Jump to content
kinophile

US/ NATO v. Russia - Misperceptions.

Recommended Posts

59 minutes ago, Machor said:

Assad ran a de facto ethnic cleansing campaign that altered Syria's demographics in favour of his powerbase, the Alawites. Why should he want to reverse such an outcome?

I haven't heard of any Alawites being among the refugees, and for several years now the refugees had the option of returning to areas under Assad's control where there was no fighting. The BBC article I linked to previously in the thread about the residents of east Aleppo (http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-37779478 ) shows that people don't trust Assad to honour his word even with humanitarian corridors. Returning to live under him would seem like (and quite probably equal) suicide.

I believe a lot will change once the fighting eventually and offcially dies. The millions of people living in camps in neighbouring countries will soon have to make a choice. If there isnt any conflict there will be no "offcial" reason for them to stay there, let alone countries to accept more of them. If Assad despite having neutralized Al Nusra/ISIS/armed rebels decides to keep on with genocide of returning refugees then he deserves a drone or something to cease his insanity. I doubt that will happen and any big power like Russia will assist in such a crime. I don't think there is hard evidence of "ethnic cleansing" so far, it is a really heavy word to use imo for mostly crude bombing of cities.  Mass murder, executions and other savage actions (like eating hearts of the dead), have been widely reported on christians, alawites, other minorities and captured army soldiers though. I'm at least relieved this monstrosity will be brought to end sooner or later.

Edited by panzermartin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
54 minutes ago, panzermartin said:

imo for mostly crude bombing of cities

 

55 minutes ago, panzermartin said:

any big power like Russia will assist in such a crime

It is well established that Assad has been targeting hospitals and civilian infrastructure deliberately and systematically, and Russia has already gone out of its way to assist him in this:

"U.N. Reports Syria Uses Hospital Attacks as a ‘Weapon of War’"

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/14/world/middleeast/un-panel-accuses-syria-of-attacking-hospitals.html?_r=0

"Syrian government forces are systematically attacking hospitals and medical staff members and denying treatment to the sick and wounded from areas controlled or affiliated with the opposition, United Nations investigators said Friday in a new report that also detailed the use of hospitals as torture centers by military intelligence agencies.

“The denial of medical care as a weapon of war is a distinct and chilling reality of the war in Syria,” the United Nations Commission of Inquiry, which is monitoring human rights in Syria, said in its report. The panel said pro-government forces carried out such attacks “as a matter of policy,” but it also documented instances of attacks on hospitals by opposition forces.

...

The report cited a string of attacks on hospitals that were shelled by artillery or bombed by jets, often after aerial reconnaissance by helicopters.

...

Patients, too, are among the targets. “In exploiting medical care to further strategic and military aims, government forces have engaged in agonizing cruelty against the sick and wounded,” the report said, identifying a number of government intelligence agencies that have used hospitals as torture chambers.

Among these is Military Hospital No. 601 in Damascus, where “detainees, including children, have been beaten, burned with cigarettes and subjected to torture that exploits pre-existing injuries.”

“Many patients have been tortured to death in this facility,” the panel said.

...

It highlighted the targeting of medical workers as “one of the most insidious trends” in Syria’s civil war. “Government forces deliberately target medical personnel to gain military advantage by depriving the opposition and those perceived to support them of medical assistance for injuries sustained,” the panel said."

"Syrian and Russian forces targeting hospitals as a strategy of war"

https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2016/03/syrian-and-russian-forces-targeting-hospitals-as-a-strategy-of-war/

"Russian and Syrian government forces appear to have deliberately and systematically targeted hospitals and other medical facilities over the last three months to pave the way for ground forces to advance on northern Aleppo, an examination of airstrikes by Amnesty International has found.

...

Several medical workers from Anadan and Hreitan, two towns north-west of Aleppo, told Amnesty International that the Syrian government’s strategy is to empty an entire town or village of residents by targeting hospitals and infrastructure to facilitate the ground invasion.

A doctor from Anadan said: “Hospitals, water and electricity are always the first to be attacked. Once that happens people no longer have services to survive. This is what happened in Anadan. By mid-February most of the residents had fled the city after the field hospital and medical centre were attacked on 2 February. The field hospital is barely operating and the centre closed. The problem is that not everyone is able to leave the city. The ones who stayed behind are elderly people who are in desperate need of medical treatment.”

“Hospitals in opposition-controlled areas around Aleppo became a primary target for the Russian and Syrian government forces. This eliminated a vital lifeline for the civilians living in those embattled areas, leaving them no choice but to flee,” said Tirana Hassan.

All of the people interviewed by Amnesty International said that there were no military vehicles, checkpoints, fighters or front lines near the hospitals that were attacked and that the hospitals were exclusively serving their humanitarian function.

Deliberate attacks on civilians not directly participating in hostilities and on civilian objects, including hospitals and other medical facilities, violate international humanitarian law (also known as the laws of war) and amount to war crimes."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Machor said:

 

It is well established that Assad has been targeting hospitals and civilian infrastructure deliberately and systematically, and Russia has already gone out of its way to assist him in this:

"U.N. Reports Syria Uses Hospital Attacks as a ‘Weapon of War’"

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/14/world/middleeast/un-panel-accuses-syria-of-attacking-hospitals.html?_r=0

"Syrian government forces are systematically attacking hospitals and medical staff members and denying treatment to the sick and wounded from areas controlled or affiliated with the opposition, United Nations investigators said Friday in a new report that also detailed the use of hospitals as torture centers by military intelligence agencies.

“The denial of medical care as a weapon of war is a distinct and chilling reality of the war in Syria,” the United Nations Commission of Inquiry, which is monitoring human rights in Syria, said in its report. The panel said pro-government forces carried out such attacks “as a matter of policy,” but it also documented instances of attacks on hospitals by opposition forces.

...

The report cited a string of attacks on hospitals that were shelled by artillery or bombed by jets, often after aerial reconnaissance by helicopters.

...

Patients, too, are among the targets. “In exploiting medical care to further strategic and military aims, government forces have engaged in agonizing cruelty against the sick and wounded,” the report said, identifying a number of government intelligence agencies that have used hospitals as torture chambers.

Among these is Military Hospital No. 601 in Damascus, where “detainees, including children, have been beaten, burned with cigarettes and subjected to torture that exploits pre-existing injuries.”

“Many patients have been tortured to death in this facility,” the panel said.

...

It highlighted the targeting of medical workers as “one of the most insidious trends” in Syria’s civil war. “Government forces deliberately target medical personnel to gain military advantage by depriving the opposition and those perceived to support them of medical assistance for injuries sustained,” the panel said."

"Syrian and Russian forces targeting hospitals as a strategy of war"

https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2016/03/syrian-and-russian-forces-targeting-hospitals-as-a-strategy-of-war/

"Russian and Syrian government forces appear to have deliberately and systematically targeted hospitals and other medical facilities over the last three months to pave the way for ground forces to advance on northern Aleppo, an examination of airstrikes by Amnesty International has found.

...

Several medical workers from Anadan and Hreitan, two towns north-west of Aleppo, told Amnesty International that the Syrian government’s strategy is to empty an entire town or village of residents by targeting hospitals and infrastructure to facilitate the ground invasion.

A doctor from Anadan said: “Hospitals, water and electricity are always the first to be attacked. Once that happens people no longer have services to survive. This is what happened in Anadan. By mid-February most of the residents had fled the city after the field hospital and medical centre were attacked on 2 February. The field hospital is barely operating and the centre closed. The problem is that not everyone is able to leave the city. The ones who stayed behind are elderly people who are in desperate need of medical treatment.”

“Hospitals in opposition-controlled areas around Aleppo became a primary target for the Russian and Syrian government forces. This eliminated a vital lifeline for the civilians living in those embattled areas, leaving them no choice but to flee,” said Tirana Hassan.

All of the people interviewed by Amnesty International said that there were no military vehicles, checkpoints, fighters or front lines near the hospitals that were attacked and that the hospitals were exclusively serving their humanitarian function.

Deliberate attacks on civilians not directly participating in hostilities and on civilian objects, including hospitals and other medical facilities, violate international humanitarian law (also known as the laws of war) and amount to war crimes."

Targetting hospitals is a war crime no doubt. Still exercized by both sides as this and other articles indicate. I'm not debating the cruel  and unlawful means of warfare here. Without wanting to sound cynical, its still no proof of "ethnic cleansing" , rather an inhuman way of bringing the opposition to its knees, as part of a military operation rather than means of extermination of certain ethnic/religious groups. I havent read reports of army rounding up people, or massively executing them for instance.  And while in the above situations there were no militants nearby, it is a widespread tactic of guerilla warfare to fortify in those complexes. Once this happens a few times, then all hospitals, fortfied or not, are probably turned into priority targets unsurprisingly.

But this all has to come to an end. The truth is that rebels have achieved pretty much nothing those six years of conflict. Not even badly needed wider international support. Public opinion has turned against them as most associate them with Al-Nusra and ISIS. Ultimately, if Assad's agenda was to deport population opposing him as you say, then they served him right by giving him the excuse to do so under the disguise of a miltary operation against "terrorism". It's just madness pouring more gasoline in the fire of this conflict. Weapons flow in Syria, must be cut off. The conlfict must die out. Then a combined international effort respecting Syria's sovereignity should begin to shape the next day in the war-torn land.

PS,I don't know sometimes I think Trump was needed by the deeper american industrial/miltary complex, to reset world policy and maybe gain something from the bleeding Middle east strategy by adapting to the new situation. The pawns(rebels) are discarded, and the new strategy is to approach Russia/Syria in a theatre US would otherwise be left out. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, panzermartin said:

Ultimately, if Assad's agenda was to deport population opposing him as you say, then they served him right by giving him the excuse to do so under the disguise of a miltary operation against "terrorism".

Yes, and this is precisely the problem facing what is now left of the 'West' - which would be the EU, Canada, dunno are Australia and New Zealand still with us? Where will these millions of refugees go? I am very skeptical about them being able to go back to Syria.

16 minutes ago, panzermartin said:

The pawns(rebels) are discarded, and the new strategy is to approach Russia/Syria in a theatre US would otherwise be left out.

If Trump's election had been the outcome of such nefarious planning, then Clinton should have won and established a no-fly zone over northern Syria, followed by the partitioning of Syria (which would have kept Assad in power in Damascus and the Russians with their bases). The article that started this thread presented the Russian assets in the theater as certain doom without presenting a detailed analysis of how the US could counter them, and mind you the US does have some very shiny assets. I personally believe even the possibility of such a move by the US would have brought Assad/Putin to the table, because as I mentioned they did not have to lose what they already had.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Machor said:

Yes, and this is precisely the problem facing what is now left of the 'West' - which would be the EU, Canada, dunno are Australia and New Zealand still with us? Where will these millions of refugees go? I am very skeptical about them being able to go back to Syria.

If Trump's election had been the outcome of such nefarious planning, then Clinton should have won and established a no-fly zone over northern Syria, followed by the partitioning of Syria (which would have kept Assad in power in Damascus and the Russians with their bases). The article that started this thread presented the Russian assets in the theater as certain doom without presenting a detailed analysis of how the US could counter them, and mind you the US does have some very shiny assets. I personally believe even the possibility of such a move by the US would have brought Assad/Putin to the table, because as I mentioned they did not have to lose what they already had.

Maybe they didnt want to risk direct confrontation with Russia and lose everything. No matter how well equipped the US military is, they havent face something more lethal than a 3rd world country's arsenal. Who would support Clinton in something so risky as this, while half public opinion has turned  pro-russian the most in the whole american history? Fighting ISIS and islamists is the new trend and Trump adapted better to it. Getting from the back door in Syria and getting closer with Putin and Assad seems like a decent alternative plan in a battle that seems lost. After all, from what I can tell, Trump's main concern is China. This is the country that considers the bigger threat to US interests and probably foreign policy will shift accordingly towards there.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Machor said:

"Syrian government forces are systematically attacking hospitals and medical staff members and denying treatment to the sick and wounded from areas controlled or affiliated with the opposition, United Nations investigators said Friday in a new report that also detailed the use of hospitals as torture centers by military intelligence agencies.

“The denial of medical care as a weapon of war is a distinct and chilling reality of the war in Syria,” the United Nations Commission of Inquiry, which is monitoring human rights in Syria, said in its report. The panel said pro-government forces carried out such attacks “as a matter of policy,” but it also documented instances of attacks on hospitals by opposition forces.

Welcome to the face of Total War when there are no limits to what can be done to win. World War III would make this look like a picnic.

Michael

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, Michael Emrys said:

Welcome to the face of Total War when there are no limits to what can be done to win. World War III would make this look like a picnic.

Michael

Indeed.  This concept of "clean war" is probably pretty new to most people actually making decisions in many of these countries. I remember projections that up to a quarter of Germany's population would be killed in a conventional war, almost half with the use of chemical weapons, and I don't even want to think about Seven Days to the Rhein.  All of this over the course of less than a month!

With respect to Russia in particular, its experience in war has historically been a very destructive one, and Soviet doctrine (and by extension modern Russian doctrine) was heavily based on experiences of the Great Patriotic War.  This line of thinking goes to "victory at all costs" even though it may be counterproductive in the contemporary environment in the political sense.

Food for thought - perhaps this aggressive and destructive method may actually save lives in a perverted sense?  If what they're doing allows them to capture the city in a month instead of a year, cutting short the death and destruction from daily fighting in a city under siege, more deaths now may be fewer total deaths overall?  I don't mean to say I believe this 100%, but I can see a fairly compelling argument there, at least on the surface.

Edit: I'll have to find those papers.  I think I found them on DTIC while searching for documents about hydrazine

Edited by HerrTom

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Trump's main concern is China. This is the country that considers the bigger threat to US interests and probably foreign policy will shift accordingly towards there."

This would be about time as China has been the main threat for a couple of decades now.  Big business interests and expensive lobbying have been able to disguise the China threat from many in the west.  We actually have more in common with Russia and have less to fear from Putin than with China.  We would be better off allying with Russia to contain Chinese expansionism.

The fact that Trump is the only person who hasn't been bought and paid for by the financial industry and large corporate interests mean that he may be able to enact logical and rational foreign policies unencumbered by the need for max profit at the expense of our nation.  One can hope at least...

Edited by Erwin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, panzermartin said:

Maybe they didnt want

 

16 hours ago, panzermartin said:

while half public opinion has turned  pro-russian the most in the whole american history? Fighting ISIS and islamists is the new trend and Trump adapted better to it.

Instead of framing the election result as an establishment conspiracy, wouldn't it be easier to go with the explanation that it was a free and fair election, and you yourself have stated one of the reasons why Trump won. If I were looking for a conspiracy in this, I'd look at how successful RT/Sputnik/Southfront/Putinbots/the Kremlin's other information warfare agents have been in influencing American public opinion.

12 hours ago, Michael Emrys said:

Welcome to the face of Total War when there are no limits to what can be done to win.

 

12 hours ago, HerrTom said:

This concept of "clean war"

There is a principal difference between causing massive collateral damage and deliberately targeting civilians. The last instances when the latter was openly practised by civilized nations were the RAF firebombing campaign against Germany, the US firebombing of Japanese cities, and of course the atomic bombings. It is worth noting that all three remain controversial to this day, and if you ask the Japanese (I have asked four Japanese) about the latter two, be ready for some very hard feelings.

12 hours ago, HerrTom said:

Food for thought - perhaps this aggressive and destructive method may actually save lives in a perverted sense?  If what they're doing allows them to capture the city in a month instead of a year, cutting short the death and destruction from daily fighting in a city under siege, more deaths now may be fewer total deaths overall?  I don't mean to say I believe this 100%, but I can see a fairly compelling argument there, at least on the surface.

Food for thought - perhaps if Moscow and Leningrad had fallen in 1941, many millions of lives would have been saved. Many Russians were willing to go with Hitler (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_Liberation_Army ), and by 1941 he had killed fewer innocent people than Assad has. I don't mean to say I believe this 100%, but I can see a fairly compelling argument there, at least on the surface. ;)

3 hours ago, Erwin said:

This would be about time as China has been the main threat for a couple of decades now.

It is beyond me how Trump withdrawing US forces from Japan and South Korea will help contain the threat from China.

3 hours ago, Erwin said:

We actually have more in common with Russia

Err, what actually?

3 hours ago, Erwin said:

We would be better off allying with Russia to contain Chinese expansionism.

How could the US ally with an authoritarian regime against another authoritarian regime when those two authoritarian regimes have no conflicting interests and have everything to gain from cooperating with each other?

Given the fact that Trump got considerably more support from older people, it is ironic that they hadn't seen Why We Fight: Prelude to War:

And, respecting Steve's wishes - how is a Trump presidency relevant to CMBS?

Well, get off the Abrams and get in the T-64, 'cause THAT'S ALL YOU GONNA HAVE. Good luck!

And could BFC fast-track the Canucks and Poles module, pretty please? LEO2 stronk! :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting caveat:

Trump is already dialing back from campaign trail silliness, and has abandoned some more radical positions.

Possible conclusion:

Within the NATO construct, there has been a lot of grumbling about where the burden is falling.  Historically the European reaction has been some noises before cutting another few battalions to free up money to spend on ensuring their college students can keep going to college for forever or something.  We've had fairly limited leverage historically because not-defending Europe hasn't even been a US foreign policy plank.

However if the US threatened to walk off, and suddenly started getting all high-five hand holding with Russia, I imagine that might change some opinions and actions.  If Russia offered something to the US, I would think it might be an honest pivot, but it doesn't.  There's literally nothing Russia makes, or extracts we can't get somewhere else cheaper.  Russia is a pariah state in many ways so it doesn't get us leverage with anyone else.  

Dunno.  I'm not Trump.  But his adherence to walls, deportations, banning Muslims, entirely disposing of Obamacare have all been less than concrete.  Why would ties with Russia be anything different? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, Machor said:

How could the US ally with an authoritarian regime against another authoritarian regime when those two authoritarian regimes have no conflicting interests and have everything to gain from cooperating with each other?

It would actually be in the Chinese interest to ally with the U.S. against Russia because the Russians have nothing to offer the Chinese except the the land they're sitting on (Sino-Soviet border conflict). Furthermore, the Chinese have a lot to gain from the magnitude of the U.S. economy. Russia can't even get China to recognize the seizure of Crimea and the growing military-industrial independence of China from Russia will further cut relations.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, Machor said:

Instead of framing the election result as an establishment conspiracy, wouldn't it be easier to go with the explanation that it was a free and fair election, and you yourself have stated one of the reasons why Trump won. If I were looking for a conspiracy in this, I'd look at how successful RT/Sputnik/Southfront/Putinbots/the Kremlin's other information warfare agents have been in influencing American public opinion.

I dont believe the elections were rigged but nobody knows 100% really. There was an imported propaganda war for sure but the fatal blow was inflicted by an insider, as Hilary herself is blaming the last minute FBI intervention for her election loss http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/13/us/politics/hillary-clinton-james-comey.html?_r=0

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Machor said:

There is a principal difference between causing massive collateral damage and deliberately targeting civilians. The last instances when the latter was openly practised by civilized nations were the RAF firebombing campaign against Germany, the US firebombing of Japanese cities, and of course the atomic bombings. It is worth noting that all three remain controversial to this day, and if you ask the Japanese (I have asked four Japanese) about the latter two, be ready for some very hard feelings.

For what it's worth, some Soviet plans involved causing massive damage and terror to German cities in order to produce massive refugee trains to disrupt NATO logistics.  It's deliberate targeting of civilian infrastructure for the purpose of furthering military goals. I find it difficult to believe that Syrian and Russian military planners decide that today they want to blow up a hospital just to make life difficult for civilians, wasting ammunition and time.  Even though they're hitting civilian infrastructure - there's still a clear military purpose to it.  Additionally, if you're at the point of dropping thousands of tonnes of nerve gas on a country, I feel the line blurs.  The point I was trying to make was that the old Soviet doctrine (and to an extent the modern Russian doctrine) didn't seem to make it clear whether enemy civilians and targets.  Countervalue, while definitely horrid, was and is still a very real thing.

1 hour ago, Machor said:

Food for thought - perhaps if Moscow and Leningrad had fallen in 1941, many millions of lives would have been saved. Many Russians were willing to go with Hitler (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_Liberation_Army ), and by 1941 he had killed fewer innocent people than Assad has. I don't mean to say I believe this 100%, but I can see a fairly compelling argument there, at least on the surface. ;)

You're right to bring the comparison, which is why I posed it as the devil's advocate.  It boils down to whether the ends justify the means, which clearly is a matter of contention and perhaps context. (Also... something something Godwin's law! :) )

32 minutes ago, JUAN DEAG said:

It would actually be in the Chinese interest to ally with the U.S. against Russia because the Russians have nothing to offer the Chinese except the the land they're sitting on (Sino-Soviet border conflict). Furthermore, the Chinese have a lot to gain from the magnitude of the U.S. economy. Russia can't even get China to recognize the seizure of Crimea and the growing military-industrial independence of China from Russia will further cut relations.

To boot, the Sino-Soviet rift still echoes to this day.  There's still a fair amount of distrust and animosity between the states, even though regimes change and time passes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, HerrTom said:

For what it's worth, some Soviet plans involved causing massive damage and terror to German cities in order to produce massive refugee trains to disrupt NATO logistics.  It's deliberate targeting of civilian infrastructure for the purpose of furthering military goals. I find it difficult to believe that Syrian and Russian military planners decide that today they want to blow up a hospital just to make life difficult for civilians, wasting ammunition and time.  Even though they're hitting civilian infrastructure - there's still a clear military purpose to it.  Additionally, if you're at the point of dropping thousands of tonnes of nerve gas on a country, I feel the line blurs.

Well, ostensibly the RAF firebombing of German cities was also not intended to 'kill' German civilians, but to make them flee to the countryside, and thus leave German factories without workers; so yes, there was a military goal at the end. Ditto with the US bombing of Japan. And I think the line blurs mainly because the perpetrators were never forced to defend themselves in court, so we have not had an occasion to work out the ethical dilemmas in practice. Notably, Robert McNamara disclosed in The Fog of War that Curtis LeMay believed he would have been tried as a war criminal had the Japanese won the war.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, Machor said:

Well, ostensibly the RAF firebombing of German cities was also not intended to 'kill' German civilians, but to make them flee to the countryside, and thus leave German factories without workers; so yes, there was a military goal at the end. Ditto with the US bombing of Japan. And I think the line blurs mainly because the perpetrators were never forced to defend themselves in court, so we have not had an occasion to work out the ethical dilemmas in practice. Notably, Robert McNamara disclosed in The Fog of War that Curtis LeMay believed he would have been tried as a war criminal had the Japanese won the war.

Indeed, history is written by the victor.  I'm not trying to defend what anyone (be it Russia, Syria, the RAF or whomever) is doing, just trying to give some background on perhaps why they're doing what they're doing beyond "they're evil barbarians who eat babies" which we sometimes see.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've always wanted to play the German side in HPS Simulations' "Defending the Reich," because I emotionally perceive them as the 'good guys' in that game. Alas, no time left from playing CM. :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"It would actually be in the Chinese interest to ally with the U.S. against Russia because the Russians have nothing to offer the Chinese except the the land they're sitting on (Sino-Soviet border conflict)."

The Brits achieved power thru their very successful strategy of always allying with the 2nd most powerful nation vs the most powerful nation - until the Brit Empire itself emerged as the most powerful.  Probably that's what Russia and China are attempting currently vs the US.

Agreed that this leaves aside the moral issues, however, historically, all nations function on a realpolitik level and act callously in their self-interest while simultaneously either covering those actions up or disguising them in a cloak of "the best defense is a good offense" type philosophy using the fear they have made their citizens suffer as the excuse for just about anything.

If it is predictable that China may become the most powerful nation in the next decades, then it only makes sense to start to make pally with Russia (India as well).

 

Edited by Erwin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think China will have seriois issues with it's demographics which will impede it's develooment. It will have serious challenges to overcome before they become numero uno. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

HerrTom,

After the Berlin Wall fell, Armed Forces Journal published a bombshell in every sense of the word. It revealed one Russian war plan envisioned two weeks to the English Channel. This feat was to be achieved (best sit down) with the pulverizing help of 200 tactical nukes!

Regards,

John Kettler

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, John Kettler said:

After the Berlin Wall fell, Armed Forces Journal published a bombshell in every sense of the word. It revealed one Russian war plan envisioned two weeks to the English Channel. This feat was to be achieved (best sit down) with the pulverizing help of 200 tactical nukes!

It would be interesting to see how many tactical nukes NATO had stashed away in that same period. I read that we had also planted nuke mines at certain transportation bottlenecks in Germany, a fact that the Germans were not too happy about. But they were bound to get bombed and gassed in any case if the balloon went up.

Michael

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"PS,I don't know sometimes I think Trump was needed by the deeper american industrial/miltary complex, to reset world policy and maybe gain something from the bleeding Middle east strategy by adapting to the new situation"

 

Trump and his fascism and racism is not needed in any shape or form in the United States.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is one where I'd be very interested to hear @Codename Duchess 's comments:

"Russian MiG-29 fighter jet crashes in Mediterranean"

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-37978463

"A Russian MiG-29 fighter jet has crashed into the Mediterranean Sea as it tried to land on the Admiral Kuznetsov aircraft carrier, the country's defence ministry has said."

Routine or inept?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...