[Closed] Are we at war with Russia now?

Are you in Berwick?

Can it end well, see Vietnam, Afghanistan etc.

You're not keeping up. read some of the other threads on here.

Russia is friendly and has no aggressive foreign policies.

Scrap trident and wear flowers in your hair.

They're bombing people "we"don't like.
Let's go home and leave them to it.

from the news it seems the russians arent bothering with IS and just going straight for the rebels weve been arming/supporting

Are we at war with Turkey?

zippykona - Member
They're bombing people "we"don't like.
Let's go home and leave them to it.

according to our press, the Russians are attacking the non-ISIS rebels.

ie, the groups we hope will replace Assad.

One thing I've learnt from my advancing years is that our leaders really can't be trusted to have a war.
Have been reading about Thatcher and Indonesia. Shocking.
I can't imagine today's meddling is any more ethical and we certainly aren't in a position to criticise Russia.

Different objectives innit?
The russians just want Assad to remain in power, the west wants IS gone, then Assad gone, with the FSA in the wings ready to step into power.
Putin bombing IS AND the FSA isn't going down well with the west, but why should he GAF?

Are we at war along with Russia now?

FIFTY

Interesting how the press are resorting to the types of reportage that they used to use all the time in the cold war.

We have Interim Presidents, they have Puppet Rulers

we bomb places with impunity, Russia bombs indiscriminately

We have stragetic interests, they have Military Gambles

It's Russia using it as an excuse for increasing its reach. The key question is are the Turkish, Israelis and Saudi's happy with that and what are they going to do?

Swift withdrawal on the cards, we haven't got the minerals for this.

We let them invade Ukraine without any true implications, we certainly won't stop them doing whatever they want outside of Europe.

About time someone weed in his shoes.

It's Russia using it as an excuse for [s]increasing[/s] maintaining its reach.

A bit rich for us to say only we can decide who can be bombed in Syria

Reality is Russia want a friendly nation there for naval/strategic reasons and they wont give that up, literally, without a fight.

according to our press, the Russians are attacking the non-ISIS rebels.

ie, the groups we hope* will replace Assad.

To be fair, we've not been very good at working out who the good guys and the bad guys are in the past. The results of arming who we thought were the good guys, only for them to turn not to be, haven't been good, to say the least.

I'm prepared to bet that there aren't actually any good guys left, as they've all fled to Europe, and all you're left with are varyious factions of utterly psychotic jihadist nutjobs all backed by different regional powers, and all having their petty proxy wars with each other, as well as Asad. So if the Russians want to bomb them all into the stone age, let them get on with it. I Presume they'll be a lot less piecemeal, squeemish, hangwringing and generally useless at it as we've been

I'd happily see them nuke the whole region

I've not been called up, so I guess we are safe.

Hang on, is that my phone ringing....

binners - Member

To be fair, we've not been very good at working out who the good guys and the bad guys are in the past. The results of arming who we thought were the good guys, only for them to turn not to be, haven't been good, to say the least.

that's what the '*' was for, it's obviously [s]much more complicated than i can begin...[/s] a tragic mess of epic proportions.

I'd happily see them nuke the whole region

Nice.

and all you're left with are varyious factions of utterly psychotic jihadist nutjobs

I'm not seeing a whole lot of difference between them and those we supposedly elect into Government.

I'm not seeing a whole lot of difference between them and those we supposedly elect into Government.

I'd happily nuke them too. 😀

nyet yet!

I've not been called up, so I guess we are safe.

Hang on, is that my phone ringing....

Well, I'm too old for that call up nonsense, but I shall consider which role I may take in 'Dad's Army'. I quite fancy being 'Sgt Wilson', but suspect I'll end up somewhere between Cpl Jones and Pvt Pike

I work with a few Ruskies (all good lads and lasses actually)...Putin is proper popular back home in Mother Russia and with a lot of ex-pats too.....I have a feeling they were a little brain washed during their School years and anything goes as long as Mother Russia is okay.

Two points, far as they are concerned, there was no Ukraine until recently and before that....it was Russia.

Oh, and they have never started a war.....I pointed out that perhaps the Finns might feel a bit different about that...but no....Mother Russia can do no wrong.

Mmmm, we are bombing "men with guns", they are bombing "men with guns". How do they tell them apart ?

Not like the old days when they all wore a uniform and waved flags and such. Its just friction at the edges of empires. Been like that since history started. Wont go away till there is just one empire.

I shall consider which role I may take in 'Dad's Army'. I quite fancy being 'Sgt Wilson', but suspect I'll end up somewhere between Cpl Jones and Pvt Pike

Well I'm ready
[img] [/img]

2 things,

"Never trust a Russian"

"Never fight against Russians. Your every cunning will be responded by their unpredictable stupidity"

I'd be most interested to hear Putin's views on children smoking carrier bags in their parent's cars.

It's often a good idea from a 'leader's' point of view to start a war when your economy is tanking and your people are about to get restless. It takes their attention away from their falling standards of living and uses their energy up elsewhere instead of on you. + spending money on war is a kind of economic stimulus.
Russia is in recession and there's serious concern that we're about to drop into a global recession/economic collapse as China growth stops and it becomes clear just how much debt has built up since 2008 with super-low interest rates...

So I suspect it suits both sides for this current action to be going on...

Aren't they only protecting their assets in the area?
Just like us.supposedly.

Russia is protecting its long established interests in the region (access to the eastern med through Syria).
Most people in the West recognise this. We can hardly criticise Russia, given the extent of Western interference in the region.
Are we at war with Russia? No.
Are neocons at war with Russia? Possibly. As they still hold a huge amount of influence in the US, we could be looking at a continued disintegration in US-Russia relations.
So this could end badly.

from what I've read the dominant 'tribes' of Syria are pretty much as bad as each other with ISS being the worst and perceived as a threat to the west with terrorism. So I dont see any decent choices:

let russia bomb those opposed to Assad, the old leader. Assad comes back to power and its still not good but is at peace of sorts.
we bomb the ISS only, Assad or other bad guy takes control, see above conclusion.
we go in with all guns ablaze, see Afghanistan, still fighting Taliban.

in the meantime ordinary people get off their backsides and try to find a better life, well wouldnt you. the refugee crisis has begun to give the worlds super powers the mandate to act. for better or worse. its been the way of the world for many many millennia. you dont always like your neighbour, but better the devil you know sometimes.

The russians just want Assad to remain in power

Yes but it's nothing personal, they owe him nothing. What they don't want in power in Syria is either a bunch of lunatics who will behead you simply because they don't like you, or a bunch of Western stooges - either of the totally corrupt sectarian Iraqi type, or the medieval beheading dictatorship of the Saudi type.

I completely agree with them. And I hope they succeed in securing a secular Syria of the Assad type. My understanding is that Assad's support in Syria isn't because he's considered to be "a great guy" but because the only real alternatives are far worse.

It seems like all these Dictators who have been removed would have actually been slightly better left in place.

Like Libya, Iraq and now Syria.

They did keep the lid on the religious nutters with guns.

Are there examples of post Dictators that have ended well ?

I don't disagree with them, but their reasons are not for peace or fairness, it's because he's an ally and moreover; a customer, which I have no problem with.
The west wanting the FSA to take power will result in utter chaos, just as it has everywhere else but they still see it as an opportunity to unseat a russian and iran friendly govt.

If there's any American casualties this could get awkward:

[i]Reuters: Russian air strike hits training camp of Syrian rebel group trained by CIA. [/i]

It's often a good idea from a 'leader's' point of view to start a war when your economy is tanking and your people are about to get restless. It takes their attention away from their falling standards of living and uses their energy up elsewhere instead of on you.

Except that is completely unnecessary in Russia today. Despite the poor performance of the economy Putin's approval ratings are overwhelming. He doesn't need to find new ways of bolstering a flagging popularity.

[i]"As Russia deals with a dramatic fall in the price of oil and Western sanctions over its actions in Ukraine, fewer Russians say the economy is good and that Russian President Vladimir Putin’s actions in Ukraine have led to more favorable views of Russia. Nonetheless, Putin, who has entered his 11th year as leader of the country, garners overwhelming support from the Russian people on both his domestic and foreign policies, including record-high confidence in his ability to handle international affairs."[/i]

http://www.pewglobal.org/2015/06/10/2-russian-public-opinion-putin-praised-west-panned/

Are there examples of post Dictators that have ended well ?

Germany, Italy, Japan, France

As Ernie said, Putin is not in the situation of most Western leaders, i.e. start a war to boost the popularity rating.
Their intervention is old school - protection of national interests.
But this could easily spiral out of control, especially if the people at NATO and the Pentagon fancy a showdown with Russia.
Russia's announcement to the Americans - one hour's warning over a phone call - suggests relations are at the lowest they've been since the cold war.

[i]Are there examples of post Dictators that have ended well ?[/i]

Russia if you believe Putin's popularity ratings...

Libya has already taught us that without boots on the ground propping up a government anarchy will ensue as all the rebel groups that had been in a loose coalition turn on each other once the dictator's gone.

Even when there are boots on the ground Iraq and Afghanistan have already taught us peace isn't achieved once the dictator (or oppressive regime) is removed.

I can't see a solution to Syria personally; Assad staying in power propped up by the Russians won't help the civilians, not getting involved probably results in an IS victory (once the rebels and government have sufficiently weakened each other to be destroyed) and the US propping up the rebels and them defeating Assad probably ends up like Libya but with IS there in a much stronger position.

And yes with the Russians clearly using IS as a veil to undertake anti-Rebel ops behind the chances of a Russian-US accident happening are worryingly high

I don't disagree with them, but their reasons are not for peace or fairness, it's because he's an ally and moreover; a customer, which I have no problem with.

So a bit like the West then.

There's also the small point that Russia claims that possibly thousands of it's citizens are fighting with terrorist organisations in Syria, like the UK it's something which they aren't very happy about. Specially as they have had to deal with far more Islamic terrorist atrocities at home than the UK.

So a bit like the West then.

Amidst all the hysteria, I have to say I feel for Obama.
He has had war-mongering neocons biting at his ankles for military intervention in the Ukraine, which he withstood.
Now the media is setting him up as a weak leader who is getting pushed around by bullyboy Putin. Obama knows the Americans don't want any more wars so is acting like a representative president.
The neocons still want a showdown with Russia. Thankfully he is in his last term, so doesn't need to start wars for election purposes.

I don't get that :

Obama knows the Americans don't want any more wars so is acting like a representative president.............. Thankfully he is in his last term, so doesn't need to start wars for election purposes.

If he knows that 'Americans don't want any more wars' why would he 'start wars for election purposes' if he was in his first term ?

Btw I don't feel in the least bit sorry for Obama. He could have been a different president but as it turns out he's barely distinguishable from a Republican imo.

If he knows that 'Americans don't want any more wars' why would he 'start wars for election purposes' if he was in his first term ?

Your right, a contradiction in my earlier statement. I'm hoping that the majority of Americans are now against military intervention, period. But as a country it does suffer from a messianic attitude and this means it is relatively easy to turn the average American into a warmonger, especially if words like "democracy" are flung around by neocons in the press.

So I expect the future Presidential candidates to start using anti-Russian sentiments in their speeches from now on. Hilary Clinton will definitely play this card, and if she gets elected on an anti-Russian platform...well, find your closest nuclear bunker.

I'm hoping that the majority of Americans are now against military intervention, period.

Ah fair enough.

it is relatively easy to turn the average American into a warmonger, especially if words like "democracy" are flung around ...

Probably the same as the UK then. When Argentina invaded the Falklands the overwhelming majority of people didn't have a clue where the Islands were, yet despite that and the fact there had been no historical hostility between Argentina and the UK, and therefore no long softening up with decades of anti-Argentine rhetoric, the British public were pretty much overnight prepared to support the most serious military conflict since Korea. Despite having been told just previously by their prime minister that the government coffers were allegedly empty (it's a very old Tory script)

And that'll be the same public btw who couldn't give a toss when 2 years earlier the British Nationality Act 1981 had stripped Falkland Islanders of their full British nationality and right of entry to the UK.

Germany, Italy, Japan, France

one of the differences with that lot is they were the aggressors. Perhaps if we'd kick out saddam after the invasion of Kuwait, and not waited 10 years things might not have gone so badly.

Spain under Franco

one of the differences with that lot is they were the aggressors. Perhaps if we'd kick out saddam after the invasion of Kuwait, and not waited 10 years things might not have gone so badly.

They were proper countries. The ones in the middle east are arbitrary boxes drawn on a map by the French and British, whose inhabitants have only one thing in common: they want to kill each other.

I totally support Russian intervention. Putin has done the right thing. Now let's kick ass! (strong Merican accent 😆 )

In the meantime let's see if F35 will be starting a dogfight with with Suhkoi etc ... that should be interesting.

Luckily we have Trident, which will keep the Russians in line and stop them doing things we don't like, like bombing people and annexing chunks of countries. This is why we have to renew it- to make sure they don't start any of that shenanigans

Perhaps if we'd kick out saddam after the invasion of Kuwait, and not waited 10 years things might not have gone so badly.

There's plenty of evidence that George Bush Senior for all his rhetoric was opposed to the overthrow of Saddam.

During the final stages of the First Gulf War as the Iraqi regime quickly buckled under the overwhelming power of the coalition forces the panic in the White House was palpable. IIRC the French Foreign Legion were the most advanced approaching Baghdad when George Bush Senior ordered an immediate cessation of military action.

George Bush Senior then went on to encourage an insurrection against Saddam, and while people throughout Iraq responded he then just simply sat back and let Saddam slaughter them.

As Colin Powell Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff said in his book My American Journey :

[i]"our practical intention was to leave Baghdad enough power to survive as a threat to Iran that remained bitterly hostile toward the United States."[/i]

The No-Fly Zone helped to achieve that aim of Saddam being in power but under control until they decided to dispose of him 12 years later under the pretext of WMDs.

Northwind - Member

Luckily we have nuclear weapons which will prevent Russia from doing things we don't like. If we don't renew trident, they'll probably do stuff like bombing syria.

In the nuke war UK will suffer most because of the population concentration while other larger country like Russia have plenty of space to hide.

whose inhabitants have only one thing in common: they want to kill each other.

What a crass comment. Every war in the region, such as the Iraq Iran War, has been encouraged by the West.

Before Europeans came along meddling the Middle East had experienced something like 600 years of peace. Quite unlike Europe of course.

The Russian way is to have/support a strong leader who can keep a lid on factional in-fighting. Even if they are an utter ba***** their own people.

In the nuke war UK will suffer most because of the population concentration while other larger country like Russia have plenty of space to hide

Nonsense, in a nuclear war the cities of the north will be safe because they clubbed together to call themself 'nuclear free zones'

If that doesn't keep them safe, what will?

Always amused me that nuclear free zone that is Manchester, while all the nuclear work goes on just outside in Warrington.

The Russian way is to have/support a strong leader who can keep a lid on factional in-fighting. Even if they are an utter ba***** their own people.

Looks a bit shit doesn't it - Russia says it's bombing IS positions, it's not - mistakes get made all the time in war of course, we've bombed the wrong people in the past - but this seems deliberate.

The shit will hit the fan if a Western Training Advisor (or whatever they call Special Forces / Intelligence Services these days) gets killed, the Americans have little tolerance for 'one of there's' getting killed.

They may try for a UN enforced no-fly zone which will pretty much nullify outside intervention from either side.

In the meantime let's see if F35 will be starting a dogfight with with Suhkoi etc ... that should be interesting.

I reckon the F-35 pilot would rather stay at home that day

ninfan - Member

In the nuke war UK will suffer most because of the population concentration while other larger country like Russia have plenty of space to hide

Nonsense, in a nuclear war the cities of the north will be safe because they clubbed together to call themself 'nuclear free zones'

If that doesn't keep them safe, what will?

😆 Or they can simply bow down to be ruled. i.e. surrender. The politicians will still stay in power but they just report to the Politburo.

dragon - Member
Always amused me that nuclear free zone that is Manchester, while all the nuclear work goes on just outside in Warrington.

The radiation will have to obey the nuclear free zone boundaries ... 😛

legend - Member

In the meantime let's see if F35 will be starting a dogfight with with Suhkoi etc ... that should be interesting.

I reckon the F-35 pilot would rather stay at home that day

Unless the dogfight is purely based on speed.

Depends what you mean by dogfight to, if close in with guns then OK but in a modern jet engagement (often BVR) I'd rather be in the F-35, at least the Russians have decent ejector seats.

FuzzyWuzzy - Member

Depends what you mean by dogfight to, if close in with guns then OK but in a modern jet engagement (often BVR) I'd rather be in the F-35, at least the Russians have decent ejector seats.

F-35 is like a rocket that's good at speed but I am not sure about the rest of its capabilities. 😆 I just know that F16 designers and others said that it's a sitting duck.

Always amused me that nuclear free zone that is Manchester, while all the nuclear work goes on just outside in Warrington.

Reuters are reporting a build up of Iranian troops (and not military advisors) in Syria. Add in a sizeable Hezbollah force with numerous Irag/Afghan/Syrian Shi'ite militia, all being supported by Russian air power and the potential for a massive escalation in hostilities is inevitable.

And hopefully a rapid end to a war which has been fanned, stoked, and had petrol poured on it, by Western self-interests.

Europeans only seemed have taken it as a more serious problem since desperate war refugees made the perilous journey and landed on their beaches. Out of sight out of mind seemed to be the previous prevailing attitude.

The role of the Western powers has been shameful. The UK only declared ISIS a terrorist organisation last June, when they started threatening Western interests in Iraq.

Reutuers Headline: Iran troops to join Syria war, Russia bombs group trained by CIA

Americans training local "rebels" to fight, are perms in fashion again is it the 1980's? Didn't that sort of thing happened in Afganistan? That ended well didn't it... with the taliban...

I may be wrong since I don't pay too much attention to these things but just a thought.

Always stuns/amazes me the majority of the the plebs take these things on face value alone! It's about democracy, preventing rape, saving children from dying, preventing genocide and creating regional stability. When as has been pointed out in this thread, those objectives have nothing to do with this power play and never have, they are just used to garner public support.

Still could make for interesting reading now Russia has thrown it's hat into the ring, not so fun for those caught in the sh!tstorm.

No we are not fortunately.

Syria is part of a new world order - new players driving current events and they exclude the US and the UK, although the Iran-US relationship is now interesting.

I welcome the fact that we are not at the centre of this, especially as we lack clarity of objective.

chewkw - Member

FuzzyWuzzy - Member

Depends what you mean by dogfight to, if close in with guns then OK but in a modern jet engagement (often BVR) I'd rather be in the F-35, at least the Russians have decent ejector seats.

F-35 is like a rocket that's good at speed but I am not sure about the rest of its capabilities. I just know that F16 designers and others said that it's a sitting duck.

Is the F35 even combat ready yet? I seem to recall it didn't like rain, heat, dust, flying generally......

Only the -B model. I think the normal one (i.e. the one we are not buying) is fine.

On a side note, now that Russia is getting frisky in Syria, the Ukraine fighting appears to have died down. Coincidence shirley...

I have to confess to being a little at a loss as to what's going on in Syria. In a nutshell, I understand that Assad is president, that IS control half the country and that Turkey are indirectly supporting IS by fighting the Kurds who are directly fighting IS.

Now my understanding is that Russia is hitting Assad - which leads to the assumption he's also indirectly supporting IS - which could cause issues because the US have advisors on the ground training Assad's troops.

My guess is that he seeks to influence the power vacuum that will happen once Assad is deposed, not to mention gain more influence in the middle east and a direct path to the Med.

Or is this a slightly naive overview, conveniently bypassing some of the more important subtleties of the situation?

Now my understanding is that Russia is hitting Assad - which leads to the assumption he's also indirectly supporting IS - which could cause issues because the US have advisors on the ground training Assad's troops.

No, Russia is bombing the Free Syrian Army on behalf of Assad.

The US back the FSA against Assad, and fight IS who also fight Assad and the FSA.

Turkey have declared war on IS and attacked the Kurds. So that bits right.

I think you'll find that the proper way to describe the current situation is "Nause Up".

Swift V.A.T, Dave, thanks.

I believe that the forces opposed to Assad have not had any anti aircraft missiles supplied to them yet (mainly due to concerns of the missiles falling into the wrong hands) but with Russia bombing the anti-Assad forces (if we believe the press) I think that might change.

The impact of more sophisticated weapons flooding into Syria on the remaining population will be terrible. I would guess that those wealthy or healthy enough have left already so it will be those most vulnerable that will suffer the most.

I remember an article from years ago that suggested that any major conflict in Syria would draw in the entire region and this seems to be happening now, with Iran, Turkey, Saudi Arabia and all having interests in the Syrian conflict you have to fear the worse.

Sometimes you have to despair of mankind and our ability to **** things up....

I believe that the forces opposed to Assad have not had any anti aircraft missiles supplied to them yet (mainly due to concerns of the missiles falling into the wrong hands)

Since arming the mujahideen 'freedom fighters' in Afghanistan against the Russians, the principle of my enemies enemy is my friend will never ever again extend to supplying surface to air missiles. As we all know what became of those brave 'freedom fighters'.

Syria is now the main venue for all manner of proxy wars being fought by a variety of militias armed by competing regional powers. For a concise summing up of who's who, think....

No, Russia is bombing the Free Syrian Army on behalf of Assad.

The US back the FSA against Assad, and fight IS who also fight Assad and the FSA.

Turkey have declared war on IS and attacked the Kurds. So that bits right.

Thanks.

What a fing clusterf.

Since arming the mujahideen 'freedom fighters' in Afghanistan against the Russians, the principle of my enemies enemy is my friend will never ever again extend to supplying surface to air missiles. As we all know what became of those brave 'freedom fighters'.

I believe a lot of those Stingers are still unaccounted for. It's also not to be underestimated how much they altered the Russian Afghan conflict.

Thanks.

What a fing clusterf.

You were given a very simplified version. Here's a fuller version which might bring greater clarity to the situation :

[i]"We support the Iraqi government in the fight against ISIS.

We don't like ISIS, but ISIS has been supported by Saudi Arabia, whom we do like, and Saudi Arabia is now supporting us in bombing ISIS.

We don't like President Assad in Syria. We support the fight against him, but not ISIS, which is also fighting against him.

We don't like Iran, but Iran supports the Iraqi government against ISIS.

So some of our friends support our enemies and some of our enemies are our friends, and some of our enemies are fighting against our other enemies whom we want to lose, but we don't want our enemies who are fighting our enemies to win.

If the people we want to defeat are defeated, they might be replaced by people we like even less.

And all this was started by us invading Iraq to drive out terrorists who weren't there until we went to drive them out. "[/i]

http://stopwar.org.uk/index.php/news/obama-and-cameron-clear-up-any-confusion-about-why-they-are-bombing-iraq-and-syria

Although recent developments have made things slightly more complicated.

SNAFU - seems a very appropriate phrase here.

It strikes me that a lot refugees are young males. I give them the benefit of doubt as needing to get out BUT also think why aren't they staying to sort it out. I know that's a blanket statement but if one of these smaller local groups got behind a democratic ethos then the chances are it would be backed by many foreign sides and then supported. They run to our democracies when surely they should be appealing to help in creating it. what am I missing?

BUT also think why aren't they staying to sort it out......... what am I missing?

Probably the fact that the Syrian government is losing more and more ground thanks to this Western inspired war and that there is a high risk of either getting killed or else worse, being captured and then being paraded in public with your mates before being beheaded.

Given the choices available traveling to Germany doesn't seem such a bad option.