and by extension, the Russian forces there) is not worth a nuclear apocalypse, and you accuse anyone proposing to hit US vessels over their attack on Syrian forces of being a psycho. But you think that a US vessel would be well worth a nuclear apocalypse, and you don’t think that the Americans who would actually launch nuclear missiles over the loss of a few ships were psychos.

    If Syria is not worth a nuclear apocalypse, then no one should start a war against a nuclear power over it. But apparently the USA is willing to do exactly that. So are they psychos or not? If not, then why are people proposing shooting back at them a psychos?

    If you intentionally destroy a US aircraft carrier, what would be the consequences?

    I don’t think there is precedent, since WW2, when the Japanese did it.

    Read More
    • Replies: @reiner Tor
    The same could be said of attacking an ally of a nuclear superpower after said nuclear superpower declared that it would hit back. I fail to see how it is different from attacking a NATO member.

    The Americans are doing something truly unprecedented here.

    Why is it psycho to propose that the response should also be unprecedented?

    And you need to explain why the Americans would blow up the world over the sinking of a vessel. They remained chummy with Israel after it intentionally sunk a US vessel.
    , @Daniel Chieh
    Nothing military is immune to attack in a warzone.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  198. Talha says:
    @reiner Tor
    It’s strange. You say that Syria (and by extension, the Russian forces there) is not worth a nuclear apocalypse, and you accuse anyone proposing to hit US vessels over their attack on Syrian forces of being a psycho. But you think that a US vessel would be well worth a nuclear apocalypse, and you don’t think that the Americans who would actually launch nuclear missiles over the loss of a few ships were psychos.

    If Syria is not worth a nuclear apocalypse, then no one should start a war against a nuclear power over it. But apparently the USA is willing to do exactly that. So are they psychos or not? If not, then why are people proposing shooting back at them a psychos?

    But apparently the USA is willing to do exactly that. So are they psychos or not? If not, then why are people proposing shooting back at them a psychos?

    If NY and Moscow go up in an irradiated cloud, we will have our answer – they were both psychos.

    And again, it will be even more evidence, that High-IQ is dysgenic. Just sayin’…

    Peace.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  199. @Dmitry
    If you intentionally destroy a US aircraft carrier, what would be the consequences?

    I don't think there is precedent, since WW2, when the Japanese did it.

    The same could be said of attacking an ally of a nuclear superpower after said nuclear superpower declared that it would hit back. I fail to see how it is different from attacking a NATO member.

    The Americans are doing something truly unprecedented here.

    Why is it psycho to propose that the response should also be unprecedented?

    And you need to explain why the Americans would blow up the world over the sinking of a vessel. They remained chummy with Israel after it intentionally sunk a US vessel.

    Read More
    • Replies: @iffen
    And you need to explain why the Americans would blow up the world over the sinking of a vessel. They remained chummy with Israel after it intentionally sunk a US vessel.

    Context, RT, context, think about it sometimes.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  200. AaronB says:
    @Swedish Family

    Once we aren’t so serious we may even learn to create beauty again. Our “realism” and belief in “truth” has made us ugly and stupid and inflexible.

    But I’m just talking crazy again…
     
    Not at all. This is all very interesting. Would you agree that Slavs are, on the whole, free of this straitjacket?

    Yes, I would agree that Slavs are much freer than we are of this straight jacket. The general arc goes from West to East – starting in America, the quintessence of Western “realism” – and hence ugliness and stupidity.

    But I don’t think anything is set in stone – nations alter character all the time.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  201. AaronB says:
    @Talha

    I’m amused by the naive Western faith in the “lone hero” when collective action by a strong community is the only thing that has ever had any chance of challenging the political status quo.
     
    And they project this onto others as well.

    All Westerners know about how the Crusaders were rolled back is one or two names; usually Sultan Salahuddin (ra).

    Rarely does anybody reflect that he was a spiritual disciple of the son of the famous Sufi teacher and reformer Shaykh Abdul-Qadir Jilani (ra) and that the armies that were raised up were from a population that had been spiritually transformed through the work of the many, many students of that man. The tears, the night vigil prayers, etc. - they had to be ready to make those sacrifices.

    Everyone wants to look at the top of the pyramid and not reflect on how much more effort was put into building up the base until it gets to its ultimate height.

    Peace.

    Right, it’s a western myth. Great men are figure heads for vast processes involving countless people and forces beyond us. They do make a unique contribution, but it is nothing on its own.

    The myth of individualism and self-reliance has become a pernicious and self destructive ball and chain that is literally blinding us to the need to rebuild social capital and communal bonds.

    Thanks for the Saladin example Tala, it’s very apposite.

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

    the need to rebuild social capital and communal bonds.

    Agreed – that is absolutely vital. And you cannot have that with people like this:

    http://www.unz.com/video/ramzpaul_the-character-question/

    Personally, I cannot see this taking place without some sort of very, very serious spiritual revival since those things are merely an outward expression of the same.

    Otherwise, it might be successful for a while, but it won’t have staying power like Communism or something.

    Peace.

    Read More
    • Replies: @AaronB
    If it happened it would *constitute* a spiritual revival.

    We are individualist now because logic does not allow us to believe in anything we cannot see - and we can only see individual units. Remember Thatcher with her "there is no such thing as society". That is the ultimate result of the Wests obsession with "truth" - only what can be seen beyond any doubt is real.

    If the West begins to believe in "society" again, the great age of logic would be over. We would be believing in things that cannot be seen that nevertheless seem to be crucial to our ability to flourish.

    Much like "dark matter" - you can't see it, but the calculations don't add up unless we accept it exists. Maybe there is no such thing as society, but the calculations don't add up of we don't accept it exists.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  203. @Dmitry
    If you intentionally destroy a US aircraft carrier, what would be the consequences?

    I don't think there is precedent, since WW2, when the Japanese did it.

    Nothing military is immune to attack in a warzone.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  204. My guess is that in a full-scale conflict in the Syrian theater the Russian forces will be able to knock out a dozen to three dozen US/Allied fighters and 1-3 destroyers/frigates.

    I don’t think Russia will manage to sink or even disable an aircraft carrier. This is a 100,000 ton metallic honeycomb with hundreds of watertight compartments, protected by a screen of smaller ships, submarines, and fighters. Of course it would be trivial to do so by launching a couple of ICBMs that disperse nuclear warheads in a grid pattern around its general location, but the US will treat this as a full-fledged nuclear attack.

    The best way for Iran to close the Strait of Hormuz would be to start laying down mines using civilian fishing vessels, but it is unlikely that it will be able to successfully do this to any substantial degree on such short notice (the US would be watching too closely). The simple, short-range AS missiles that Iran has are not up to the task; modern oil tankers are double-hulled and far from trivial to sink. Russia could supply Iran with Bastions, or launch cruise missiles from TU-22M3 bombers itself from within Iranian airspace to shut down sea traffic (dependent on Chinese acquiescence, because Russia simply cannot alienate China). Like Thorfinnsson, I am very skeptical about Iran’s capacity to hurt Saudi Arabia’s land-based oil export infrastructure.

    The Russian military presence in Syria will be eradicated within a week (mostly within the first two days), and Russia itself will come under total sanctions from the US and the EU.

    At this point Putin will have to make some hard choices.

    (1) Do nothing in the face of defeat. Militarily the least risky option, but will face rising domestic discontent as living standards collapse. How long will the “buffer” of 80% approval ratings hold up? People don’t like losers, as the Argentine junta discovered.

    (2) Invade East Ukraine. Ukrainian military is much stronger than in 2014, and NATO will now be sure to provide air support. This would not likely be a grind, not the walkover it would have been back then.

    (3) Invade the Baltics. Successful occupation is virtually certain within 72 hours to 5 days, and the result may demoralize and crack the NATO alliance. Or it could lead to the formal start of WW3.

    There’s a small possibility that China will use the opportunity to seize Taiwan, though it’s not really militarily ready for that yet. Still, the US being so preoccupied elsewhere might be too juicy of an opportunity to miss out on.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Singh
    What's strange is that many Indo Patriots were predictiong war in 2018 back in 2014. Didn't believe it until now..

    Indo Pak war to retake Kashmir that is।।
    , @Anonymous

    and the result may demoralize and crack the NATO alliance.
     
    What would this actually look like? A lot of NATO alliance members call on the war to stop and just be frozen?
    , @Aedib

    (2) Invade East Ukraine. Ukrainian military is much stronger than in 2014, and NATO will now be sure to provide air support. This would not likely be a grind, not the walkover it would have been back then.
     
    Why to invade? Just carpet bomb the whole infrastructure and reduce the regime to ashes. Easier and with more future deterrence value.
    , @utu
    Russia's conventional weapon weakness is actually a strength as long as the US believes that Russia will go nuclear when defeated in Syria.
    , @peterAUS

    My guess is that in a full-scale conflict in the Syrian theater the Russian forces will be able to knock out a dozen to three dozen US/Allied fighters and 1-3 destroyers/frigates.
     
    Possible.

    The Russian military presence in Syria will be eradicated within a week (mostly within the first two days), and Russia itself will come under total sanctions from the US and the EU.
     
    Yup.
    The problem with this is the "mechanism". Watching own forces being reduced into dust without doing anything, anywhere. I don't think that's likely.
    What is likely is: "you get my base, I get yours".
    From then on, well......it goes up and up.
    That was the way I remembered from the Cold War (paper, trainer, simulator, field, exercises).
    The "mechanism".

    True, if the "mechanism" isn't "on" anymore, well, I do agree with below:

    At this point Putin will have to make some hard choices.

    (1) Do nothing in the face of defeat. Militarily the least risky option, but will face rising domestic discontent as living standards collapse. How long will the “buffer” of 80% approval ratings hold up? People don’t like losers, as the Argentine junta discovered.
     
    Not necessarily. The crux of the question, actually. I don't know, not there.
    If the regime in Kremlin feels they could go down they shall escalate. No doubt about that.
    If.....

    (2) Invade East Ukraine. Ukrainian military is much stronger than in 2014, and NATO will now be sure to provide air support. This would not likely be a grind, not the walkover it would have been back then.
     
    Not a bad idea. Probably the best, actually.
    , @Dmitry

    The Russian military presence in Syria will be eradicated within a week (mostly within the first two days), and Russia itself will come under total sanctions from the US and the EU.

    At this point Putin will have to make some hard choices.

    (1) Do nothing in the face of defeat. Militarily the least risky option, but will face rising domestic discontent as living standards collapse. How long will the “buffer” of 80% approval ratings hold up? People don’t like losers, as the Argentine junta discovered.

    (2) Invade East Ukraine. Ukrainian military is much stronger than in 2014, and NATO will now be sure to provide air support. This would not likely be a grind, not the walkover it would have been back then.

    (3) Invade the Baltics. Successful occupation is virtually certain within 72 hours to 5 days, and the result may demoralize and crack the NATO alliance. Or it could lead to the formal start of WW3.

    There’s a small possibility that China will use the opportunity to seize Taiwan, though it’s not really militarily ready for that yet. Still, the US being so preoccupied elsewhere might be too juicy of an opportunity to miss out on.
     
    Just a fuckup with nothing to gain. Whereas every operation since after 2000, has been more or less the opposite (no fuckup), and plenty to gain (well in Georgia and Syria (so far), nothing to gain, but neither much of a fuckup).
    , @ilkarnal
    I think you'll be pleasantly surprised, if it does come to this. In any case, we'll learn a lot - and isn't that worth something?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  205. Singh says:
    @Anatoly Karlin
    My guess is that in a full-scale conflict in the Syrian theater the Russian forces will be able to knock out a dozen to three dozen US/Allied fighters and 1-3 destroyers/frigates.

    I don't think Russia will manage to sink or even disable an aircraft carrier. This is a 100,000 ton metallic honeycomb with hundreds of watertight compartments, protected by a screen of smaller ships, submarines, and fighters. Of course it would be trivial to do so by launching a couple of ICBMs that disperse nuclear warheads in a grid pattern around its general location, but the US will treat this as a full-fledged nuclear attack.

    The best way for Iran to close the Strait of Hormuz would be to start laying down mines using civilian fishing vessels, but it is unlikely that it will be able to successfully do this to any substantial degree on such short notice (the US would be watching too closely). The simple, short-range AS missiles that Iran has are not up to the task; modern oil tankers are double-hulled and far from trivial to sink. Russia could supply Iran with Bastions, or launch cruise missiles from TU-22M3 bombers itself from within Iranian airspace to shut down sea traffic (dependent on Chinese acquiescence, because Russia simply cannot alienate China). Like Thorfinnsson, I am very skeptical about Iran's capacity to hurt Saudi Arabia's land-based oil export infrastructure.

    The Russian military presence in Syria will be eradicated within a week (mostly within the first two days), and Russia itself will come under total sanctions from the US and the EU.

    At this point Putin will have to make some hard choices.

    (1) Do nothing in the face of defeat. Militarily the least risky option, but will face rising domestic discontent as living standards collapse. How long will the "buffer" of 80% approval ratings hold up? People don't like losers, as the Argentine junta discovered.

    (2) Invade East Ukraine. Ukrainian military is much stronger than in 2014, and NATO will now be sure to provide air support. This would not likely be a grind, not the walkover it would have been back then.

    (3) Invade the Baltics. Successful occupation is virtually certain within 72 hours to 5 days, and the result may demoralize and crack the NATO alliance. Or it could lead to the formal start of WW3.

    There's a small possibility that China will use the opportunity to seize Taiwan, though it's not really militarily ready for that yet. Still, the US being so preoccupied elsewhere might be too juicy of an opportunity to miss out on.

    What’s strange is that many Indo Patriots were predictiong war in 2018 back in 2014. Didn’t believe it until now..

    Indo Pak war to retake Kashmir that is।।

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  206. DFH says:
    @AaronB
    The British were masters of guile...they were not known as "perfidious Albion" for nothing. Northern Europe became temporarily so powerful through science that it could dispense with guile. That age has passed. There can be no power - or even self-defense - without guile in a world of relative equals. Guile is also the special weapon of the weak.

    But I am not talking so much about political guile, which northern Europeans will learn again. I am talking about not taking appearances and labels so seriously - our stupid and gloomy northern European "seriousness". We need to learn to play with appearances, because at bottom it is all illusion. Once we aren't so serious we may even learn to create beauty again. Our "realism" and belief in "truth" has made us ugly and stupid and inflexible.

    But I'm just talking crazy again...

    Trump may have more power than he knows, but he himself is viscerally influenced by whatever group he is surrounded by and identifies with in a thousand subliminal ways. It's a sticky web none of us can escape and makes our romantic claims for individualism hollow. We all belong to a group whether we admit it or not - admitting it can become a source of power.

    If you want to lose weight, become friends with a group of skinny people...

    The British were masters of guile…they were not known as “perfidious Albion” for nothing

    Actually they were known as perfidious Albion for nothing, British foreign policy was far more consistent and trustworthy than that of most of the other great powers, Revolutionary France and Wilhelmine Germany in particular

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

    Read More
    • Replies: @utu
    American generals met with VP Pence today. Is Trump out of the loop?

    19 min ago

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5605263/Trumps-brass-huddle-White-House-threat-launch-missiles-Syria-plays-out.html

    Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Joseph Dunford, Director of National Intelligence Dan Coats and Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen were all at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue for what one official described as an 'all hands' meeting with the president's top-shelf national security advisers.
    The group also included National Security Advisor John Bolton and Vice President Mike Pence, who White House Press Secretary Sarah Sanders said chaired the meeting.
     
    6 hours ago

    Moscow in direct contact with U.S. military on Syria: Interfax
    https://www.reuters.com/article/us-mideast-crisis-syria-russia-usa-milit/moscow-in-direct-contact-with-u-s-military-on-syria-interfax-idUSKBN1HI2LK
     
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  208. AaronB says:
    @Talha

    the need to rebuild social capital and communal bonds.
     
    Agreed - that is absolutely vital. And you cannot have that with people like this:
    http://www.unz.com/video/ramzpaul_the-character-question/

    Personally, I cannot see this taking place without some sort of very, very serious spiritual revival since those things are merely an outward expression of the same.

    Otherwise, it might be successful for a while, but it won't have staying power like Communism or something.

    Peace.

    If it happened it would *constitute* a spiritual revival.

    We are individualist now because logic does not allow us to believe in anything we cannot see – and we can only see individual units. Remember Thatcher with her “there is no such thing as society”. That is the ultimate result of the Wests obsession with “truth” – only what can be seen beyond any doubt is real.

    If the West begins to believe in “society” again, the great age of logic would be over. We would be believing in things that cannot be seen that nevertheless seem to be crucial to our ability to flourish.

    Much like “dark matter” – you can’t see it, but the calculations don’t add up unless we accept it exists. Maybe there is no such thing as society, but the calculations don’t add up of we don’t accept it exists.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Talha
    Good points!

    Peace.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  209. Talha says:
    @AaronB
    If it happened it would *constitute* a spiritual revival.

    We are individualist now because logic does not allow us to believe in anything we cannot see - and we can only see individual units. Remember Thatcher with her "there is no such thing as society". That is the ultimate result of the Wests obsession with "truth" - only what can be seen beyond any doubt is real.

    If the West begins to believe in "society" again, the great age of logic would be over. We would be believing in things that cannot be seen that nevertheless seem to be crucial to our ability to flourish.

    Much like "dark matter" - you can't see it, but the calculations don't add up unless we accept it exists. Maybe there is no such thing as society, but the calculations don't add up of we don't accept it exists.

    Good points!

    Peace.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  210. Anonymous[186] • Disclaimer says:
    @Anatoly Karlin
    My guess is that in a full-scale conflict in the Syrian theater the Russian forces will be able to knock out a dozen to three dozen US/Allied fighters and 1-3 destroyers/frigates.

    I don't think Russia will manage to sink or even disable an aircraft carrier. This is a 100,000 ton metallic honeycomb with hundreds of watertight compartments, protected by a screen of smaller ships, submarines, and fighters. Of course it would be trivial to do so by launching a couple of ICBMs that disperse nuclear warheads in a grid pattern around its general location, but the US will treat this as a full-fledged nuclear attack.

    The best way for Iran to close the Strait of Hormuz would be to start laying down mines using civilian fishing vessels, but it is unlikely that it will be able to successfully do this to any substantial degree on such short notice (the US would be watching too closely). The simple, short-range AS missiles that Iran has are not up to the task; modern oil tankers are double-hulled and far from trivial to sink. Russia could supply Iran with Bastions, or launch cruise missiles from TU-22M3 bombers itself from within Iranian airspace to shut down sea traffic (dependent on Chinese acquiescence, because Russia simply cannot alienate China). Like Thorfinnsson, I am very skeptical about Iran's capacity to hurt Saudi Arabia's land-based oil export infrastructure.

    The Russian military presence in Syria will be eradicated within a week (mostly within the first two days), and Russia itself will come under total sanctions from the US and the EU.

    At this point Putin will have to make some hard choices.

    (1) Do nothing in the face of defeat. Militarily the least risky option, but will face rising domestic discontent as living standards collapse. How long will the "buffer" of 80% approval ratings hold up? People don't like losers, as the Argentine junta discovered.

    (2) Invade East Ukraine. Ukrainian military is much stronger than in 2014, and NATO will now be sure to provide air support. This would not likely be a grind, not the walkover it would have been back then.

    (3) Invade the Baltics. Successful occupation is virtually certain within 72 hours to 5 days, and the result may demoralize and crack the NATO alliance. Or it could lead to the formal start of WW3.

    There's a small possibility that China will use the opportunity to seize Taiwan, though it's not really militarily ready for that yet. Still, the US being so preoccupied elsewhere might be too juicy of an opportunity to miss out on.

    and the result may demoralize and crack the NATO alliance.

    What would this actually look like? A lot of NATO alliance members call on the war to stop and just be frozen?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Thorfinnsson


    What would this actually look like? A lot of NATO alliance members call on the war to stop and just be frozen?
     
    Most plausible possibility is Germans refusing to die for Reval.

    Merkel replaced (requires constructive vote of no confidence per the Basic Law of the Federal Republic) with a new Chancellor who announces that Germany will be neutral in the conflict and will deny basing and transit to its allies.

    Without Germany NATO can't fight a war against Russia effectively.

    The idea of NATO attempting to ship war materiel through the Baltic or the Black Sea is laughable.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  211. Aedib says:
    @Anatoly Karlin
    My guess is that in a full-scale conflict in the Syrian theater the Russian forces will be able to knock out a dozen to three dozen US/Allied fighters and 1-3 destroyers/frigates.

    I don't think Russia will manage to sink or even disable an aircraft carrier. This is a 100,000 ton metallic honeycomb with hundreds of watertight compartments, protected by a screen of smaller ships, submarines, and fighters. Of course it would be trivial to do so by launching a couple of ICBMs that disperse nuclear warheads in a grid pattern around its general location, but the US will treat this as a full-fledged nuclear attack.

    The best way for Iran to close the Strait of Hormuz would be to start laying down mines using civilian fishing vessels, but it is unlikely that it will be able to successfully do this to any substantial degree on such short notice (the US would be watching too closely). The simple, short-range AS missiles that Iran has are not up to the task; modern oil tankers are double-hulled and far from trivial to sink. Russia could supply Iran with Bastions, or launch cruise missiles from TU-22M3 bombers itself from within Iranian airspace to shut down sea traffic (dependent on Chinese acquiescence, because Russia simply cannot alienate China). Like Thorfinnsson, I am very skeptical about Iran's capacity to hurt Saudi Arabia's land-based oil export infrastructure.

    The Russian military presence in Syria will be eradicated within a week (mostly within the first two days), and Russia itself will come under total sanctions from the US and the EU.

    At this point Putin will have to make some hard choices.

    (1) Do nothing in the face of defeat. Militarily the least risky option, but will face rising domestic discontent as living standards collapse. How long will the "buffer" of 80% approval ratings hold up? People don't like losers, as the Argentine junta discovered.

    (2) Invade East Ukraine. Ukrainian military is much stronger than in 2014, and NATO will now be sure to provide air support. This would not likely be a grind, not the walkover it would have been back then.

    (3) Invade the Baltics. Successful occupation is virtually certain within 72 hours to 5 days, and the result may demoralize and crack the NATO alliance. Or it could lead to the formal start of WW3.

    There's a small possibility that China will use the opportunity to seize Taiwan, though it's not really militarily ready for that yet. Still, the US being so preoccupied elsewhere might be too juicy of an opportunity to miss out on.

    (2) Invade East Ukraine. Ukrainian military is much stronger than in 2014, and NATO will now be sure to provide air support. This would not likely be a grind, not the walkover it would have been back then.

    Why to invade? Just carpet bomb the whole infrastructure and reduce the regime to ashes. Easier and with more future deterrence value.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  212. @Anonymous

    and the result may demoralize and crack the NATO alliance.
     
    What would this actually look like? A lot of NATO alliance members call on the war to stop and just be frozen?

    What would this actually look like? A lot of NATO alliance members call on the war to stop and just be frozen?

    Most plausible possibility is Germans refusing to die for Reval.

    Merkel replaced (requires constructive vote of no confidence per the Basic Law of the Federal Republic) with a new Chancellor who announces that Germany will be neutral in the conflict and will deny basing and transit to its allies.

    Without Germany NATO can’t fight a war against Russia effectively.

    The idea of NATO attempting to ship war materiel through the Baltic or the Black Sea is laughable.

    Read More
    • Replies: @German_reader

    Most plausible possibility is Germans refusing to die for Reval.
     
    Yes, pretty much that.
    An invasion of the Baltic states could also have the opposite effect though, it would be a clear case of territorial aggression after all that would seem to confirm the worst fears about Russia (I understand many Russians will regard this as irrelevant since they believe Russia will be demonized anyway, which may unfortunately be true).
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  213. Parbes says:
    @reiner Tor
    It’s strange. You say that Syria (and by extension, the Russian forces there) is not worth a nuclear apocalypse, and you accuse anyone proposing to hit US vessels over their attack on Syrian forces of being a psycho. But you think that a US vessel would be well worth a nuclear apocalypse, and you don’t think that the Americans who would actually launch nuclear missiles over the loss of a few ships were psychos.

    If Syria is not worth a nuclear apocalypse, then no one should start a war against a nuclear power over it. But apparently the USA is willing to do exactly that. So are they psychos or not? If not, then why are people proposing shooting back at them a psychos?

    In short: Because this guy “Dmitry” is a Russian Chabad Jewish (or part-Jewish, or whatever) liberast type with pro-U.S. and pro-Israel leanings – probably a new addition to the hasbara stable, judging from his recent appearance on this website; but even if not, it doesn’t make any difference. He propagandizes against the secular nationalist Syrian government in a “clever underhanded” (or so he thinks, LOL) manner simply because “the Syrians are Israel’s adversary”. Notice all his supposedly “sly” propaganda talking points, delivered in an “affable” manner, all stating/implying the same thing over and over: Syria is a dump not worth defending for Russia or anybody; Russia should just roll over and let the U.S. ‘n’ friends have fun bombing Syria for a little bit; nothing will come of it and Russia won’t lose anything; the bombing will just last a couple of days and be inconsequential anyway, etc., etc.

    In fact, what the rogue U.S. regime and its criminal allies are planning is a huge, nation-wrecking strike on Syria which will destroy that country’s sovereign secular nationalist government, kill untold numbers of people, and deliver the ruined remnants of the country in near Stone Age conditions into the hands of Saudi-aligned Islamic extremists in a “wink-wink” relationship with Israel (who will then turn it into a training ground and base for jihadi terrorist armies to be used for further operations against “adversaries” of the Anglo-Zionist empire).

    Read More
    • Replies: @iffen
    The main problem that I see here is that "our" jihadis keep going rogue on us.
    , @Dmitry

    In short: Because this guy “Dmitry” is a Russian Chabad Jewish (or part-Jewish, or whatever)
     
    In genealogically very partial way, but if you wish to label commentator as such feel free to.

    liberast type

     

    Free-market liberal - pederast no.

    with pro-U.S. and pro-Israel leanings –
     
    I've lived in Israel for several months, often visit in Israel, study the Hebrew language and feel pro-Israel point of view overall. But I will not live in Israel.

    In America - I admire the economic system and country, but the particularly not culture.

    probably a new addition to the hasbara stable, judging from his recent appearance on this website; but even if not, it doesn’t make any difference
     
    No I just write my opinion, rarely crossing onto the other blogs here, where I am always attacked by the Americans (including the site owner who called me as 'anti-Russia Jewish activist' (it comes as news to me) when I questioned some fake news about Israel posted here).

    He propagandizes against the secular nationalist Syrian government in a “clever underhanded” (or so he thinks, LOL) manner simply because “the Syrians are Israel’s adversary”. Notice all his supposedly “sly” propaganda talking points, delivered in an “affable” manner, all stating/implying the same thing over and over: Syria is a dump not worth defending for Russia or anybody; Russia should just roll over and let the U.S. ‘n’ friends have fun bombing Syria for a little bit; nothing will come of it and Russia won’t lose anything; the bombing will just last a couple of days and be inconsequential anyway, etc., etc.

    In fact, what the rogue U.S. regime and its criminal allies are planning is a huge, nation-wrecking strike on Syria which will destroy that country’s sovereign secular nationalist government, kill untold numbers of people, and deliver the ruined remnants of the country in near Stone Age conditions into the hands of Saudi-aligned Islamic extremists in a “wink-wink” relationship with Israel (who will then turn it into a training ground and base for jihadi terrorist armies to be used for further operations against “adversaries” of the Anglo-Zionist empire).
     
    Not really. I supported the operation in Syria when it was bombing Jihadists.

    If it will at any time involve bombing Americans - no. This idiotic. And it would be the highest incompetence.

    But as you will shortly see, at no point will any Americans be bombed. And neither - except in some extreme blunder - will we.

    As for Arabs - I don't have any racist views. I would prefer the majority will remain in Arabia.
    , @utu

    "sly" and “affable”
     
    You got him.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  214. utu says:
    @LondonBob
    https://twitter.com/russia_mideast/status/984178721438552065?s=20

    American generals met with VP Pence today. Is Trump out of the loop?

    19 min ago

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5605263/Trumps-brass-huddle-White-House-threat-launch-missiles-Syria-plays-out.html

    Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Joseph Dunford, Director of National Intelligence Dan Coats and Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen were all at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue for what one official described as an ‘all hands’ meeting with the president’s top-shelf national security advisers.
    The group also included National Security Advisor John Bolton and Vice President Mike Pence, who White House Press Secretary Sarah Sanders said chaired the meeting.

    6 hours ago

    Moscow in direct contact with U.S. military on Syria: Interfax

    https://www.reuters.com/article/us-mideast-crisis-syria-russia-usa-milit/moscow-in-direct-contact-with-u-s-military-on-syria-interfax-idUSKBN1HI2LK

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  215. utu says:
    @Anatoly Karlin
    My guess is that in a full-scale conflict in the Syrian theater the Russian forces will be able to knock out a dozen to three dozen US/Allied fighters and 1-3 destroyers/frigates.

    I don't think Russia will manage to sink or even disable an aircraft carrier. This is a 100,000 ton metallic honeycomb with hundreds of watertight compartments, protected by a screen of smaller ships, submarines, and fighters. Of course it would be trivial to do so by launching a couple of ICBMs that disperse nuclear warheads in a grid pattern around its general location, but the US will treat this as a full-fledged nuclear attack.

    The best way for Iran to close the Strait of Hormuz would be to start laying down mines using civilian fishing vessels, but it is unlikely that it will be able to successfully do this to any substantial degree on such short notice (the US would be watching too closely). The simple, short-range AS missiles that Iran has are not up to the task; modern oil tankers are double-hulled and far from trivial to sink. Russia could supply Iran with Bastions, or launch cruise missiles from TU-22M3 bombers itself from within Iranian airspace to shut down sea traffic (dependent on Chinese acquiescence, because Russia simply cannot alienate China). Like Thorfinnsson, I am very skeptical about Iran's capacity to hurt Saudi Arabia's land-based oil export infrastructure.

    The Russian military presence in Syria will be eradicated within a week (mostly within the first two days), and Russia itself will come under total sanctions from the US and the EU.

    At this point Putin will have to make some hard choices.

    (1) Do nothing in the face of defeat. Militarily the least risky option, but will face rising domestic discontent as living standards collapse. How long will the "buffer" of 80% approval ratings hold up? People don't like losers, as the Argentine junta discovered.

    (2) Invade East Ukraine. Ukrainian military is much stronger than in 2014, and NATO will now be sure to provide air support. This would not likely be a grind, not the walkover it would have been back then.

    (3) Invade the Baltics. Successful occupation is virtually certain within 72 hours to 5 days, and the result may demoralize and crack the NATO alliance. Or it could lead to the formal start of WW3.

    There's a small possibility that China will use the opportunity to seize Taiwan, though it's not really militarily ready for that yet. Still, the US being so preoccupied elsewhere might be too juicy of an opportunity to miss out on.

    Russia’s conventional weapon weakness is actually a strength as long as the US believes that Russia will go nuclear when defeated in Syria.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  216. @Thorfinnsson


    What would this actually look like? A lot of NATO alliance members call on the war to stop and just be frozen?
     
    Most plausible possibility is Germans refusing to die for Reval.

    Merkel replaced (requires constructive vote of no confidence per the Basic Law of the Federal Republic) with a new Chancellor who announces that Germany will be neutral in the conflict and will deny basing and transit to its allies.

    Without Germany NATO can't fight a war against Russia effectively.

    The idea of NATO attempting to ship war materiel through the Baltic or the Black Sea is laughable.

    Most plausible possibility is Germans refusing to die for Reval.

    Yes, pretty much that.
    An invasion of the Baltic states could also have the opposite effect though, it would be a clear case of territorial aggression after all that would seem to confirm the worst fears about Russia (I understand many Russians will regard this as irrelevant since they believe Russia will be demonized anyway, which may unfortunately be true).

    Read More
    • Replies: @Dmitry
    Demonization and so on, is irrelevant and subjective. The important thing is the balance sheet at the end. Invasion of the Baltics, would be a large war, with best case scenario (of total victory and no nuclear bombs), bringing some hostile populations under occupation, alongside some service sector economies that currently mainly operate within context of the EU free trade zone. In other words, it will never happen (unless some day someone like Trump is elected president of the Russian Federation).
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  217. peterAUS says:
    @Beckow

    stupidly appropriate end to Western civilization
     
    Endings are never appropriate, and it would be such a waste. I agree that we have a non-zero chance of this escalating into an apocalypse. And that can kind of odds happen all the time.

    Civilizations that end over disagreements about 'who rules East Ghouta' seem slightly wobbly already. By the way, who runs West Ghouta? Could they maybe just build a wall?

    Popular hatred toward Russia in the West has reached irrational levels. It seems very widespread and at this point short of a cleansing conflict I don't see how it can subside. Since Westerners are forbidden hating anyone else, all the accumulated hostility has turned against anything Russian. It is ok to hate Russia and the hunger for strong negative emotions is very deep. The argument seems to be that Russians are so absolutely evil that they will do stupid, self-defeating things because they cannot control their own evil instincts. It is - as a prominent deep-stater said - in their DNA. The obvious solution is to make sure that the 'evil' DNA doesn't stick around. And that way lies the unsolvable cul-de-sac we are facing today.

    Maybe a lucky distraction can help, or maybe Trump is playing it up but doesn't mean it. That has been his style. At some point if we count on luck, we are bound to fail. All gamblers know this, but they can't stop gambling anyway.

    Popular hatred toward Russia in the West has reached irrational levels. It seems very widespread and at this point short of a cleansing conflict I don’t see how it can subside. Since Westerners are forbidden hating anyone else, all the accumulated hostility has turned against anything Russian.

    and

    At some point if we count on luck, we are bound to fail. All gamblers know this, but they can’t stop gambling anyway.

    Yup.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  218. @reiner Tor
    A couple bigger ships could be worth more than the whole Russian base. If they could kill the big prize, the carrier (questionable; I also don’t know if it’d be wise), then they’d already inflict more casualties on the US then the losing their whole fleet in the region and the Syrian base. Then the US could only escalate by attacking Russian territory.

    I also don’t know if it’d be wise

    It would not be wise. It would not cow or intimidate the American people, it would whip them into a rage like Fort Sumter and Pearl Harbor did.

    Remember, the real war is not US vs. Russian Federation. There are no real geopolitical points of dispute between America’s real interests and Russia’s real interests.

    The real war is between the nationalists, social conservatives, populists and libertarians of all nations on the one hand, and a cabal of totalitarian cultural Marxist globalist elitists on the other hand (with Sunni extremists hovering like jackals in the background, waiting to feast on the corpses of the European nations after the hoped-for globalist victory).

    2010 – present, the nationalists have been increasingly winning elections across the European Christian world, and the globalists are scared.

    They need a major war as an excuse to violently crack down on nationalists, before the latter have enjoyed too much electoral success.

    The #1 task of all nationalists at this time should be to avoid the outbreak of a major war.

    Putin’s smart move would be to ignore American air attacks, resist the temptation to sink the vulnerable US navy ships and the ungarrisoned Baltic states which will be dangled temptingly in front of him, and patiently continue to destroy the Al-Qaeda and ISIS strongholds in Syria west of the Euphrates, like an ox plowing a field while ignoring the stinging flies. And for God’s sake, make sure his Middle Eastern allies aren’t really using poison gas!

    Orban’s smart move would be to veto all EU economic sanctions. Many people who don’t feel free to speak their minds would secretly welcome the opportunities for profit that would be thus opened up and the jobs that would be created. More importantly, economic sanctions are always the first step towards war. First come sanctions, then proxy war, then air war, then boots on the ground. By vetoing the sanctions, he would be literally setting back the drift towards war. And he shouldn’t delude himself that his regime will be allowed to continue in the crisis of a major war. Having loyally supported the sanctions will not save him.

    Would Hungary’s special relationship with Poland survive a Hungarian veto of EU sanctions against Russia? Perhaps Putin needs act boldly to end the anachronistic Russo-Polish tensions. An offer to let Poland mediate the Russia-Ukraine dispute?

    Putin has plenty of domestic political capital to spare. Any move that would draw attention to the real nature of this conflict would be wise. Tear down monuments to Bolsheviks, especially non-Russian Bolsheviks, especially Jewish Bolsheviks. (Anything named for 1/4 Jewish Lenin could be renamed for patriotic Russian statesmen assassinated by Jews such as Alexander II and Stolypin, or patriotic writers who criticized Jews such as Dostoevsky and Solzhenitsyn, or Prince Sviatoslav Khazar-bane) Crack down on organized crime, especially non-Russian organized crime, especially Jewish organized crime.

    Act boldly to end anachronistic Russo-Ukrainian tensions. Praise Prince Daniel of Galicia’s doomed heroism against the Mongols. Strike a medal with Alexander Nevsky on one side and Prince Daniel on the other to commemorate the difficult decisions taken by different branches of the Rus in a tragic time. Vigorously denounce the Soviet (not Russian) crimes against the Ukrainian people. Stress the non-Russian nature of Georgian Stalin and the Jewish Bolsheviks. Point out how Kaganovich was involved in both the destruction of the Cathedral of Christ the Savior in Moscow and the Holodomor, and likewise Femen (financed by Jed Sunden) vandalized the Kiev memorial to the victims of Communism as an act of solidarity with Pussy Riot’s desecration of the Cathedral of Christ the Savior.

    Trump also needs to be wary of a major war. In the crisis environment of a major war, with his supporters muzzled or imprisoned, he would be easily removed from office via impeachment or 25th amendment and tried for treason, and all his personal assets seized and his family left impoverished and disgraced. As much as he relishes betraying his supporters, he should be aware that doing so does nothing to diminish the hatred which the globalists will always feel against him for even pretending to be a nationalist.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  219. peterAUS says:
    @reiner Tor

    The so-called Cold War was a clown catfight compared to the serious business going on today.
     
    During the Cold War, the leadership of both superpowers were horrified of the idea of another world war. This is no longer true, because, at least in the US, no one believes in the possibility of nukes ever being used or of American arms ever getting defeated.

    They think they will always be victorious, and war is just a question of internal political considerations, because whenever they have a will, they will be victorious, and the destruction will only affect other countries.

    During the Cold War, the leadership of both superpowers were horrified of the idea of another world war. This is no longer true, because, at least in the US, no one believes in the possibility of nukes ever being used or of American arms ever getting defeated.

    They think they will always be victorious, and war is just a question of internal political considerations, because whenever they have a will, they will be victorious, and the destruction will only affect other countries.

    Yup.
    They got elected though. By us. Even now nobody cares.
    So…..

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  220. dfordoom says: • Website
    @palmtoptiger
    @Lemurmaniac

    yes. Tu-22M3s or Su-34s can carry various anti-ship missiles like Х-35 etc. on land there's also the Bastion complex which even according to Wikipedia Syria has (fielding the P-800 Onyx which is Mach 2.6, a 200-300kg warhead depending on variant, and has a beyond-horizon range of up to 500km). various attack subs which may or not be around the Mediterranean can also carry P-800 Onyx or P-1000 Vulcan, which are all really heavy and dangerous missiles all quite capable of sinking big naval vessels (though not sure about a Nimitz class carrier with just 1 missile and conventional warhead).

    I maintain the thing is not so much about capability - that's well present, Russia can sink pretty much everything the US has in the Mediterranean within an hour probably - it's more about the will to openly move to a WW3. which I don't think Putin has.

    the thing is not so much about capability – that’s well present, Russia can sink pretty much everything the US has in the Mediterranean within an hour probably – it’s more about the will to openly move to a WW3. which I don’t think Putin has.

    Putin is a sane human being. He doesn’t want World War 3. Unfortunately when you’re dealing with rabid lunatics like the Americans being a sane human being is a major disadvantage. At the very least you have to make the rabid lunatics think that you’re as crazy as they are.

    Read More
    • Agree: reiner Tor
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  221. peterAUS says:
    @Randal

    These folks simplistically ignore what Russia could do with its arsenal not in Syria.
     
    They don't simplistically ignore it. They argue that Russia will not risk such escalation. Their view is that the US has escalation superiority over Syria as a result.

    Neocons, neolibs and flat out Russia haters, will view a militarily weak Russia (relative to a US attack) as a means of gradually reducing Putin’s popularity.
     
    Yes, they are positively salivating at the prospect of humiliating Russia.

    Agree, so far, with all your posts.
    Scrolling down…..

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

    If they could kill the big prize, the carrier (questionable; I also don’t know if it’d be wise)
     
    If you like the idea of everyone dying in nuclear apocalypse. And over a meaningless shithole, which affects neither of the countries involved.

    No, to attack an aircraft carrier would not be wise. And nothing like this will happen, as we may have an incompetent government, but we don't have psychos in our government.

    Yup.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  223. peterAUS says:
    @Anatoly Karlin
    My guess is that in a full-scale conflict in the Syrian theater the Russian forces will be able to knock out a dozen to three dozen US/Allied fighters and 1-3 destroyers/frigates.

    I don't think Russia will manage to sink or even disable an aircraft carrier. This is a 100,000 ton metallic honeycomb with hundreds of watertight compartments, protected by a screen of smaller ships, submarines, and fighters. Of course it would be trivial to do so by launching a couple of ICBMs that disperse nuclear warheads in a grid pattern around its general location, but the US will treat this as a full-fledged nuclear attack.

    The best way for Iran to close the Strait of Hormuz would be to start laying down mines using civilian fishing vessels, but it is unlikely that it will be able to successfully do this to any substantial degree on such short notice (the US would be watching too closely). The simple, short-range AS missiles that Iran has are not up to the task; modern oil tankers are double-hulled and far from trivial to sink. Russia could supply Iran with Bastions, or launch cruise missiles from TU-22M3 bombers itself from within Iranian airspace to shut down sea traffic (dependent on Chinese acquiescence, because Russia simply cannot alienate China). Like Thorfinnsson, I am very skeptical about Iran's capacity to hurt Saudi Arabia's land-based oil export infrastructure.

    The Russian military presence in Syria will be eradicated within a week (mostly within the first two days), and Russia itself will come under total sanctions from the US and the EU.

    At this point Putin will have to make some hard choices.

    (1) Do nothing in the face of defeat. Militarily the least risky option, but will face rising domestic discontent as living standards collapse. How long will the "buffer" of 80% approval ratings hold up? People don't like losers, as the Argentine junta discovered.

    (2) Invade East Ukraine. Ukrainian military is much stronger than in 2014, and NATO will now be sure to provide air support. This would not likely be a grind, not the walkover it would have been back then.

    (3) Invade the Baltics. Successful occupation is virtually certain within 72 hours to 5 days, and the result may demoralize and crack the NATO alliance. Or it could lead to the formal start of WW3.

    There's a small possibility that China will use the opportunity to seize Taiwan, though it's not really militarily ready for that yet. Still, the US being so preoccupied elsewhere might be too juicy of an opportunity to miss out on.

    My guess is that in a full-scale conflict in the Syrian theater the Russian forces will be able to knock out a dozen to three dozen US/Allied fighters and 1-3 destroyers/frigates.

    Possible.

    The Russian military presence in Syria will be eradicated within a week (mostly within the first two days), and Russia itself will come under total sanctions from the US and the EU.

    Yup.
    The problem with this is the “mechanism”. Watching own forces being reduced into dust without doing anything, anywhere. I don’t think that’s likely.
    What is likely is: “you get my base, I get yours”.
    From then on, well……it goes up and up.
    That was the way I remembered from the Cold War (paper, trainer, simulator, field, exercises).
    The “mechanism”.

    True, if the “mechanism” isn’t “on” anymore, well, I do agree with below:

    At this point Putin will have to make some hard choices.

    (1) Do nothing in the face of defeat. Militarily the least risky option, but will face rising domestic discontent as living standards collapse. How long will the “buffer” of 80% approval ratings hold up? People don’t like losers, as the Argentine junta discovered.

    Not necessarily. The crux of the question, actually. I don’t know, not there.
    If the regime in Kremlin feels they could go down they shall escalate. No doubt about that.
    If…..

    (2) Invade East Ukraine. Ukrainian military is much stronger than in 2014, and NATO will now be sure to provide air support. This would not likely be a grind, not the walkover it would have been back then.

    Not a bad idea. Probably the best, actually.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Randal
    As you know, I think you and Karlin underestimate likely losses (for a start because such a conflict will be an unholy mess unprecedented in modern times, and a lot of unexpected stuff is going to happen for both sides) and the ability to keep the oil flowing in the face of determined Iranian/Russian attempts to halt it, but broadly agree that the outcome in theatre is inevitable. As I've said above, Russia cannot sustain a position in the ME against determined US sphere attack.

    As far as the consequences are concerned, I tend to agree that occupying eastern Ukraine would probably be the best (least worst) Russian conventional response, in order to be able to paint the matter as an honourable draw rather than a defeat. It would not be an inconsiderable task overall (holding it would be more of an issue than taking it), but certainly achievable and probably long term sustainable so long as China remains at least neutral.

    In the Cold War analogy (both of us being I think somewhat older than the average), one feasible response from the Russians in order to even out the perceived losses, in response to the destruction of their ME expeditionary force, would be a nuclear strike on a carrier battle group. Nuclear strikes at sea were always in practice (not officially) regarded as a step down from land targeting. That would then put the decision in the lap of US sphere commanders to decide whether to respond and trigger a counter-response, or accept the situation as a draw.

    In theatre, the US has escalation superiority as long as the conflict is conventional. Once the escalation becomes nuclear and global, however, the Russians regain some parity, because both sides still retain the ability to destroy the other with nuclear weapons, so in the face of disaster at some point it becomes reasonable again for the Russians to escalate. That should be a concern for the US regime.
    , @RadicalCenter
    If Russia is really under serious attack, it should absolutely take back eastern Ukraine and think about Transdnistria too.

    Also, if Russia doesn’t want to strike the USA in retaliation for Russian personnel possibly being killed in Syria, it could instead DECIMATE Saudi Arabia and Qatar if they take part in the strikes. I mean raze Riyadh and every other major urban settlement in Saudi and Qatar to the ground.

    Also, wipe out any British or French planes or troops that take part (I read that Great Britainistani troops on Cyprus may aid in the attack somehow,and that France-istan is talking “forcefully”, LOL).
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  224. iffen says:
    @reiner Tor
    The same could be said of attacking an ally of a nuclear superpower after said nuclear superpower declared that it would hit back. I fail to see how it is different from attacking a NATO member.

    The Americans are doing something truly unprecedented here.

    Why is it psycho to propose that the response should also be unprecedented?

    And you need to explain why the Americans would blow up the world over the sinking of a vessel. They remained chummy with Israel after it intentionally sunk a US vessel.

    And you need to explain why the Americans would blow up the world over the sinking of a vessel. They remained chummy with Israel after it intentionally sunk a US vessel.

    Context, RT, context, think about it sometimes.

    Read More
    • Replies: @reiner Tor
    Yes. The Americans are psychos about Russia. Which was my point.

    In an objective sense the context was of course way worse in USS Liberty case, because it was an unprovoked deliberate attack, while the Russians would merely be responding to an unprovoked American attack.

    But I merely tried to make my point about psychos.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  225. iffen says:
    @Parbes
    In short: Because this guy "Dmitry" is a Russian Chabad Jewish (or part-Jewish, or whatever) liberast type with pro-U.S. and pro-Israel leanings - probably a new addition to the hasbara stable, judging from his recent appearance on this website; but even if not, it doesn't make any difference. He propagandizes against the secular nationalist Syrian government in a "clever underhanded" (or so he thinks, LOL) manner simply because "the Syrians are Israel's adversary". Notice all his supposedly "sly" propaganda talking points, delivered in an "affable" manner, all stating/implying the same thing over and over: Syria is a dump not worth defending for Russia or anybody; Russia should just roll over and let the U.S. 'n' friends have fun bombing Syria for a little bit; nothing will come of it and Russia won't lose anything; the bombing will just last a couple of days and be inconsequential anyway, etc., etc.

    In fact, what the rogue U.S. regime and its criminal allies are planning is a huge, nation-wrecking strike on Syria which will destroy that country's sovereign secular nationalist government, kill untold numbers of people, and deliver the ruined remnants of the country in near Stone Age conditions into the hands of Saudi-aligned Islamic extremists in a "wink-wink" relationship with Israel (who will then turn it into a training ground and base for jihadi terrorist armies to be used for further operations against "adversaries" of the Anglo-Zionist empire).

    The main problem that I see here is that “our” jihadis keep going rogue on us.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  226. Dmitry says:
    @Parbes
    In short: Because this guy "Dmitry" is a Russian Chabad Jewish (or part-Jewish, or whatever) liberast type with pro-U.S. and pro-Israel leanings - probably a new addition to the hasbara stable, judging from his recent appearance on this website; but even if not, it doesn't make any difference. He propagandizes against the secular nationalist Syrian government in a "clever underhanded" (or so he thinks, LOL) manner simply because "the Syrians are Israel's adversary". Notice all his supposedly "sly" propaganda talking points, delivered in an "affable" manner, all stating/implying the same thing over and over: Syria is a dump not worth defending for Russia or anybody; Russia should just roll over and let the U.S. 'n' friends have fun bombing Syria for a little bit; nothing will come of it and Russia won't lose anything; the bombing will just last a couple of days and be inconsequential anyway, etc., etc.

    In fact, what the rogue U.S. regime and its criminal allies are planning is a huge, nation-wrecking strike on Syria which will destroy that country's sovereign secular nationalist government, kill untold numbers of people, and deliver the ruined remnants of the country in near Stone Age conditions into the hands of Saudi-aligned Islamic extremists in a "wink-wink" relationship with Israel (who will then turn it into a training ground and base for jihadi terrorist armies to be used for further operations against "adversaries" of the Anglo-Zionist empire).

    In short: Because this guy “Dmitry” is a Russian Chabad Jewish (or part-Jewish, or whatever)

    In genealogically very partial way, but if you wish to label commentator as such feel free to.

    liberast type

    Free-market liberal – pederast no.

    with pro-U.S. and pro-Israel leanings –

    I’ve lived in Israel for several months, often visit in Israel, study the Hebrew language and feel pro-Israel point of view overall. But I will not live in Israel.

    In America – I admire the economic system and country, but the particularly not culture.

    probably a new addition to the hasbara stable, judging from his recent appearance on this website; but even if not, it doesn’t make any difference

    No I just write my opinion, rarely crossing onto the other blogs here, where I am always attacked by the Americans (including the site owner who called me as ‘anti-Russia Jewish activist’ (it comes as news to me) when I questioned some fake news about Israel posted here).

    He propagandizes against the secular nationalist Syrian government in a “clever underhanded” (or so he thinks, LOL) manner simply because “the Syrians are Israel’s adversary”. Notice all his supposedly “sly” propaganda talking points, delivered in an “affable” manner, all stating/implying the same thing over and over: Syria is a dump not worth defending for Russia or anybody; Russia should just roll over and let the U.S. ‘n’ friends have fun bombing Syria for a little bit; nothing will come of it and Russia won’t lose anything; the bombing will just last a couple of days and be inconsequential anyway, etc., etc.

    In fact, what the rogue U.S. regime and its criminal allies are planning is a huge, nation-wrecking strike on Syria which will destroy that country’s sovereign secular nationalist government, kill untold numbers of people, and deliver the ruined remnants of the country in near Stone Age conditions into the hands of Saudi-aligned Islamic extremists in a “wink-wink” relationship with Israel (who will then turn it into a training ground and base for jihadi terrorist armies to be used for further operations against “adversaries” of the Anglo-Zionist empire).

    Not really. I supported the operation in Syria when it was bombing Jihadists.

    If it will at any time involve bombing Americans – no. This idiotic. And it would be the highest incompetence.

    But as you will shortly see, at no point will any Americans be bombed. And neither – except in some extreme blunder – will we.

    As for Arabs – I don’t have any racist views. I would prefer the majority will remain in Arabia.

    Read More
    • Agree: RadicalCenter
    • Replies: @iffen
    (including the site owner who called me as ‘anti-Russia Jewish activist’ (it comes as news to me)

    He was likely too "busy" with his work to call you a nitwit.

    A free-market liberal? Why?

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  227. Dmitry says:
    @Anatoly Karlin
    My guess is that in a full-scale conflict in the Syrian theater the Russian forces will be able to knock out a dozen to three dozen US/Allied fighters and 1-3 destroyers/frigates.

    I don't think Russia will manage to sink or even disable an aircraft carrier. This is a 100,000 ton metallic honeycomb with hundreds of watertight compartments, protected by a screen of smaller ships, submarines, and fighters. Of course it would be trivial to do so by launching a couple of ICBMs that disperse nuclear warheads in a grid pattern around its general location, but the US will treat this as a full-fledged nuclear attack.

    The best way for Iran to close the Strait of Hormuz would be to start laying down mines using civilian fishing vessels, but it is unlikely that it will be able to successfully do this to any substantial degree on such short notice (the US would be watching too closely). The simple, short-range AS missiles that Iran has are not up to the task; modern oil tankers are double-hulled and far from trivial to sink. Russia could supply Iran with Bastions, or launch cruise missiles from TU-22M3 bombers itself from within Iranian airspace to shut down sea traffic (dependent on Chinese acquiescence, because Russia simply cannot alienate China). Like Thorfinnsson, I am very skeptical about Iran's capacity to hurt Saudi Arabia's land-based oil export infrastructure.

    The Russian military presence in Syria will be eradicated within a week (mostly within the first two days), and Russia itself will come under total sanctions from the US and the EU.

    At this point Putin will have to make some hard choices.

    (1) Do nothing in the face of defeat. Militarily the least risky option, but will face rising domestic discontent as living standards collapse. How long will the "buffer" of 80% approval ratings hold up? People don't like losers, as the Argentine junta discovered.

    (2) Invade East Ukraine. Ukrainian military is much stronger than in 2014, and NATO will now be sure to provide air support. This would not likely be a grind, not the walkover it would have been back then.

    (3) Invade the Baltics. Successful occupation is virtually certain within 72 hours to 5 days, and the result may demoralize and crack the NATO alliance. Or it could lead to the formal start of WW3.

    There's a small possibility that China will use the opportunity to seize Taiwan, though it's not really militarily ready for that yet. Still, the US being so preoccupied elsewhere might be too juicy of an opportunity to miss out on.

    The Russian military presence in Syria will be eradicated within a week (mostly within the first two days), and Russia itself will come under total sanctions from the US and the EU.

    At this point Putin will have to make some hard choices.

    (1) Do nothing in the face of defeat. Militarily the least risky option, but will face rising domestic discontent as living standards collapse. How long will the “buffer” of 80% approval ratings hold up? People don’t like losers, as the Argentine junta discovered.

    (2) Invade East Ukraine. Ukrainian military is much stronger than in 2014, and NATO will now be sure to provide air support. This would not likely be a grind, not the walkover it would have been back then.

    (3) Invade the Baltics. Successful occupation is virtually certain within 72 hours to 5 days, and the result may demoralize and crack the NATO alliance. Or it could lead to the formal start of WW3.

    There’s a small possibility that China will use the opportunity to seize Taiwan, though it’s not really militarily ready for that yet. Still, the US being so preoccupied elsewhere might be too juicy of an opportunity to miss out on.

    Just a fuckup with nothing to gain. Whereas every operation since after 2000, has been more or less the opposite (no fuckup), and plenty to gain (well in Georgia and Syria (so far), nothing to gain, but neither much of a fuckup).

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

    Most plausible possibility is Germans refusing to die for Reval.
     
    Yes, pretty much that.
    An invasion of the Baltic states could also have the opposite effect though, it would be a clear case of territorial aggression after all that would seem to confirm the worst fears about Russia (I understand many Russians will regard this as irrelevant since they believe Russia will be demonized anyway, which may unfortunately be true).

    Demonization and so on, is irrelevant and subjective. The important thing is the balance sheet at the end. Invasion of the Baltics, would be a large war, with best case scenario (of total victory and no nuclear bombs), bringing some hostile populations under occupation, alongside some service sector economies that currently mainly operate within context of the EU free trade zone. In other words, it will never happen (unless some day someone like Trump is elected president of the Russian Federation).

    Read More
    • Replies: @German_reader

    In other words, it will never happen
     
    I don't know, a Russian invasion of the Baltics would make some sense imo in the scenario AK outlined above. The objectives would be primarily political, to put NATO under pressure, expose frictions in the alliance and hope it will cause NATO to break apart. NATO won't be able to defend the Baltic states at the start of a conflict, arguments might then arise how to respond to a Russian occupation of the Baltic states (which few people in Western Europe care that much about).
    Obviously it would be a rather desperate move on Russia's part, and likely to have disastrous consequences for everyone involved.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  229. iffen says:
    @Dmitry

    In short: Because this guy “Dmitry” is a Russian Chabad Jewish (or part-Jewish, or whatever)
     
    In genealogically very partial way, but if you wish to label commentator as such feel free to.

    liberast type

     

    Free-market liberal - pederast no.

    with pro-U.S. and pro-Israel leanings –
     
    I've lived in Israel for several months, often visit in Israel, study the Hebrew language and feel pro-Israel point of view overall. But I will not live in Israel.

    In America - I admire the economic system and country, but the particularly not culture.

    probably a new addition to the hasbara stable, judging from his recent appearance on this website; but even if not, it doesn’t make any difference
     
    No I just write my opinion, rarely crossing onto the other blogs here, where I am always attacked by the Americans (including the site owner who called me as 'anti-Russia Jewish activist' (it comes as news to me) when I questioned some fake news about Israel posted here).

    He propagandizes against the secular nationalist Syrian government in a “clever underhanded” (or so he thinks, LOL) manner simply because “the Syrians are Israel’s adversary”. Notice all his supposedly “sly” propaganda talking points, delivered in an “affable” manner, all stating/implying the same thing over and over: Syria is a dump not worth defending for Russia or anybody; Russia should just roll over and let the U.S. ‘n’ friends have fun bombing Syria for a little bit; nothing will come of it and Russia won’t lose anything; the bombing will just last a couple of days and be inconsequential anyway, etc., etc.

    In fact, what the rogue U.S. regime and its criminal allies are planning is a huge, nation-wrecking strike on Syria which will destroy that country’s sovereign secular nationalist government, kill untold numbers of people, and deliver the ruined remnants of the country in near Stone Age conditions into the hands of Saudi-aligned Islamic extremists in a “wink-wink” relationship with Israel (who will then turn it into a training ground and base for jihadi terrorist armies to be used for further operations against “adversaries” of the Anglo-Zionist empire).
     
    Not really. I supported the operation in Syria when it was bombing Jihadists.

    If it will at any time involve bombing Americans - no. This idiotic. And it would be the highest incompetence.

    But as you will shortly see, at no point will any Americans be bombed. And neither - except in some extreme blunder - will we.

    As for Arabs - I don't have any racist views. I would prefer the majority will remain in Arabia.

    (including the site owner who called me as ‘anti-Russia Jewish activist’ (it comes as news to me)

    He was likely too “busy” with his work to call you a nitwit.

    A free-market liberal? Why?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Dmitry

    He was likely too “busy” with his work to call you a nitwit.

     

    Judging from the internet, Americans seem to hate independent thought and discussion, and will often resort to insults.

    On other American sites, I got labelled as 'Russian troll' when I write my opinion. On this one, 'anti-Russia Jewish activist' for the same opinion (ironically from Americans on the Sailer blog).

    Facebook deleted the account I used to comment under some Western sites.

    Free-market liberal - because this is the system that works, that respects individual decision making, and that I prefer my income is not spent by incompetent governments.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  230. @Dmitry
    Demonization and so on, is irrelevant and subjective. The important thing is the balance sheet at the end. Invasion of the Baltics, would be a large war, with best case scenario (of total victory and no nuclear bombs), bringing some hostile populations under occupation, alongside some service sector economies that currently mainly operate within context of the EU free trade zone. In other words, it will never happen (unless some day someone like Trump is elected president of the Russian Federation).

    In other words, it will never happen

    I don’t know, a Russian invasion of the Baltics would make some sense imo in the scenario AK outlined above. The objectives would be primarily political, to put NATO under pressure, expose frictions in the alliance and hope it will cause NATO to break apart. NATO won’t be able to defend the Baltic states at the start of a conflict, arguments might then arise how to respond to a Russian occupation of the Baltic states (which few people in Western Europe care that much about).
    Obviously it would be a rather desperate move on Russia’s part, and likely to have disastrous consequences for everyone involved.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Dmitry

    I don’t know, a Russian invasion of the Baltics would make some sense imo in the scenario AK outlined above. The objectives would be primarily political, to put NATO under pressure, expose frictions in the alliance and hope it will cause NATO to break apart. NATO won’t be able to defend the Baltic states at the start of a conflict, arguments might then arise how to respond to a Russian occupation of the Baltic states (which few people in Western Europe care that much about).
    Obviously it would be a rather desperate move on Russia’s part, and likely to have disastrous consequences for everyone involved..
     
    And even if everything goes perfectly (total victory and no nuclear weapons), there are thousands of dead soldiers and their angry families, long-term fatal economic doom, and - bring in hostile populations with economies re-structured for decades to operate inside a EU free-trade zone. By the way opposite of Kremlin style since the end of 2000, which has always been small and clever (reaching artistry in Crimea), operations which you can justify to people like me.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  231. Dmitry says:
    @iffen
    (including the site owner who called me as ‘anti-Russia Jewish activist’ (it comes as news to me)

    He was likely too "busy" with his work to call you a nitwit.

    A free-market liberal? Why?

    He was likely too “busy” with his work to call you a nitwit.

    Judging from the internet, Americans seem to hate independent thought and discussion, and will often resort to insults.

    On other American sites, I got labelled as ‘Russian troll’ when I write my opinion. On this one, ‘anti-Russia Jewish activist’ for the same opinion (ironically from Americans on the Sailer blog).

    Facebook deleted the account I used to comment under some Western sites.

    Free-market liberal – because this is the system that works, that respects individual decision making, and that I prefer my income is not spent by incompetent governments.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anon
    "Healthy young child has rational skepticism of Western foreign policy consensus, goes to The Vineyard of the Saker, starts seeing Anglo-Zionists in the comments section of every other site they go to- AUTISM. Many such cases!"
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  232. utu says:

    Commenter Kalen (Apr 11, 2018 9:52:11 AM) at Moon of Alabama

    http://www.moonofalabama.org/2018/04/trump-asks-russia-to-roll-over-it-wont/comments/page/1/#comments
    It is all true but narrative of b how we got he on a brink of shooting war with US is one sided. Two are needed to tango and Russia tangoed too long enticed by potential benefit for few oligarchs and detriment to the nation.

    Just seven years past and despite unquestioned positive role that Russian played in Syria mostly to reduce pain and suffering of Syrian people what I read here is unnecessary whitewashing of Russian initial stand that did nothing but encouraged US and NATO gangsters to reek chaos that caused tens of thousands dead and injured. It seems shocking that Russia establishment did not know that US is a fearful bully, or dollars were too good.

    Just to remind people’s that in 2011 it was Medvedev representative of Russian western oligarchic lobby (friendly with Obama and neocons) in Kremlin who was in charge during Arab Spring.

    It is well documented fact that Assad pleaded with Medvedev in March 2011 for Moscow to deliver already ordered and paid for in 2008 dozens of new combat helicopters as well as massive amount of parts to refurbish and upgrade Russian made warplanes that were also withheld not to upset Israel and US at that time.

    Assad was not invited to Moscow at that time while he repeatedly declared that his military will be able to defeat terrorist insurgence financed by the CIA in a matter of weeks if Syrian Army is resupplied and paid for already contracts executed.

    None of that happened at that time, while at the same time Quadaffi was thrown under the bus by Russians and Chinese UN non veto of the planned NATO agression on Libya, appeasement or coincidence?

    Russian got their pay off for playing western game in MENA when in 2012 Putin was barely elected in a quite rediculous political charade facing CIA/Soros funded failed Moscow Spring which actually started slippery slope of open western anti-Russian hysterical embellishments.

    What was even more puzzling for those not so sophisticated political analysts was Putin inconsistent actions and declarations especially in regard to Syria between 2012 and 2014 when he joined US phony peace talks and calling on Assad removal from his post in a some sort of democratic process only to find out that US do not want peace in Syria but some Saudi run fiefdom friendly to Israel.

    The same appeasement to the west was in Putin attitude to Ukraine until 2014 and its 23 millions of ethnic Russians tolerating rapidly growing western financed Nazism as well his tolerance of Russia connected Ukrainian oligarchic theft that plunged the country into economic depression enabling political instability.

    At that time Russian minorities in Baltic States were also viciously attacked by security forces as well by discriminating Nuremberg- like laws making them, most born there, second class citizen restricted in ownership and civil rights to organize and to maintain their culture and language.

    All those Putin foreign policies of weakness and submission to the west and that included reluctance in approach to alliances with China

    were in sharp contrast to his extreme push to revamp entire military of Russian with enormous like for Russia military imvestments and extremely rationalizing it giving them 5 year term to accomplish massive changes while dropping hype about future fancy technologies for simple solutions that effectively will defend the country from western aggression.

    Putin knew what was coming so why Kremlin policies of appeasement and hence encouragement of bullying and aggression. Who was really in charge?

    In fact Putin reacted only when Russian vital national security was directly threatened in 2014 in Crimea where navy bases are located and in 2015 when he realized that western trained and funded terrorist army commanded by Chechnya Russian speaking terrorists is being prepared to invade Chechnya after Assad was deposed and the only maditeranian navy base was threatened.

    As always in history policy of appeasement of a bully leads to the same thing ultimate confrontation, more delayed more costly it is.

    So is Putin as Xi for that matter is about to submit their nations to the western oligarchy even more for their personal advancement at the global oligarchic table or they split which means war.

    I do not think war is coming they have too good thing going and their power is not threatened by the enslaved people.

    Read More
    • Replies: @pogohere
    Putin is the moderate. The US and its allies have finally convinced him that moderation will no longer serve Russia. See Helmer :

    WHEN VLADIMIR PUTIN COUGHS, THE GRIPPE IS INFECTIOUS – KREMLIN SUCCESSION SHOWDOWN STARTS

    http://johnhelmer.org/?p=17606

    GOOD FRIDAY, RESURRECTION SUNDAY – RUSSIA’S NEW WAR CABINET TO BE HEADED BY SERGEI SOBYANIN

    http://johnhelmer.net/good-friday-resurrection-sunday-russias-new-war-cabinet-to-be-headed-by-sergei-sobyanin/
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  233. utu says:
    @Parbes
    In short: Because this guy "Dmitry" is a Russian Chabad Jewish (or part-Jewish, or whatever) liberast type with pro-U.S. and pro-Israel leanings - probably a new addition to the hasbara stable, judging from his recent appearance on this website; but even if not, it doesn't make any difference. He propagandizes against the secular nationalist Syrian government in a "clever underhanded" (or so he thinks, LOL) manner simply because "the Syrians are Israel's adversary". Notice all his supposedly "sly" propaganda talking points, delivered in an "affable" manner, all stating/implying the same thing over and over: Syria is a dump not worth defending for Russia or anybody; Russia should just roll over and let the U.S. 'n' friends have fun bombing Syria for a little bit; nothing will come of it and Russia won't lose anything; the bombing will just last a couple of days and be inconsequential anyway, etc., etc.

    In fact, what the rogue U.S. regime and its criminal allies are planning is a huge, nation-wrecking strike on Syria which will destroy that country's sovereign secular nationalist government, kill untold numbers of people, and deliver the ruined remnants of the country in near Stone Age conditions into the hands of Saudi-aligned Islamic extremists in a "wink-wink" relationship with Israel (who will then turn it into a training ground and base for jihadi terrorist armies to be used for further operations against "adversaries" of the Anglo-Zionist empire).

    “sly” and “affable”

    You got him.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Parbes
    Thanks.

    Lots of snakes in the grass.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  234. Dmitry says:
    @German_reader

    In other words, it will never happen
     
    I don't know, a Russian invasion of the Baltics would make some sense imo in the scenario AK outlined above. The objectives would be primarily political, to put NATO under pressure, expose frictions in the alliance and hope it will cause NATO to break apart. NATO won't be able to defend the Baltic states at the start of a conflict, arguments might then arise how to respond to a Russian occupation of the Baltic states (which few people in Western Europe care that much about).
    Obviously it would be a rather desperate move on Russia's part, and likely to have disastrous consequences for everyone involved.

    I don’t know, a Russian invasion of the Baltics would make some sense imo in the scenario AK outlined above. The objectives would be primarily political, to put NATO under pressure, expose frictions in the alliance and hope it will cause NATO to break apart. NATO won’t be able to defend the Baltic states at the start of a conflict, arguments might then arise how to respond to a Russian occupation of the Baltic states (which few people in Western Europe care that much about).
    Obviously it would be a rather desperate move on Russia’s part, and likely to have disastrous consequences for everyone involved..

    And even if everything goes perfectly (total victory and no nuclear weapons), there are thousands of dead soldiers and their angry families, long-term fatal economic doom, and – bring in hostile populations with economies re-structured for decades to operate inside a EU free-trade zone. By the way opposite of Kremlin style since the end of 2000, which has always been small and clever (reaching artistry in Crimea), operations which you can justify to people like me.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  235. Parbes says:
    @utu

    "sly" and “affable”
     
    You got him.

    Thanks.

    Lots of snakes in the grass.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  236. utu says:
    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  237. Anon[205] • Disclaimer says:
    @Dmitry

    He was likely too “busy” with his work to call you a nitwit.

     

    Judging from the internet, Americans seem to hate independent thought and discussion, and will often resort to insults.

    On other American sites, I got labelled as 'Russian troll' when I write my opinion. On this one, 'anti-Russia Jewish activist' for the same opinion (ironically from Americans on the Sailer blog).

    Facebook deleted the account I used to comment under some Western sites.

    Free-market liberal - because this is the system that works, that respects individual decision making, and that I prefer my income is not spent by incompetent governments.

    “Healthy young child has rational skepticism of Western foreign policy consensus, goes to The Vineyard of the Saker, starts seeing Anglo-Zionists in the comments section of every other site they go to- AUTISM. Many such cases!”

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

    South Africa didn’t keep Laura Southern out but the UK did.
     
    I can assure that it had nothing to do with some kind of respect of freedom of speech, South Africa is simply not as capable as the UK in the surveillance of thought criminals as the UK is. Once the USA becomes as non white as South Africa, the one benefit to that is that that government will be less capable of crushing dissent.

    I should have typed “Lauren.”

    Interesting interpretation. Germans and Russians were pretty good at surveillance, and I don’t imagine blacks are. Or at least, I can’t think of examples. Even of black criminals who came up with a good plan, after staking a place out. But there is always the possibility that they could outsource to someone who is good at it, like the Chinese. It wouldn’t necessarily need to be labor intensive, just AI.

    It is sort of a point of morbid curiosity with me how quickly Europe would spiral into civil war without the thousands of people working in surveillance, trying to tamp down on things. It is hard to say because the media are partisans, but otherwise, I’d say pretty quickly.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  239. Invasion of the Baltics is a total fantasy at this stage. Even in the last few years from 2016, there has been increasing additions to troop levels in the countries themselves. Would it be enough to deter a fullscale Russian attack? No. But the point is that it raises the threshold of entry for Russia.

    In other words, Russia would need to do large military maneuvers without a formal reason to do so(like Zapad 2017). Does anyone think NATO would sit still in such an occurrence as these movements happened? Russia wouldn’t be able to stealthily sneak up on the Baltics anymore.

    The US is NATO and NATO is the US, in the final analysis. You’d see very large increases in US troops in the Baltics, many of whom who would be flown directly from EU bases and some probably even from the Middle East(where the power projection capabilities of Russia is much lower, and so the US can afford to send some of their soldiers to Europe from there and then re-inforce the Middle East from the mainland). These movements would happen almost at the same time as the Russian re-organised their military to attack the Baltics. Russia wouldn’t be able to move very large amounts of people without seeing a huge increase in troop levels in the Baltics await them. The US has tens of thousands of troops in the EU which can moved within just a few days, and I re-iterate, these movements would not be after an attack, it would be before an attack as the notion can Russia can organise a large army on the doorstep of the Baltics at this stage without making a noise is a delusional fantasy. There would not be much of an element of surprise.

    The economic/political costs of a Baltic invasion is hard to estimate, but we’re talking about devastating economic warfare, no holds barred (repulsion from SWIFT would be some of the milder things). Forget about rule of law. The climate is now so toxic so that even blatantly illegal actions would be rubber-stamped and no judge would put him or herself in harms way to question it.

    And all this as retaliation for Assad? Don’t make me laugh. Eastern Ukraine is more plausible, given no NATO membership but I’d argue that Ukraine has de facto NATO protection when it comes to its core provinces(closer to Kiev and major cities).

    If Russia moved on Eastern Ukraine, and avoided this key provinces, there would still be a massive military aid programme, tons of free tanks/APCs and the like provided. You can bet there would suddenly be thousands and thousands of “Western advisors” and tons of Navy Seals/SAS operators sabotaging Russia’s supply lines. Ukraine itself is no longer as much of a pushover as it was in early 2014. It would be no cakewalk. And the economic fallout would also be very severe for Russia with no easy way to retaliate. Maybe through the gas market, but I don’t know much about the gas market, so I’ll leave others to speculate on what can and can’t happen in the gas market.

    Read More
    • Replies: @peterAUS
    Save for

    ....tons of Navy Seals/SAS operators sabotaging Russia’s supply lines.
     
    Agree.
    Local people, loyal to Kiev, doing that with, maybe, some "mercs" in advisory role (ex those operators). Maybe.
    Not important.
    What would be important is shifting the minds of ordinary Russians from the fallout in Syria onto that, here, conventional war.

    But, again, at this stage, it's all academic.
    The problem we are having at the moment is "tit for tat" spiraling out of control, should fireworks start in Syria.

    Communications are better than in 80's.
    Personnel manning nuclear systems are less experienced. Leaders on one side are....whoah.
    A bad combination.
    , @Thorfinnsson
    I agree that the Baltics are not the first choice.

    However, it would be no military problem for Russia.

    There is only one highway into the Baltic states--easily closed even without air superiority using Iskander missiles.

    Sea transport is impossible as the Baltic Sea is easily closed.

    Air lifted troops by definition do not have heavy equipment. No artillery, no tanks, no shells. They get massacred by arty & armor.

    This is why it was stupid to admit the Baltic states into NATO. They are impossible to defend against Russian attack.
    , @inertial
    The thing about the Baltics that everyone forgets is Kaliningrad. I am sure you heard of Suwalki Gap? In the West everyone says that it is essential that NATO fortifies the Gap against Russia. But from the Russian point of view massing of NATO forces in the strip of land that separates Russia from Russia is seen as preparation for blockading Kaliningrad. As per usual, Russia's concerns are not addressed or even mentioned by anyone in the West. In fact, in 2014 some people called for cutting off Kalinigrad as a stiffer form of sanctions. Whereas in reality, according to international law, blockading an exclave is equivalent to a war of aggression.

    So this is a scenario I see. Poland and Lithuania prevent land communications between Kaliningrad and the Russian mainland, while NATO navies don't let Russian ships in or out. This is a de facto (but undeclared) blockade. Russia protests but her protests are either ignored completely or are reported in the usual way ("Putin threatens blah blah, blah.") At this point Russia feels that it has to punch a corridor through Suwalki Gap. This, of course, will be the dreaded "invasion of Baltics."
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  240. peterAUS says:
    @Polish Perspective
    Invasion of the Baltics is a total fantasy at this stage. Even in the last few years from 2016, there has been increasing additions to troop levels in the countries themselves. Would it be enough to deter a fullscale Russian attack? No. But the point is that it raises the threshold of entry for Russia.

    In other words, Russia would need to do large military maneuvers without a formal reason to do so(like Zapad 2017). Does anyone think NATO would sit still in such an occurrence as these movements happened? Russia wouldn't be able to stealthily sneak up on the Baltics anymore.

    The US is NATO and NATO is the US, in the final analysis. You'd see very large increases in US troops in the Baltics, many of whom who would be flown directly from EU bases and some probably even from the Middle East(where the power projection capabilities of Russia is much lower, and so the US can afford to send some of their soldiers to Europe from there and then re-inforce the Middle East from the mainland). These movements would happen almost at the same time as the Russian re-organised their military to attack the Baltics. Russia wouldn't be able to move very large amounts of people without seeing a huge increase in troop levels in the Baltics await them. The US has tens of thousands of troops in the EU which can moved within just a few days, and I re-iterate, these movements would not be after an attack, it would be before an attack as the notion can Russia can organise a large army on the doorstep of the Baltics at this stage without making a noise is a delusional fantasy. There would not be much of an element of surprise.

    The economic/political costs of a Baltic invasion is hard to estimate, but we're talking about devastating economic warfare, no holds barred (repulsion from SWIFT would be some of the milder things). Forget about rule of law. The climate is now so toxic so that even blatantly illegal actions would be rubber-stamped and no judge would put him or herself in harms way to question it.

    And all this as retaliation for Assad? Don't make me laugh. Eastern Ukraine is more plausible, given no NATO membership but I'd argue that Ukraine has de facto NATO protection when it comes to its core provinces(closer to Kiev and major cities).

    If Russia moved on Eastern Ukraine, and avoided this key provinces, there would still be a massive military aid programme, tons of free tanks/APCs and the like provided. You can bet there would suddenly be thousands and thousands of "Western advisors" and tons of Navy Seals/SAS operators sabotaging Russia's supply lines. Ukraine itself is no longer as much of a pushover as it was in early 2014. It would be no cakewalk. And the economic fallout would also be very severe for Russia with no easy way to retaliate. Maybe through the gas market, but I don't know much about the gas market, so I'll leave others to speculate on what can and can't happen in the gas market.

    Save for

    ….tons of Navy Seals/SAS operators sabotaging Russia’s supply lines.

    Agree.
    Local people, loyal to Kiev, doing that with, maybe, some “mercs” in advisory role (ex those operators). Maybe.
    Not important.
    What would be important is shifting the minds of ordinary Russians from the fallout in Syria onto that, here, conventional war.

    But, again, at this stage, it’s all academic.
    The problem we are having at the moment is “tit for tat” spiraling out of control, should fireworks start in Syria.

    Communications are better than in 80′s.
    Personnel manning nuclear systems are less experienced. Leaders on one side are….whoah.
    A bad combination.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  241. ilkarnal says:
    @Anatoly Karlin
    My guess is that in a full-scale conflict in the Syrian theater the Russian forces will be able to knock out a dozen to three dozen US/Allied fighters and 1-3 destroyers/frigates.

    I don't think Russia will manage to sink or even disable an aircraft carrier. This is a 100,000 ton metallic honeycomb with hundreds of watertight compartments, protected by a screen of smaller ships, submarines, and fighters. Of course it would be trivial to do so by launching a couple of ICBMs that disperse nuclear warheads in a grid pattern around its general location, but the US will treat this as a full-fledged nuclear attack.

    The best way for Iran to close the Strait of Hormuz would be to start laying down mines using civilian fishing vessels, but it is unlikely that it will be able to successfully do this to any substantial degree on such short notice (the US would be watching too closely). The simple, short-range AS missiles that Iran has are not up to the task; modern oil tankers are double-hulled and far from trivial to sink. Russia could supply Iran with Bastions, or launch cruise missiles from TU-22M3 bombers itself from within Iranian airspace to shut down sea traffic (dependent on Chinese acquiescence, because Russia simply cannot alienate China). Like Thorfinnsson, I am very skeptical about Iran's capacity to hurt Saudi Arabia's land-based oil export infrastructure.

    The Russian military presence in Syria will be eradicated within a week (mostly within the first two days), and Russia itself will come under total sanctions from the US and the EU.

    At this point Putin will have to make some hard choices.

    (1) Do nothing in the face of defeat. Militarily the least risky option, but will face rising domestic discontent as living standards collapse. How long will the "buffer" of 80% approval ratings hold up? People don't like losers, as the Argentine junta discovered.

    (2) Invade East Ukraine. Ukrainian military is much stronger than in 2014, and NATO will now be sure to provide air support. This would not likely be a grind, not the walkover it would have been back then.

    (3) Invade the Baltics. Successful occupation is virtually certain within 72 hours to 5 days, and the result may demoralize and crack the NATO alliance. Or it could lead to the formal start of WW3.

    There's a small possibility that China will use the opportunity to seize Taiwan, though it's not really militarily ready for that yet. Still, the US being so preoccupied elsewhere might be too juicy of an opportunity to miss out on.

    I think you’ll be pleasantly surprised, if it does come to this. In any case, we’ll learn a lot – and isn’t that worth something?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  242. pogohere says: • Website
    @utu
    Commenter Kalen (Apr 11, 2018 9:52:11 AM) at Moon of Alabama

    http://www.moonofalabama.org/2018/04/trump-asks-russia-to-roll-over-it-wont/comments/page/1/#comments
    It is all true but narrative of b how we got he on a brink of shooting war with US is one sided. Two are needed to tango and Russia tangoed too long enticed by potential benefit for few oligarchs and detriment to the nation.

    Just seven years past and despite unquestioned positive role that Russian played in Syria mostly to reduce pain and suffering of Syrian people what I read here is unnecessary whitewashing of Russian initial stand that did nothing but encouraged US and NATO gangsters to reek chaos that caused tens of thousands dead and injured. It seems shocking that Russia establishment did not know that US is a fearful bully, or dollars were too good.

    Just to remind people's that in 2011 it was Medvedev representative of Russian western oligarchic lobby (friendly with Obama and neocons) in Kremlin who was in charge during Arab Spring.

    It is well documented fact that Assad pleaded with Medvedev in March 2011 for Moscow to deliver already ordered and paid for in 2008 dozens of new combat helicopters as well as massive amount of parts to refurbish and upgrade Russian made warplanes that were also withheld not to upset Israel and US at that time.

    Assad was not invited to Moscow at that time while he repeatedly declared that his military will be able to defeat terrorist insurgence financed by the CIA in a matter of weeks if Syrian Army is resupplied and paid for already contracts executed.

    None of that happened at that time, while at the same time Quadaffi was thrown under the bus by Russians and Chinese UN non veto of the planned NATO agression on Libya, appeasement or coincidence?

    Russian got their pay off for playing western game in MENA when in 2012 Putin was barely elected in a quite rediculous political charade facing CIA/Soros funded failed Moscow Spring which actually started slippery slope of open western anti-Russian hysterical embellishments.

    What was even more puzzling for those not so sophisticated political analysts was Putin inconsistent actions and declarations especially in regard to Syria between 2012 and 2014 when he joined US phony peace talks and calling on Assad removal from his post in a some sort of democratic process only to find out that US do not want peace in Syria but some Saudi run fiefdom friendly to Israel.

    The same appeasement to the west was in Putin attitude to Ukraine until 2014 and its 23 millions of ethnic Russians tolerating rapidly growing western financed Nazism as well his tolerance of Russia connected Ukrainian oligarchic theft that plunged the country into economic depression enabling political instability.

    At that time Russian minorities in Baltic States were also viciously attacked by security forces as well by discriminating Nuremberg- like laws making them, most born there, second class citizen restricted in ownership and civil rights to organize and to maintain their culture and language.

    All those Putin foreign policies of weakness and submission to the west and that included reluctance in approach to alliances with China

    were in sharp contrast to his extreme push to revamp entire military of Russian with enormous like for Russia military imvestments and extremely rationalizing it giving them 5 year term to accomplish massive changes while dropping hype about future fancy technologies for simple solutions that effectively will defend the country from western aggression.

    Putin knew what was coming so why Kremlin policies of appeasement and hence encouragement of bullying and aggression. Who was really in charge?

    In fact Putin reacted only when Russian vital national security was directly threatened in 2014 in Crimea where navy bases are located and in 2015 when he realized that western trained and funded terrorist army commanded by Chechnya Russian speaking terrorists is being prepared to invade Chechnya after Assad was deposed and the only maditeranian navy base was threatened.

    As always in history policy of appeasement of a bully leads to the same thing ultimate confrontation, more delayed more costly it is.

    So is Putin as Xi for that matter is about to submit their nations to the western oligarchy even more for their personal advancement at the global oligarchic table or they split which means war.

    I do not think war is coming they have too good thing going and their power is not threatened by the enslaved people.
     

    Putin is the moderate. The US and its allies have finally convinced him that moderation will no longer serve Russia. See Helmer :

    WHEN VLADIMIR PUTIN COUGHS, THE GRIPPE IS INFECTIOUS – KREMLIN SUCCESSION SHOWDOWN STARTS

    http://johnhelmer.org/?p=17606

    GOOD FRIDAY, RESURRECTION SUNDAY – RUSSIA’S NEW WAR CABINET TO BE HEADED BY SERGEI SOBYANIN

    http://johnhelmer.net/good-friday-resurrection-sunday-russias-new-war-cabinet-to-be-headed-by-sergei-sobyanin/

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  243. @iffen
    And you need to explain why the Americans would blow up the world over the sinking of a vessel. They remained chummy with Israel after it intentionally sunk a US vessel.

    Context, RT, context, think about it sometimes.

    Yes. The Americans are psychos about Russia. Which was my point.

    In an objective sense the context was of course way worse in USS Liberty case, because it was an unprovoked deliberate attack, while the Russians would merely be responding to an unprovoked American attack.

    But I merely tried to make my point about psychos.

    Read More
    • Replies: @iffen
    an unprovoked American attack.

    How can we let a poison gas attack go without a response and still lay claim to being the world’s policeman?

    With the caveat that I have been following the MSM coverage on this issue even less than usual, I am under the impression that Macron is a one of the most enthusiastic proponents of military action. I do know that France is quick to intervene in former colonial possessions. Also, wasn’t France key to the Libyan intervention? Is it also not true that French leaders do not get too far afield from what Germany’s leaders want? Does Merkel need more Syrian refugees that would likely result from intensified warfare in Syria?
    , @dfordoom

    The Americans are psychos about Russia.
     
    The Americans are psychos about anybody who could conceivably be a rival. The U.S. does not permit rivals to exist. Look at the last hundred years of history. It's been the U.S. destroying every potential rival that appears.

    It's the Manifest Destiny stuff and all that other American craziness. It's God's plan that the United States should rule the world.

    Back in the 17th century Europe was full of religious crazies. Violent fanatics who were, quite correctly, regarded by responsible European governments as a menace to civilisation. Most of those crazies ended up in America. American Christianity is bizarre. Destroying the world by nuclear war would be a good thing because then Jesus will come come back.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  244. Interesting (short) interview with Russian ambassador to EU on what happened (or not) in Douma:

    Also interesting, and in noted contrast to April 2017:

    Syrian military transfer to Russian bases amid concern over US strike, reports

    The Syrian military is said to be evacuating its bases near the Lebanon border and transporting its personnel to Russian army sites amid growing concern over an imminent US strike, an expected reprisal for the alleged chemical attack carried out by Syrian President Bashar al-Assad on Saturday.Reports in a French newspaper Le Figaro stated that Assad put his forces “on alert” for the next three days as the regime army began on Monday, to evacuate its major air bases thought to be possible targets for a US attack.“According to a UN source, Syrian military planes were also transferred to the Russian Khmeimim air base, near Latakia, on the Mediterranean coast, in Assad’s stronghold,” Le Figaro wrote.

    https://www.i24news.tv/en/news/international/172045-180411-syrian-military-moving-to-russian-bases-amid-concern-over-us-strike-reports

    Read More
    • Replies: @Randal

    The Syrian military is said to be evacuating its bases near the Lebanon border and transporting its personnel to Russian army sites amid growing concern over an imminent US strike
     
    Interestingly, in the light of your plausible suggestion yesterday that the US action might include a Gaddafi-style murder attempt on Assad via "decapitation strike", I also saw reports yesterday that "senior government figures" were being moved to "safe houses" in Damascus.

    It does look increasingly as though we are going to see another (but rather more murderous) Shayrat-style criminal attack by the US, while Russia will essentially, perforce, let it happen while at most shooting down the odd missile. That's fine and probably for the best given the overall situation, so long as the US sphere side doesn't miscalculate or make errors in targeting, and none of the inevitable flashpoints created in the process results in somebody getting too trigger happy. The Washington Russian Roulette players will claim "success", because the bullet didn't fire this time.

    Out of all the discussion I've seen on this, the best suggestion for a realistic response I've seen is probably that (assuming nothing too disastrous comes out of this murderous US attack) Russia and Iran should explicitly and publicly step up their support for Syria after the attack. In reality, that's probably the best way to really make the neocons and militarist behind the attack grind their teeth in frustration.

    Longer term, it should make the Russian and Chinese leaderships focus a bit more sharply on how to deter and contain the now routine (Kosovo, Iraq, Libya, Syria) US use of military aggression as a tool of policy.
    , @LondonBob
    Oh how I loathe the constant use and abuse of the term regime this conflict has inaugurated.
    , @Randal
    On the arguably related Skripal case, what do you make of Craig Murray's suggestion that the letter is faked?

    Yulia Skripal Is Plainly Under Duress

    There is also the very serious question of the language it is written in. Yulia Skripal lived part of her childhood in the UK and speaks good English. But the above statement is in a particular type of formal, official English of a high level which only comes from a certain kind of native speaker.

    “At the moment I do not wish to avail myself of their services” – wrote no native Russian speaker, ever.

    Nor are the rhythms or idioms such as would in any way indicate a translation from Russian. Take “I thank my cousin Viktoria for her concern for us, but ask that she does not visit me or try to contact me for the time being. Her opinions and assertions are not mine and they are not my father’s.” Not only is this incredibly cold given her first impulse was to phone her cousin, the language is just wrong. It is not the English Yulia would write and it is awkward to translate into Russian, thus not a natural translation from it.

    To put it plainly, as someone who has much experience of it, the English of the statement is precisely the English of an official in the UK security services and precisely not the English of somebody like Yulia Skripal or of a natural translation from Russian.
     
    He's right about the nature of the English used. My Russian isn't good enough to pick up such matters, but if it's a translation it's surely a very free form one by a senior (because probably middle aged or older) bureaucrat.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  245. Randal says:
    @peterAUS

    My guess is that in a full-scale conflict in the Syrian theater the Russian forces will be able to knock out a dozen to three dozen US/Allied fighters and 1-3 destroyers/frigates.
     
    Possible.

    The Russian military presence in Syria will be eradicated within a week (mostly within the first two days), and Russia itself will come under total sanctions from the US and the EU.
     
    Yup.
    The problem with this is the "mechanism". Watching own forces being reduced into dust without doing anything, anywhere. I don't think that's likely.
    What is likely is: "you get my base, I get yours".
    From then on, well......it goes up and up.
    That was the way I remembered from the Cold War (paper, trainer, simulator, field, exercises).
    The "mechanism".

    True, if the "mechanism" isn't "on" anymore, well, I do agree with below:

    At this point Putin will have to make some hard choices.

    (1) Do nothing in the face of defeat. Militarily the least risky option, but will face rising domestic discontent as living standards collapse. How long will the “buffer” of 80% approval ratings hold up? People don’t like losers, as the Argentine junta discovered.
     
    Not necessarily. The crux of the question, actually. I don't know, not there.
    If the regime in Kremlin feels they could go down they shall escalate. No doubt about that.
    If.....

    (2) Invade East Ukraine. Ukrainian military is much stronger than in 2014, and NATO will now be sure to provide air support. This would not likely be a grind, not the walkover it would have been back then.
     
    Not a bad idea. Probably the best, actually.

    As you know, I think you and Karlin underestimate likely losses (for a start because such a conflict will be an unholy mess unprecedented in modern times, and a lot of unexpected stuff is going to happen for both sides) and the ability to keep the oil flowing in the face of determined Iranian/Russian attempts to halt it, but broadly agree that the outcome in theatre is inevitable. As I’ve said above, Russia cannot sustain a position in the ME against determined US sphere attack.

    As far as the consequences are concerned, I tend to agree that occupying eastern Ukraine would probably be the best (least worst) Russian conventional response, in order to be able to paint the matter as an honourable draw rather than a defeat. It would not be an inconsiderable task overall (holding it would be more of an issue than taking it), but certainly achievable and probably long term sustainable so long as China remains at least neutral.

    In the Cold War analogy (both of us being I think somewhat older than the average), one feasible response from the Russians in order to even out the perceived losses, in response to the destruction of their ME expeditionary force, would be a nuclear strike on a carrier battle group. Nuclear strikes at sea were always in practice (not officially) regarded as a step down from land targeting. That would then put the decision in the lap of US sphere commanders to decide whether to respond and trigger a counter-response, or accept the situation as a draw.

    In theatre, the US has escalation superiority as long as the conflict is conventional. Once the escalation becomes nuclear and global, however, the Russians regain some parity, because both sides still retain the ability to destroy the other with nuclear weapons, so in the face of disaster at some point it becomes reasonable again for the Russians to escalate. That should be a concern for the US regime.

    Read More
    • Replies: @peterAUS
    Agree overall, up to that "nuclear and carrier" thing.

    I really think we could focus on a bigger picture here, or, core of the matter.

    I think we are beyond "whose dick is bigger" here. Doesn't matter.
    I'll try to explain.

    You are probably correct re age. In my case it's not just age but experience (or so I say).
    This isn't the only "Internet presence" I am on. There are a couple of more plus certain contacts.

    What I see is that "my types" are worried.

    My types being ex-military who started their careers when Cold War was the game. People who studied that war in schools and courses and trained for that (or at least scenarios in such war). Plus, being in a war. Knowing the feeling of ......."it's coming".
    The rest aren't worried.

    Interesting, maybe?

    So, either my types are wrong (and that's good) or ......
    Easy to be wrong, admit. Still.......

    We are in the area where decision making is the problem.
    The West simply keeps pushing. Not only that but left all pretense out. It could've manufactured any pretext for the push, but simply choose this. Doesn't matter. Facts, logic, common sense, processess and procedures do not matter anymore. What we see at play is pure will to impose own rules and break the opponent. No matter what.
    It wasn't like that in Cold War.

    At the other side we have the regime in Kremlin.
    If they choose to remain...what....men.....they must stomp on this. BUT, should they do it, it's likely this will escalate into M.A.D.

    We are in place where "bad" guy is rewarded by his behaviour.
    The "good" guy shall lose. If not now, soon enough.

    Let's say the best case scenario. A fireworks demonstration like last time. Doesn't matter. What West will see is that the regime in Kremlin blinked again. That's all what matters for them. All.
    So, they'll push again. And again.
    And, what, each time Putin will be a smart statesmen and simply a smart man and retreat. And retreat?
    I don't know but don't think so.

    I don't see exit out of this save ONE nuclear weapon detonated somewhere and then, maybe, waking up the idiots on top and sheeple on bottom to start thinking.

    Can't see it other way and for the last 3 days I've been thinking, hard, about all this.

    Back to Syria.
    Fireworks and not stop like last time but keep bombing, Yugoslavia type. What then?

    I really think we are entering an...interesting..phase of human history here.

    I'll rewatch 'On the Beach" today.
    You Brits could watch "Threads". Americans "The Day After".
    Enjoy.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  246. Randal says:
    @for-the-record
    Interesting (short) interview with Russian ambassador to EU on what happened (or not) in Douma:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=141&v=WDSs7-Q_aMk

    Also interesting, and in noted contrast to April 2017:

    Syrian military transfer to Russian bases amid concern over US strike, reports

    The Syrian military is said to be evacuating its bases near the Lebanon border and transporting its personnel to Russian army sites amid growing concern over an imminent US strike, an expected reprisal for the alleged chemical attack carried out by Syrian President Bashar al-Assad on Saturday.Reports in a French newspaper Le Figaro stated that Assad put his forces “on alert” for the next three days as the regime army began on Monday, to evacuate its major air bases thought to be possible targets for a US attack.“According to a UN source, Syrian military planes were also transferred to the Russian Khmeimim air base, near Latakia, on the Mediterranean coast, in Assad’s stronghold,” Le Figaro wrote.

    https://www.i24news.tv/en/news/international/172045-180411-syrian-military-moving-to-russian-bases-amid-concern-over-us-strike-reports
     

    The Syrian military is said to be evacuating its bases near the Lebanon border and transporting its personnel to Russian army sites amid growing concern over an imminent US strike

    Interestingly, in the light of your plausible suggestion yesterday that the US action might include a Gaddafi-style murder attempt on Assad via “decapitation strike”, I also saw reports yesterday that “senior government figures” were being moved to “safe houses” in Damascus.

    It does look increasingly as though we are going to see another (but rather more murderous) Shayrat-style criminal attack by the US, while Russia will essentially, perforce, let it happen while at most shooting down the odd missile. That’s fine and probably for the best given the overall situation, so long as the US sphere side doesn’t miscalculate or make errors in targeting, and none of the inevitable flashpoints created in the process results in somebody getting too trigger happy. The Washington Russian Roulette players will claim “success”, because the bullet didn’t fire this time.

    Out of all the discussion I’ve seen on this, the best suggestion for a realistic response I’ve seen is probably that (assuming nothing too disastrous comes out of this murderous US attack) Russia and Iran should explicitly and publicly step up their support for Syria after the attack. In reality, that’s probably the best way to really make the neocons and militarist behind the attack grind their teeth in frustration.

    Longer term, it should make the Russian and Chinese leaderships focus a bit more sharply on how to deter and contain the now routine (Kosovo, Iraq, Libya, Syria) US use of military aggression as a tool of policy.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  247. LondonBob says:
    @for-the-record
    Interesting (short) interview with Russian ambassador to EU on what happened (or not) in Douma:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=141&v=WDSs7-Q_aMk

    Also interesting, and in noted contrast to April 2017:

    Syrian military transfer to Russian bases amid concern over US strike, reports

    The Syrian military is said to be evacuating its bases near the Lebanon border and transporting its personnel to Russian army sites amid growing concern over an imminent US strike, an expected reprisal for the alleged chemical attack carried out by Syrian President Bashar al-Assad on Saturday.Reports in a French newspaper Le Figaro stated that Assad put his forces “on alert” for the next three days as the regime army began on Monday, to evacuate its major air bases thought to be possible targets for a US attack.“According to a UN source, Syrian military planes were also transferred to the Russian Khmeimim air base, near Latakia, on the Mediterranean coast, in Assad’s stronghold,” Le Figaro wrote.

    https://www.i24news.tv/en/news/international/172045-180411-syrian-military-moving-to-russian-bases-amid-concern-over-us-strike-reports
     

    Oh how I loathe the constant use and abuse of the term regime this conflict has inaugurated.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  248. while at most shooting down the odd missile.

    Personally I think that Russia needs to do much better than merely shoot down the “odd” missile, especially (weasel words aside) having been widely seen as declaring that they would forcefully respond.

    Presumably their military bases (where the major Syrian assets have now apparently relocated) are fully covered by their S-400, and if these systems are as good as some around here say there should be very few missiles getting through. Russia cannot permit a significant attack on Damascus that would substantially weaken the government, and give further encouragement to the “rebels”.

    If the attack is seen by the West to have been a “success”, this will have enormous negative implications for both Syria and Iran. In May the US will almost certainly tear up the agreement with Iran, following which Iran will announce that it is resuming centrifuging (or whatever), leading to renewed calls for military action by the (now confirmed omnipotent) Empire.

    The world (or a significant part of it) has truly gone mad.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Randal

    Presumably their military bases (where the major Syrian assets have now apparently relocated) are fully covered by their S-400, and if these systems are as good as some around here say there should be very few missiles getting through
     
    These systems are not "as good as some around here say".

    By all accounts they are very effective systems, but any air defence system can be swamped, and the S400 is no exception. Plus while Russian air defences are probably very good, so too are US sphere air and missile forces. And there are a lot more of the latter in the ME.


    Russia cannot permit a significant attack on Damascus that would substantially weaken the government, and give further encouragement to the “rebels”.
     
    You are correct, but the strong do what they will, and the weak suffer what they must.

    In an ideal world, aggressors like the US and its various poodles would face appropriate responses for their murderous acts of aggression. We do not live in an ideal world.

    If the attack is seen by the West to have been a “success”, this will have enormous negative implications for both Syria and Iran.
     
    Yes. but any response will realistically have to be non-military and/or indirect, unless the Russians can come up with something very unexpected or are prepared to go to the (nuclear) wall for Syria.

    In May the US will almost certainly tear up the agreement with Iran, following which Iran will announce that it is resuming centrifuging (or whatever), leading to renewed calls for military action by the (now confirmed omnipotent) Empire.
     
    This will most likely happen anyway, regardless of the outcome of this incident. The issue is what the consequences will be, which depends on how the Iranians react and how the Europeans react, including to the Iranian reaction.

    The world (or a significant part of it) has truly gone mad.
     
    There has been a problem with excess US power and the US sphere reaching for maximalist objectives since the collapse of the Soviet Union. It's not going to be ended easily, but it will come to an end.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  249. Kimppis says:

    Mercouris’ take on this mess. Encouraging, as usual:

    http://theduran.com/trump-draws-back-on-criticism-of-russia/

    Briefly, so long as any US strike does not endanger Russian personnel in Syria, or threaten the existence of the Syrian government, or interfere in Syrian army operations against the major concentrations of Jihadi fighters, the Russians will not act to prevent it, though as they showed following the US strike on Syria’s Al-Shayrat air base last year, that does not mean that they will not respond to it at all.

    Only if a US strike crosses these red lines have the Russians said that they will take counter-action.

    The Russians have spelled out their red lines in Syria on numerous occasions, and I have no doubt the US understands them.

    What looks like a well-sourced article in The New York Times suggests that there is actually little enthusiasm within the Trump administration for the sort of all-encompassing and highly dangerous air and missile campaign against Syria that some are worrying about.

    Perhaps the most authoritative comment of all suggesting that only a limited strike – essentially a larger version of last year’s strike on Al-Sharyat air base – is planned came from President Macron of France.

    I would add that one particular source of international alarm – the reports about the US aircraft carrier Truman and its escorts steaming towards the Syrian coast – looks to me misjudged.

    Though something very bad and very wrong is about to happen, it is not the start of World War III.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Randal

    Though something very bad and very wrong is about to happen, it is not the start of World War III.
     
    And we're of course supposed to feel relieved and come away with the vague idea that after all responsible grownups are in charge because they didn't do any of the really stupid things they could have done.

    But hang on, they are about to commit a murderous act of outright and openly illegal military aggression that can have only negative consequences, and potentially quite serious ones, which fortunately will probably not lead to the world war it could otherwise easily have resulted in because the victims are responsible enough not to respond appropriately despite the outrageous injustice.

    "It could have been worse".

    The rational response for Americans should be: "my God, how quickly can we purge these loonies and criminals and foreign lobbyists from our government, our military, our politics and our media?"
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  250. 4-d chess at its apotheosis:

    Donald J. Trump

    @realDonaldTrump
    Never said when an attack on Syria would take place. Could be very soon or not so soon at all! In any event, the United States, under my Administration, has done a great job of ridding the region of ISIS. Where is our “Thank you America?”

    11:15 AM – Apr 12, 2018

    Read More
    • Replies: @Randal
    The man really is a bumbling idiot, on the world stage, whatever his business and entertainment record is.

    He's just let himself be led by the nose by the worst neocon and militarist elements in his government and the ME, taken the world to the edge of catastrophe, and he expects to be patted on the back for murderous US interference in the ME.

    "Fuck you America, and the horse you rode in on", should be the response on Twitter.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  251. Randal says:
    @for-the-record
    while at most shooting down the odd missile.

    Personally I think that Russia needs to do much better than merely shoot down the "odd" missile, especially (weasel words aside) having been widely seen as declaring that they would forcefully respond.

    Presumably their military bases (where the major Syrian assets have now apparently relocated) are fully covered by their S-400, and if these systems are as good as some around here say there should be very few missiles getting through. Russia cannot permit a significant attack on Damascus that would substantially weaken the government, and give further encouragement to the "rebels".

    If the attack is seen by the West to have been a "success", this will have enormous negative implications for both Syria and Iran. In May the US will almost certainly tear up the agreement with Iran, following which Iran will announce that it is resuming centrifuging (or whatever), leading to renewed calls for military action by the (now confirmed omnipotent) Empire.

    The world (or a significant part of it) has truly gone mad.

    Presumably their military bases (where the major Syrian assets have now apparently relocated) are fully covered by their S-400, and if these systems are as good as some around here say there should be very few missiles getting through

    These systems are not “as good as some around here say”.

    By all accounts they are very effective systems, but any air defence system can be swamped, and the S400 is no exception. Plus while Russian air defences are probably very good, so too are US sphere air and missile forces. And there are a lot more of the latter in the ME.

    Russia cannot permit a significant attack on Damascus that would substantially weaken the government, and give further encouragement to the “rebels”.

    You are correct, but the strong do what they will, and the weak suffer what they must.

    In an ideal world, aggressors like the US and its various poodles would face appropriate responses for their murderous acts of aggression. We do not live in an ideal world.

    If the attack is seen by the West to have been a “success”, this will have enormous negative implications for both Syria and Iran.

    Yes. but any response will realistically have to be non-military and/or indirect, unless the Russians can come up with something very unexpected or are prepared to go to the (nuclear) wall for Syria.

    In May the US will almost certainly tear up the agreement with Iran, following which Iran will announce that it is resuming centrifuging (or whatever), leading to renewed calls for military action by the (now confirmed omnipotent) Empire.

    This will most likely happen anyway, regardless of the outcome of this incident. The issue is what the consequences will be, which depends on how the Iranians react and how the Europeans react, including to the Iranian reaction.

    The world (or a significant part of it) has truly gone mad.

    There has been a problem with excess US power and the US sphere reaching for maximalist objectives since the collapse of the Soviet Union. It’s not going to be ended easily, but it will come to an end.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  252. Randal says:
    @for-the-record
    4-d chess at its apotheosis:

    Donald J. Trump

    @realDonaldTrump
    Never said when an attack on Syria would take place. Could be very soon or not so soon at all! In any event, the United States, under my Administration, has done a great job of ridding the region of ISIS. Where is our “Thank you America?”

    11:15 AM - Apr 12, 2018
     

    The man really is a bumbling idiot, on the world stage, whatever his business and entertainment record is.

    He’s just let himself be led by the nose by the worst neocon and militarist elements in his government and the ME, taken the world to the edge of catastrophe, and he expects to be patted on the back for murderous US interference in the ME.

    “Fuck you America, and the horse you rode in on”, should be the response on Twitter.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Thorfinnsson
    In general any other US President would've gone along with it. Maybe not Obama.

    And every serious candidate in 2016 besides Trump and perhaps Bernie Sanders would've gone along with it.

    While obviously America deserves no gratitude for its murderous foreign policy, I am thankful that Trump--frustrating as he is--is in the White House.

    No World War 3.

    Thank you Donald.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  253. Randal says:
    @Kimppis
    Mercouris' take on this mess. Encouraging, as usual:

    http://theduran.com/trump-draws-back-on-criticism-of-russia/


    Briefly, so long as any US strike does not endanger Russian personnel in Syria, or threaten the existence of the Syrian government, or interfere in Syrian army operations against the major concentrations of Jihadi fighters, the Russians will not act to prevent it, though as they showed following the US strike on Syria’s Al-Shayrat air base last year, that does not mean that they will not respond to it at all.

    Only if a US strike crosses these red lines have the Russians said that they will take counter-action.

    The Russians have spelled out their red lines in Syria on numerous occasions, and I have no doubt the US understands them.
     

    What looks like a well-sourced article in The New York Times suggests that there is actually little enthusiasm within the Trump administration for the sort of all-encompassing and highly dangerous air and missile campaign against Syria that some are worrying about.

    Perhaps the most authoritative comment of all suggesting that only a limited strike – essentially a larger version of last year’s strike on Al-Sharyat air base – is planned came from President Macron of France.

    I would add that one particular source of international alarm – the reports about the US aircraft carrier Truman and its escorts steaming towards the Syrian coast – looks to me misjudged.

    Though something very bad and very wrong is about to happen, it is not the start of World War III.
     

    Though something very bad and very wrong is about to happen, it is not the start of World War III.

    And we’re of course supposed to feel relieved and come away with the vague idea that after all responsible grownups are in charge because they didn’t do any of the really stupid things they could have done.

    But hang on, they are about to commit a murderous act of outright and openly illegal military aggression that can have only negative consequences, and potentially quite serious ones, which fortunately will probably not lead to the world war it could otherwise easily have resulted in because the victims are responsible enough not to respond appropriately despite the outrageous injustice.

    “It could have been worse”.

    The rational response for Americans should be: “my God, how quickly can we purge these loonies and criminals and foreign lobbyists from our government, our military, our politics and our media?”

    Read More
    • Replies: @Thorfinnsson

    The rational response for Americans should be: “my God, how quickly can we purge these loonies and criminals and foreign lobbyists from our government, our military, our politics and our media?”
     

    We started by voting for Trump. He won in a landslide among actual Americans. It seems he isn't up to the job of purging them.

    We don't know how to get rid of them. They're very powerful and very evil.

    We're open to suggestions from well-meaning foreigners.

    Don't forget these same evil criminals seem to control your country as well.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  254. Former British ambassador to Syria thinks that Assad is not behind the alleged chemical attack:

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  255. iffen says:
    @reiner Tor
    Yes. The Americans are psychos about Russia. Which was my point.

    In an objective sense the context was of course way worse in USS Liberty case, because it was an unprovoked deliberate attack, while the Russians would merely be responding to an unprovoked American attack.

    But I merely tried to make my point about psychos.

    an unprovoked American attack.

    How can we let a poison gas attack go without a response and still lay claim to being the world’s policeman?

    With the caveat that I have been following the MSM coverage on this issue even less than usual, I am under the impression that Macron is a one of the most enthusiastic proponents of military action. I do know that France is quick to intervene in former colonial possessions. Also, wasn’t France key to the Libyan intervention? Is it also not true that French leaders do not get too far afield from what Germany’s leaders want? Does Merkel need more Syrian refugees that would likely result from intensified warfare in Syria?

    Read More
    • Replies: @reiner Tor
    As previously discussed, the Europeans are on average not much better on this issue than the US leadership.

    Using poison gas against jihadists is not a provocation against the US, and of course the fact that there even was any gas attack is now disputed.
    , @Hyperborean
    Perhaps the problem lies in America claiming to be "the world's policeman", and the resultant "responsibilities" that comes with it, in the first place.
    , @Randal

    How can we let a poison gas attack go without a response and still lay claim to being the world’s policeman?
     
    Well you elected yourselves to that position. Feel free to unelect yourself. Though as has been pointed out elsewhere, it doesn't seem to trouble you as "world policeman" that your Saudi protectorate is busily inflicting slow, agonising deaths from starvation on millions of people in Yemen, with your direct support and assistance.

    But this does point to a major aspect of this issue that is mostly overlooked, namely that there is herein a tacit assumption in the US sphere of an "R2P"-style right of "humanitarian" unilateral intervention. Such a right does not exist, morally or legally, and the example of Syria illustrates precisely why it should never be allowed to exist. It's an invitation to the manipulation of atrocities, faked or otherwise, as pretexts for murderous US-style military aggression and French-style military posturing, while undoubtedly real atrocities proceed apace and unchallenged in places where the powers have no interest in intervening (or indeed are themselves behind them or their perpetrators).
    , @German_reader

    Is it also not true that French leaders do not get too far afield from what Germany’s leaders want?
     
    The idea that France is influenced in its foreign policy by "what Germany's leaders want" is pretty grotesque, sorry.
    Merkel is stupid and irresponsible, but she's not the driving force behind any of this. Macron is doing this for reasons of his own (French prestige and cultivating the illusion that France is a really important world power, probably also dubious ties to various Gulf autocracies, same as in Britain).
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  256. @iffen
    an unprovoked American attack.

    How can we let a poison gas attack go without a response and still lay claim to being the world’s policeman?

    With the caveat that I have been following the MSM coverage on this issue even less than usual, I am under the impression that Macron is a one of the most enthusiastic proponents of military action. I do know that France is quick to intervene in former colonial possessions. Also, wasn’t France key to the Libyan intervention? Is it also not true that French leaders do not get too far afield from what Germany’s leaders want? Does Merkel need more Syrian refugees that would likely result from intensified warfare in Syria?

    As previously discussed, the Europeans are on average not much better on this issue than the US leadership.

    Using poison gas against jihadists is not a provocation against the US, and of course the fact that there even was any gas attack is now disputed.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  257. @iffen
    an unprovoked American attack.

    How can we let a poison gas attack go without a response and still lay claim to being the world’s policeman?

    With the caveat that I have been following the MSM coverage on this issue even less than usual, I am under the impression that Macron is a one of the most enthusiastic proponents of military action. I do know that France is quick to intervene in former colonial possessions. Also, wasn’t France key to the Libyan intervention? Is it also not true that French leaders do not get too far afield from what Germany’s leaders want? Does Merkel need more Syrian refugees that would likely result from intensified warfare in Syria?

    Perhaps the problem lies in America claiming to be “the world’s policeman”, and the resultant “responsibilities” that comes with it, in the first place.

    Read More
    • Replies: @iffen
    It is hard to argue with your comment, but "reality".
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  258. Randal says:
    @iffen
    an unprovoked American attack.

    How can we let a poison gas attack go without a response and still lay claim to being the world’s policeman?

    With the caveat that I have been following the MSM coverage on this issue even less than usual, I am under the impression that Macron is a one of the most enthusiastic proponents of military action. I do know that France is quick to intervene in former colonial possessions. Also, wasn’t France key to the Libyan intervention? Is it also not true that French leaders do not get too far afield from what Germany’s leaders want? Does Merkel need more Syrian refugees that would likely result from intensified warfare in Syria?

    How can we let a poison gas attack go without a response and still lay claim to being the world’s policeman?

    Well you elected yourselves to that position. Feel free to unelect yourself. Though as has been pointed out elsewhere, it doesn’t seem to trouble you as “world policeman” that your Saudi protectorate is busily inflicting slow, agonising deaths from starvation on millions of people in Yemen, with your direct support and assistance.

    But this does point to a major aspect of this issue that is mostly overlooked, namely that there is herein a tacit assumption in the US sphere of an “R2P”-style right of “humanitarian” unilateral intervention. Such a right does not exist, morally or legally, and the example of Syria illustrates precisely why it should never be allowed to exist. It’s an invitation to the manipulation of atrocities, faked or otherwise, as pretexts for murderous US-style military aggression and French-style military posturing, while undoubtedly real atrocities proceed apace and unchallenged in places where the powers have no interest in intervening (or indeed are themselves behind them or their perpetrators).

    Read More
    • Replies: @iffen
    Well you elected yourselves to that position. Feel free to unelect yourself

    To be fair we inherited the position.

    it doesn’t seem to trouble you as “world policeman” that your Saudi protectorate is busily inflicting slow

    Which part of rules for thee, not for me, do you not understand? Are you familiar with the term "double standard"?

    a tacit assumption in the US sphere of an “R2P”-style right of “humanitarian” unilateral intervention. Such a right does not exist, morally or legally, and the example of Syria illustrates precisely why it should never be allowed to exist.

    You need to leave this fantasy UN world government view behind and take a strong drink of "might makes right".

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  259. Randal says:
    @for-the-record
    Interesting (short) interview with Russian ambassador to EU on what happened (or not) in Douma:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=141&v=WDSs7-Q_aMk

    Also interesting, and in noted contrast to April 2017:

    Syrian military transfer to Russian bases amid concern over US strike, reports

    The Syrian military is said to be evacuating its bases near the Lebanon border and transporting its personnel to Russian army sites amid growing concern over an imminent US strike, an expected reprisal for the alleged chemical attack carried out by Syrian President Bashar al-Assad on Saturday.Reports in a French newspaper Le Figaro stated that Assad put his forces “on alert” for the next three days as the regime army began on Monday, to evacuate its major air bases thought to be possible targets for a US attack.“According to a UN source, Syrian military planes were also transferred to the Russian Khmeimim air base, near Latakia, on the Mediterranean coast, in Assad’s stronghold,” Le Figaro wrote.

    https://www.i24news.tv/en/news/international/172045-180411-syrian-military-moving-to-russian-bases-amid-concern-over-us-strike-reports
     

    On the arguably related Skripal case, what do you make of Craig Murray’s suggestion that the letter is faked?

    Yulia Skripal Is Plainly Under Duress

    There is also the very serious question of the language it is written in. Yulia Skripal lived part of her childhood in the UK and speaks good English. But the above statement is in a particular type of formal, official English of a high level which only comes from a certain kind of native speaker.

    “At the moment I do not wish to avail myself of their services” – wrote no native Russian speaker, ever.

    Nor are the rhythms or idioms such as would in any way indicate a translation from Russian. Take “I thank my cousin Viktoria for her concern for us, but ask that she does not visit me or try to contact me for the time being. Her opinions and assertions are not mine and they are not my father’s.” Not only is this incredibly cold given her first impulse was to phone her cousin, the language is just wrong. It is not the English Yulia would write and it is awkward to translate into Russian, thus not a natural translation from it.

    To put it plainly, as someone who has much experience of it, the English of the statement is precisely the English of an official in the UK security services and precisely not the English of somebody like Yulia Skripal or of a natural translation from Russian.

    He’s right about the nature of the English used. My Russian isn’t good enough to pick up such matters, but if it’s a translation it’s surely a very free form one by a senior (because probably middle aged or older) bureaucrat.

    Read More
    • Replies: @for-the-record
    what do you make of Craig Murray’s suggestion that the letter is faked?

    I think it's like Litvinenko's death-bed statement, which it turns out was put together by others who got him to sign it. That being said, it may well reflect her views -- after all, as far as she knows the Russians attempted to assassinate her and her father, and it was only due to the brilliance of UK doctors and scientists that she is still alive.

    The statement from the Russian Embassy concerning the letter, while perhaps not the most felicitously worded, raises some important issues, notably with regards to the "friends and family" that she says she has had access to:

    The statement allegedly on behalf of Yulia Skripal published at Scotland Yard website is an interesting read. If everything mentioned there is true we cannot but congratulate our compatriot. However, with no possibility to verify it, the publication by the Metropolitan Police raises new questions rather than gives answers.

    As before, we would like to make sure that the statement really belongs to Yulia. So far, we doubt it much. The text has been composed in a special way so as to support official statements made by British authorities and at the same time to exclude every possibility of Yulia’s contacts with the outer world – consuls, journalists and even relatives.

    We are surprised by the point about the “access to friends and family”. Not a single friend or relative quoted by Russian or British media confirms such contacts. As far as we know, the Skripals have no relatives closer than Yulia’s cousin Victoria and their grandmother Elena (Sergey’s mother), who live together. A question arises: what family is Yulia in contact with?

    We have also noticed the apparent contradiction between the phone conversation in which Yulia says to Victoria that “everything is fine” with her and her father, and their health condition as described in today’s Met Police statement.

    Particularly amazing is the phrase “no one speaks for me” appearing in a statement which, instead of being read on camera by Yulia herself, is published at Scotland Yard website.

    To sum up, the document only strengthens suspicions that we are dealing with a forcible isolation of the Russian citizen. If British authorities are interested in assuring the public that this is not the case, they must urgently provide tangible evidence that Yulia is alright and not deprived of her freedom.

    https://www.rusemb.org.uk/fnapr/6478

     

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  260. iffen says:
    @Hyperborean
    Perhaps the problem lies in America claiming to be "the world's policeman", and the resultant "responsibilities" that comes with it, in the first place.

    It is hard to argue with your comment, but “reality”.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  261. @Randal
    On the arguably related Skripal case, what do you make of Craig Murray's suggestion that the letter is faked?

    Yulia Skripal Is Plainly Under Duress

    There is also the very serious question of the language it is written in. Yulia Skripal lived part of her childhood in the UK and speaks good English. But the above statement is in a particular type of formal, official English of a high level which only comes from a certain kind of native speaker.

    “At the moment I do not wish to avail myself of their services” – wrote no native Russian speaker, ever.

    Nor are the rhythms or idioms such as would in any way indicate a translation from Russian. Take “I thank my cousin Viktoria for her concern for us, but ask that she does not visit me or try to contact me for the time being. Her opinions and assertions are not mine and they are not my father’s.” Not only is this incredibly cold given her first impulse was to phone her cousin, the language is just wrong. It is not the English Yulia would write and it is awkward to translate into Russian, thus not a natural translation from it.

    To put it plainly, as someone who has much experience of it, the English of the statement is precisely the English of an official in the UK security services and precisely not the English of somebody like Yulia Skripal or of a natural translation from Russian.
     
    He's right about the nature of the English used. My Russian isn't good enough to pick up such matters, but if it's a translation it's surely a very free form one by a senior (because probably middle aged or older) bureaucrat.

    what do you make of Craig Murray’s suggestion that the letter is faked?

    I think it’s like Litvinenko’s death-bed statement, which it turns out was put together by others who got him to sign it. That being said, it may well reflect her views — after all, as far as she knows the Russians attempted to assassinate her and her father, and it was only due to the brilliance of UK doctors and scientists that she is still alive.

    The statement from the Russian Embassy concerning the letter, while perhaps not the most felicitously worded, raises some important issues, notably with regards to the “friends and family” that she says she has had access to:

    The statement allegedly on behalf of Yulia Skripal published at Scotland Yard website is an interesting read. If everything mentioned there is true we cannot but congratulate our compatriot. However, with no possibility to verify it, the publication by the Metropolitan Police raises new questions rather than gives answers.

    As before, we would like to make sure that the statement really belongs to Yulia. So far, we doubt it much. The text has been composed in a special way so as to support official statements made by British authorities and at the same time to exclude every possibility of Yulia’s contacts with the outer world – consuls, journalists and even relatives.

    We are surprised by the point about the “access to friends and family”. Not a single friend or relative quoted by Russian or British media confirms such contacts. As far as we know, the Skripals have no relatives closer than Yulia’s cousin Victoria and their grandmother Elena (Sergey’s mother), who live together. A question arises: what family is Yulia in contact with?

    We have also noticed the apparent contradiction between the phone conversation in which Yulia says to Victoria that “everything is fine” with her and her father, and their health condition as described in today’s Met Police statement.

    Particularly amazing is the phrase “no one speaks for me” appearing in a statement which, instead of being read on camera by Yulia herself, is published at Scotland Yard website.

    To sum up, the document only strengthens suspicions that we are dealing with a forcible isolation of the Russian citizen. If British authorities are interested in assuring the public that this is not the case, they must urgently provide tangible evidence that Yulia is alright and not deprived of her freedom.

    https://www.rusemb.org.uk/fnapr/6478

    Read More
    • Replies: @Randal
    That does look like a bit of a "gotcha" from the Russians

    Again the British government come across as clumsy and as improvising desperately.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  262. iffen says:
    @Randal

    How can we let a poison gas attack go without a response and still lay claim to being the world’s policeman?
     
    Well you elected yourselves to that position. Feel free to unelect yourself. Though as has been pointed out elsewhere, it doesn't seem to trouble you as "world policeman" that your Saudi protectorate is busily inflicting slow, agonising deaths from starvation on millions of people in Yemen, with your direct support and assistance.

    But this does point to a major aspect of this issue that is mostly overlooked, namely that there is herein a tacit assumption in the US sphere of an "R2P"-style right of "humanitarian" unilateral intervention. Such a right does not exist, morally or legally, and the example of Syria illustrates precisely why it should never be allowed to exist. It's an invitation to the manipulation of atrocities, faked or otherwise, as pretexts for murderous US-style military aggression and French-style military posturing, while undoubtedly real atrocities proceed apace and unchallenged in places where the powers ha