Syrian war thread - Page 142 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Political issues and parties in the nations of the Middle East.

Moderator: PoFo Middle-East Mods

Forum rules: No one line posts please. This is an international political discussion forum moderated in English, so please post in English only. Thank you.
By foxdemon
#14888144
Atlantis wrote:@foxdemon, we have had very good experience with Russian gas and oil supplies. Even during the cold war, Russia has always been a reliable business partner. What's more, as new supplies come on the market and as the share of renewables increases, Russia needs the EU more than vise-versa. I would be much more worried about having to rely on US supplies because the US never hesitates to use sanctions against friends and foes alike.

Europe has to bear the cost of the Ukraine conflict, which was triggered by Washington. It is European countries that pay for the sanctions not the US. I expect a rapprochement with Russia as the UK/US move further away.

After destabilizing the ME for 15 years, nobody can pretend that the US military presence has any positive effect. We have to be grateful to Putin for containing the terrorists let loose by the US and its proxies.


Well of course there will be reproachment with Russia when they control your energy supplies. What else can you do? Germany will be Russia’s bitch.

Pity about Eastern Europe. So will Germany sacrifice the Baltic states when Russia says they want them back?
By Rich
#14888148
The US had no evidence for Assad's use of chemical weapons. True The attacks were false flags by Sunni Arab Muslim terrorists.

The US had no evidence for Saddam's WMD. False. He use them against the Kurds, which they originally tried to frame Iran for.

The US had no evidence for the Soviet arms build-up during the cold war. False. There was a massive nuclear build up in the Cold War, plus the development of new conventional weapons, such as the T54/55 and T64/72. From Wilson to Carter the US was far too soft on Communism.

The US had no evidence for the Nazis building a nuclear bomb. True but irrelevant. The Americans should have entered WWII earlier.
User avatar
By Crantag
#14888185
Rich wrote:The US had no evidence for Saddam's WMD. False. He use them against the Kurds, which they originally tried to frame Iran for.


Actually, the US knew that Iraq had them, because the US has the receipts.

The declarations before the invasion of Iraq were that Iraq was developing weapons of mass destruction.
User avatar
By JohnRawls
#14888253
foxdemon wrote:Well of course there will be reproachment with Russia when they control your energy supplies. What else can you do? Germany will be Russia’s bitch.

Pity about Eastern Europe. So will Germany sacrifice the Baltic states when Russia says they want them back?


And here we have a person who has no clue what he is talking about. :excited:

Russia can't really blackmail us energy suppliy wise because it would mean that they will need to:

1) Become Chinas puppy. (And sell for a fraction what they sell that gas/oil to us)

2) Have no money.

Even if you look back, Russia/USSR never used those supplies as blackmail. It has been simply business in that regard.(We can trust each other regarding the gas and oil for sure)
By foxdemon
#14888255
JohnRawls wrote:And here we have a person who has no clue what he is talking about. :excited:

Russia can't really blackmail us energy suppliy wise because it would mean that they will need to:

1) Become Chinas puppy. (And sell for a fraction what they sell that gas/oil to us)

2) Have no money.

Even if you look back, Russia/USSR never used those supplies as blackmail. It has been simply business in that regard.(We can trust each other regarding the gas and oil for sure)


China needs as much oil as it can get. And you forget India, which is growing faster than China now. There are good markets for energy outside Europe. And Russia is getting a controlling share of those resources.

On a related subject, India and China have already been lining up deals to get involved in the reconstruction of Syria. What is Europe doing? Bitching about how uncouth Trump is while the world passes Europe by.

Putin is very close to being able to dictate terms to Europe. He just needs to get a controlling influence in Libya now. I think Macron is aware of this but without solid support, France isn’t big enough to do much alone. Europe is potentially a global power but is unable to focus its strength. India, China and Russia are walking all over you.

But keep complaining about the Americans, if that makes you feel better. Just be ready to bend over and spread your cheeks when Putin tells you to.
User avatar
By JohnRawls
#14888275
foxdemon wrote:China needs as much oil as it can get. And you forget India, which is growing faster than China now. There are good markets for energy outside Europe. And Russia is getting a controlling share of those resources.

On a related subject, India and China have already been lining up deals to get involved in the reconstruction of Syria. What is Europe doing? Bitching about how uncouth Trump is while the world passes Europe by.

Putin is very close to being able to dictate terms to Europe. He just needs to get a controlling influence in Libya now. I think Macron is aware of this but without solid support, France isn’t big enough to do much alone. Europe is potentially a global power but is unable to focus its strength. India, China and Russia are walking all over you.

But keep complaining about the Americans, if that makes you feel better. Just be ready to bend over and spread your cheeks when Putin tells you to.


China needs as much oil as it can get and pay for. What i have read, the chinese do not want to pay European amounts for Gas/Oil. So this is something that prevents Russia to change direction to China. If the circumstances require it, it can be done but there is a significant unwillingness to do so, unless the situation in Europe gets really bad. Basically who the hell would want to get less for the same amount.

As for India, well how is Russia supposed to get the oil/gas there? Teleporters? You need to build a pipeline through Pakistan/Central Asia or China both of which are unacceptable for India. Another option is to build it through Iran/Afganistan/Azerbaljan but then it would need to go under water at some point. Those scenarios has been discussed but nothing concrete was ever signed. So Russia has no way to currently export to India in mass.

As for Europe, being controlled by Putin? :excited:
How? European Union has literally 6-7 times larger economy, larger military, 5 times more population. How is he going to disctate anything to us without shooting himself in both feet?
User avatar
By JohnRawls
#14888408
Some additional news that are not being reported:

Link: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/forces-hit ... cial-says/

It is regarding the above mentioned news. Apparently a bunch of Syrian and Russian mercs tried to storm a SDF compound that had American advisors inside. Pretty well equipped group with artillery and tanks. But they were basically massacred by the US forces.

Little thing to note, those forces mostly considered of "Vagner" PMC which is the notorious russian military corp who fights in Ukraine, Syria etc. Apparently this SDF headquaters was based in a oil production factory, so they wanted to "aquire" an asset i guess. Tough luck on there being a American Advisors inside. Russian military also apparently said "it is not us" when the US asked. Seems the Russian army has trouble keeping its Mercs in line who are not part of the military.

RIP 100+ Russians.
By foxdemon
#14888639
JohnRawls wrote:China needs as much oil as it can get and pay for. What i have read, the chinese do not want to pay European amounts for Gas/Oil. So this is something that prevents Russia to change direction to China. If the circumstances require it, it can be done but there is a significant unwillingness to do so, unless the situation in Europe gets really bad. Basically who the hell would want to get less for the same amount.

As for India, well how is Russia supposed to get the oil/gas there? Teleporters? You need to build a pipeline through Pakistan/Central Asia or China both of which are unacceptable for India. Another option is to build it through Iran/Afganistan/Azerbaljan but then it would need to go under water at some point. Those scenarios has been discussed but nothing concrete was ever signed. So Russia has no way to currently export to India in mass.


You are ignoring the obvious. If Russia donimates the ME, then oil gets shipped via the gulf. Might not be Russian oil but it is Russian controlled oil.


As for Europe, being controlled by Putin? :excited:
How? European Union has literally 6-7 times larger economy, larger military, 5 times more population. How is he going to disctate anything to us without shooting himself in both feet?


Well that is a good point. How can such a powerful entity get dominated by America for so long? The EU is very talented at finding some external power to dominate them. An amazing accomplishment for such a large bloc.

What you need to recognise is that if you let yourself be put in a position where another power can coerce you, the chances are they will. So the sensible course of action would be to ensure you retain sufficient influence to prevent this. But the EU is so used to America standing up for them that they have forgotten how to play geopolitics. Meanwhile Europeans sit back and criticise the Americans. In the end Europe will find they have been out manoeuvred and the American won’t or can’t save them. What then?


Anyway, back to Syria. It is clear the main obstacle to peace at this point is Iran and their proxies such as Hezbollah. We have to accept Assad will survive and Russia had regained a position of influence. That can’t be helped now. Assad and Russia will try to consolidate and so will be amenable to a settlement. But Iran will continue to attempt to gain influence over Syria. They will do this by taking the war to Israel in order to justify their continued presence in Syria.

So the question should be: how to turf Iran out of Syria?

Is there anything useful Europe could do to achieve this?
By skinster
#14888730
Syria Does Not Fear War With Israel: The Rules Of Engagement Have Changed
Damascus air defence downed its first Israeli jet (F-16) ever, at a stroke changing the rules of engagement (ROE) with Israel and sending a clear message that it is ready for war and will no longer be silent on violations of its airspace. This clash has triggered the mobilisation of the Syrian army and its allies in Syria and in Lebanon, the Lebanese Hezbollah. The speed of the Syrian reaction was due to a prior decision taken at highest level among all allies operating on Syrian territory. These consider a possible confrontation may be inevitable if Israel has decided to respond and declare war. The violation of Syrian sovereignty is no longer an option open to Israel and the Israeli jets will no longer be able to carry out their usual promenades over the Levant without consequences.

Moreover, it is also clear that Russia – despite all that is said in the media – is aware of the Syrian decision to confront Israel. Moscow is supplying Syria with anti-aircraft missiles, its forces dominates the air space over the Syrian Army’s controlled territory, and has the radar capability to see and monitor any Israeli aircraft flying over Israel, Lebanon and Syria. Russia is also informed when the Syrian army repeatedly fires missiles and confronts the Israeli air force in the sky over Syria or in the border areas.

It is not in the interests of Russia to see war break out in Syria where its forces are present on the ground and in the Mediterranean. Russia considers it has the right to intervene because its official presence on Syrian territory is at the request of and in agreement with the Damascus government. In its role as a superpower, it is in its interest to stop the tension on the Syrian border and show it has the power to impose peace on would-be belligerents.

It is also in Moscow’s interests to push Syria to react to Israel’s violations, even at the cost of downing an Israeli jet- especially when Russia accuses Washington of supplying the Faylaq al-Sham militants (al-Qaeda’s allies in northern Syria city of Idlib and its surroundings) with the anti-aircraft missiles which downed the Russian jet over Idlib and to the murder of its pilot who refused to surrender to the militants and jihadists.

All of this took place one day after the liberation of the entire area from the “Islamic State” (ISIS) group in rural Aleppo, Homs and Idlib, with over 1200 square kilometres returned to government control. This freed over fifteen thousand officers and soldiers from the Syrian army and special units which were engaged there to move to another front, the one against Israel if necessary, with al-Qaeda as the only remaining threat to the Syrian state.

This shows that the government of Damascus – which lived in a state of war for more than six years – is ready to fight its battle with Israel and begin now. The Lebanese Second War in 2006 proved that air force power does not give superiority and does not finish off the opponent, Hezbollah, whose militants continued firing missiles and rockets consistently throughout the 33 days of war. The thousands of missiles delivered to Syria from Russia and Iran in the last years represent a major threat to Israel in the event of war, invalidating its air superiority.

Hezbollah’s leader Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah also said that the new front will extend from Naqoura (south of Lebanon) to the occupied Golan Heights (south of Syria) and that tens of thousands of friendly forces from neighbouring countries and others from farther afield will participate in the next war. This means that Hezbollah, which has put all its forces in Lebanon and Syria on full alert in preparation for any Israeli response, is ready for war the moment Tel Aviv escalates.

It is possible that Tel Aviv does not want war today; it is confused and does not know where the war can lead at a time when its internal front is unprepared and its army will not engage in a battle whose results are slender and whose goal (to disarm Hezbollah and destroy Syria’s military capability) unreachable.

The Israeli confusion was manifest as follows: firstly, it accused Iran of being behind the escalation. Next its military command claimed that “an Iranian drone infiltrating Israeli airspace was downed”- but it showed footage of the downing of a drone in Syria rather than in Israel. Iran denied the Israeli allegation. It was only hours later that Israeli command acknowledged the downing of its F-16 for “technical reasons” and the last verison was delivered correctly: the F-16 was “shot down while flying over al-Sukhna”, close to Tadmur.



A Commander of the allied forces in Syria revealed to me that allied forces led by the Syrian Army Command agreed to ambush the Israeli Air Force, putting the Syrian air defence on high alert, ready to fire. Then, a drone was sent to the Syrian-Israeli borders, violating Israeli air space to attract an Israeli response. As expected, Israel sent its F-16 to down the drone and was hit on the border. According to the source, it is impossible for an F-16 to be hit over the Sukhna (the Israeli version) – clearly a lie according to the source – and was in fact downed near Kiryat Ata, east of Haifa, over 150 km away from al-Sukhna. This debunks the Israeli story as fake, an attempt to camouflage the fact that the Israeli jet was hit in Israeli air space, a direct challenge to Israel’s authority and a clear message to say: “we can shoot you down over your own air space if you violate ours”, said the source.

“If a SAM-5 missile hit the F-16, it would explode in the air and nothing would remain of it. It was hit with a smaller but more modern and precise missile, capable of manoeuvring like the F-16s”, confirmed the source, who refused to give further information.

So according to the source, “Israel is engaged in a real battle to tell its own version, with the aim of hiding its incompetent situation. It is no longer the dominant force in the Middle East it believes itself to be, instead it is led by arrogant leaders rolling the drum of war, unwilling and incapable of living in peace among its neighbours”.

“Hezbollah is not only prepared for war against Israel but is gathering all Palestinian and Iraqi factions to be united against Israel in any following war, but only if Israel decides to go for war. Tel Aviv may hold the initiative but doesn’t hold the timing to stop the war nor to control it”. According to source, Hezbollah is gathering the largest number of allies ever united in any war against Israel for decades.

This “prepared incident” coincides with the 39th anniversary of the return to Tehran of Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini and the beginning of the People’s Revolution of the Islamic Republic of Iran (February 11, 1979).

Syria is clearly defying Israel and is looking for a confrontation. Its military command exaggerated the outcome of the event when it said its defence system downed more than one Israeli jet. At the time Israel was confused, trying to hide the event for two hours.

It is no coincidence that the atmosphere of war is escalating in the Middle East following the signing of Lebanon’s oil investment contracts with a consortium of companies from Italy, France and Russia for Blocks 9 and 4, despite Israel’s objection to this investment and America’s failed attempt to mediate. Israel – apart from being unprepared for a long front escalating from Naqoura to the Golan – is also investing in oil and gas drilling and wants to revive its own economy.

But wars start due to mistakes and challenges even if the parties are not ready for escalation. The region is reaching boiling point: the Syrian war is not over. Superpower countries are in a state of rivalry, competing for their interests, defending their friends and fighting directly and through their proxies. Today, Syria is known not only for its soap opera “Bab al-Hara” (translated as “the door of the neighbourhood”) but it can also be the “door to all-out war” if the parties do not cease their mutual challenges and escalations.
https://ejmagnier.com/2018/02/11/syria- ... e-changed/
By skinster
#14888836
What do you mean don't fear a war with Israel? Israel is already at war with Syria, it has been for decades (with the theft of the Syrian Golan Heights) but also in this recent war on Syria, where Israel has conducted hundreds of airstrikes on Syria over the last few years, as well as arming al-Qaeda in there and treating them in Israeli field hospitals before sending them back to Syria to fight the SAA, etc.. Where have you been? :?:
User avatar
By JohnRawls
#14888936
foxdemon wrote:You are ignoring the obvious. If Russia donimates the ME, then oil gets shipped via the gulf. Might not be Russian oil but it is Russian controlled oil.




Well that is a good point. How can such a powerful entity get dominated by America for so long? The EU is very talented at finding some external power to dominate them. An amazing accomplishment for such a large bloc.

What you need to recognise is that if you let yourself be put in a position where another power can coerce you, the chances are they will. So the sensible course of action would be to ensure you retain sufficient influence to prevent this. But the EU is so used to America standing up for them that they have forgotten how to play geopolitics. Meanwhile Europeans sit back and criticise the Americans. In the end Europe will find they have been out manoeuvred and the American won’t or can’t save them. What then?


Anyway, back to Syria. It is clear the main obstacle to peace at this point is Iran and their proxies such as Hezbollah. We have to accept Assad will survive and Russia had regained a position of influence. That can’t be helped now. Assad and Russia will try to consolidate and so will be amenable to a settlement. But Iran will continue to attempt to gain influence over Syria. They will do this by taking the war to Israel in order to justify their continued presence in Syria.

So the question should be: how to turf Iran out of Syria?

Is there anything useful Europe could do to achieve this?


Unless Russia can block Sinai, it wont matter at all. Having influence in Syria or Libya or both, does not matter in the grand scheme of things. Those wars achieve local objetives for Russia and are very loosely connected to your "dominate Europe" masterplan. At best, they block pipelines that could be constructed if the countries have a regime change and move to normality which is not gonna happen in the next 10 years.( Even if the regimes were fully overthrown which they were not)

As for Europe getting dominated by the US? In military terms sure, this was a choice that we did ourselves. We do not mind sacrificing a part of our military policy for US protection. This allows us to spend much less on our military and redirect the resources somewhere else.

As for kicking Iran out of Syria and playing world policemen. This is not something that Europe does or should do. There is a way to kick out Iran out of Syria but we shouldn't get involved and waste our resources on this. Libya i can understand but Syria does not cary any benefits to us that might outweight the cost. On top of that, USA and Israel are already doing this so let them do it as much as they want.

The countries that Europe should protect from Iran and Russia are the gulf region countries. Which we are doing underhandedly.
User avatar
By JohnRawls
#14888958
Atlantis wrote:So, what is Putin going to do about this? Or is he just leading his men be be slaughtered like the lambs?

More than 200 Russians may have been killed in Coalition strikes against ‘pro-regime’ forces in Syria


This is the same what the Americans do. Nobody counts mercs as active casualties. That is why it is convenient to have "contractors" do the job for US and Russia. Problem is that it is hard to control them when they do something stupid.

US had the same issues in Iraq/Afganistan actually.

There is not much fault of Putin here actually. I mentioned it in the previous post, what can he do if a bunch of mercs go out and try to "Acquire" an oil factory for themselves. It did not serve any tactical or military purpose besides kicking out SDF out of it. On top of that, this violated the deal that the they had with the US about zones of influence in the country.
Those guys would have succeded actually if there were no US Advisors on the spot. This is not a fault of US but more a constant problem for both sides that they can't keep their mercenaries in check.
By Rugoz
#14888984
JohnRawls wrote:This is the same what the Americans do. Nobody counts mercs as active casualties. That is why it is convenient to have "contractors" do the job for US and Russia. Problem is that it is hard to control them when they do something stupid.

US had the same issues in Iraq/Afganistan actually.

There is not much fault of Putin here actually. I mentioned it in the previous post, what can he do if a bunch of mercs go out and try to "Acquire" an oil factory for themselves. It did not serve any tactical or military purpose besides kicking out SDF out of it. On top of that, this violated the deal that the they had with the US about zones of influence in the country.
Those guys would have succeded actually if there were no US Advisors on the spot. This is not a fault of US but more a constant problem for both sides that they can't keep their mercenaries in check.


A large scale attack on an SDF outpost goes far beyond the problems the US had with its private contractors, to my knowledge. So I guess it was either a communication failure or a failed experiment.
User avatar
By JohnRawls
#14888991
Rugoz wrote:A large scale attack on an SDF outpost goes far beyond the problems the US had with its private contractors, to my knowledge. So I guess it was either a communication failure or a failed experiment.


That is a bit too complicated in my opinion.

A bunch of locals and Mercenaries tried to steal (take back?) a oil producing factory but failed. The motive is obviously greed here.

If it is a communications faliure, it does not explain why this group was violating the agreement between the US and Russia about the "safety" zones.

Same thing about failed experiment. What are they experimenting on? If they wouldn't be attacked if they say that "there are no units of ours there"? This happened with SAA before and they got bombed. So why would a group of mercenaries and syrian loyalists be any different?
#14889018
skinster wrote:What do you mean don't fear a war with Israel? Israel is already at war with Syria, it has been for decades (with the theft of the Syrian Golan Heights) but also in this recent war on Syria, where Israel has conducted hundreds of airstrikes on Syria over the last few years, as well as arming al-Qaeda in there and treating them in Israeli field hospitals before sending them back to Syria to fight the SAA, etc.. Where have you been? :?:



I mean all out war but no side is interested in that (well maybe only the Iranians)

anyway putins cannon fodders (mercenaries) were smashed to pieces and now they wont dare to test the US anymore

apparently Russia provided no air cover because they were afraid that their planes would be shot down by the US and this could escalate things very badly

but as long as some cannon fodders die its ok like nothing happened at all
User avatar
By JohnRawls
#14889035
Zionist Nationalist wrote:I mean all out war but no side is interested in that (well maybe only the Iranians)

anyway putins cannon fodders (mercenaries) were smashed to pieces and now they wont dare to test the US anymore

apparently Russia provided no air cover because they were afraid that their planes would be shot down by the US and this could escalate things very badly

but as long as some cannon fodders die its ok like nothing happened at all


Your explanations are always so biased, jesus.

Problem is, it is a loose-loose situation for both Us and Russia:

1) Russia couldnt say, hey we are violating our agreement because some retards are out of line and are going to attack you. (Highly likely they didnt really know because you must be a madman to tell higher ups that you are going to steal a factory from somebody)

2) The us had actual people on the ground, who were fired upon. That airstrike was not for no reason, they actually fired on the facility which produced the retaliation.

3) Now both sides are in a situation that Russia cant say that they have lost 100 mercs because they will loose face then.

4) Us cant also say it because it would mean that they directly attacked Russia which is a massive escalation.

5) US and Russian higher ups didnt really want this. This is merely an accident of too many bad circumstances going wrong at the same time.

6) Russians couldnt really assist the mercs because as i said, they probably did not know that they were there in 1st place. At best, they could react after the fact. But even, if by some miracle, the planes and assistance would arrive on time then what do they do next? Fire on the US forces to further escalate already badly escalated situation.

I mean, theoretically Russians could have probably retaliated with AA after the fact, but what would that even achieve?
  • 1
  • 140
  • 141
  • 142
  • 143
  • 144
  • 168

The media is supposed to hold power to account. It[…]

The countries where feminism is failing to gain t[…]

During the recent negotiations between Kim Jong-no[…]

China has told the United States to butt out of a […]