[Closed] Are we at war with Russia now?

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.

Have a look at this: [url= https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_armed_groups_in_the_Syrian_Civil_War ]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_armed_groups_in_the_Syrian_Civil_War[/url]

Which 'side' do you pick? Pick the wrong one and you'll get a foot and hand lopped off for your trouble (like the kid Channel4 News last night).

Not sure I'd be too enthusiastic to stay and fight.

Here's a fuller version which might bring greater clarity to the situation :

😆

Now I feel truly enlightened.

ti_pin_man - Member

what am I missing?

The bit where they get shot in the face? The bit where tons of people in ISIS and in the rebels and in Assad's army and in western governments think they're doing the right thing to "sort it out"?

aha, so in the end 'we' have to go in to sort it out, yay (sarcasm)another Afghanistan.

ti_pin_man - Member

aha, so in the end 'we' have to go in to sort it out, yay (sarcasm)another Afghanistan.

There's a theory in Economics which I believe has some merits in International Politics.

The short version is that trying to externally influence a situation invariably makes things worse in the long-run unless you can address the root cause.

So post 9/11 we 'liberated' Afghanistan from the Taliban - 32k deaths on our side (Western Military, Afghan Security Forces and 'Private Contractors') 25k-40k deaths from their side - Taliban and al-Qaeda and about 26k civilians killed - that's 80k to 100k people dead as a direct result of the War - are we any safer in the West? I don't think so, not because of the War anyway, are the normal people of Afghanistan free? No, the in the midst of another Civil war.

2 years later we 'liberated' Iraq - 30k killed on our side, (including post Saddam Iraq army and contractors) 35k killed on their side (including Saddam era Iraqi army and insurgents) and a estimated and quite staggering 600k+ violent deaths of Civilians as a result of the War. Is Iraq safe for the Iraqi people? No, are we any safer in the west? No, it's a pot house of hate and violence that's now spread to Syria.

So why are 'we' involved? There are other horrible wars being fought around the world you don't hear about on TV and I believe that in the long run Western involvement (and Russia) will simply make for a longer, bloodier war which won't end the troubles in the Middle East.

The root cause I believe is that post WW2 when we were carving up the world, we installed the 'right' Dictator in whatever middle eastern country we could - we didn't care if he cut off peoples heads for fun or let his people starve so he could take a dump on a solid gold toilet as long as he didn't **** about with the oil supply.

^like I said, we've done it before so will repeat it. Its the end game. Sadly.

So the USA has decided that the Iranians are OK now they've promised not to build any nuclear bombs but they're backed by the Russians and so...

http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2015/10/reports-iranian-troops-syria-joint-offensive-151001143337046.html

... with impunity because the USA wants to trade for oil.

I thought big governments were supposed to run all these scenarios through a War Games computer to keep one step ahead of the situation? Seems the Russians either have the best version, or Putin turns out to be a supreme strategic master after all.

Mr Woppit

....or Putin turns out to be a supreme strategic master after all.

His strategy certainly makes sense. He's supporting Assad who has always been his mate. The west was trying to get rid of Assad by supporting people who hate us even more than Assad.

believe is that post WW2 when we were carving up the world, we installed the 'right' Dictator in whatever middle eastern country we could - we didn't care if he cut off peoples heads for fun or let his people starve so he could take a dump on a solid gold toilet as long as he didn't **** about with the oil supply.

Surely it goes back well before that to the fall of the Ottoman Empire? Which itself ties in a rmarkably complex interplay of various issues from the end of the Napoleonic and Crimean wars,

ninfan - Member

believe is that post WW2 when we were carving up the world, we installed the 'right' Dictator in whatever middle eastern country we could - we didn't care if he cut off peoples heads for fun or let his people starve so he could take a dump on a solid gold toilet as long as he didn't **** about with the oil supply.

Surely it goes back well before that to the fall of the Ottoman Empire? Which itself ties in a rmarkably complex interplay of various issues from the end of the Napoleonic and Crimean wars,

You could argue we've been cocking about in the middle east sticking our noses where they weren't wanted since 1096.

True, I think the seminal point for the mess we witness now remains the end of the ottomans though.

I [i]still[/i] can't decide if Suez was a complete moment of idiocy and arrogance, or a truly great and ultimately correct move that we should never have backed down (under USSR and US pressure) from.

Zbigniew Brzezinski's - The Grand Chessboard: American Primacy and Its Geostrategic Imperative ... Essential reading considering the Geopolitical climate right now ...

You could argue we've been cocking about in the middle east sticking our noses where they weren't wanted since 1096.

Not really, after the last Crusade and the murdering bloodthirsty Europeans had left, the peoples of the Middle East, Arabs, Turks, Kurds, and countless other ethic groups, lived in peaceful coexistence, albeit under an imperil class-based social order.

In 1492 they welcomed into the Maghreb 100,000 Jews expelled by European bigots, Jews who had previously lived peacefully under Muslim rule in Europe.

This peaceful coexistence between peoples of all races and ethnicity continued in the Middle East for 600 years, until Europeans addicted to war and killing returned.

Ever since then Europeans, and now the West, has inspired war after war in the Middle East.

They took a few million Europeans as slaves around then. I'd look somewhere else if you want a model society.

I think my reference of [i]"an imperil class-based social order"[/i] makes it clear that I don't see it as "a model society", perhaps that wasn't obvious to you ?

I do however think that it is fair to make a comparison between the 600 years of peace in the Middle East with the same period of time in Europe during which Europeans were constantly killing each other and engaging in endless bloodbaths between themselves. And of course engaging in slavery.

Or do you think it's not fair to make a comparison because it makes Europeans look bad, worst than the people of the Middle East in fact ?

One mans terrorist is another mans 'moderate rebel'

BUT, the question is...

... Could we 'ave them 😈

Actually, those Su34s look quite tasty.

Dare say the west will be closely monitoring how they perform in combat

I'm late. The US need to recruit the strategists from Russia. From the three star General to how they've hit this I don't think the Americans will recover. Plus if the US switch to targetting Assad I can see some tastey Air to ground missiles taking down certain planes.

If you like Assad or not, one thing no one needs is a power vacuum and a US installed Government.

best version, or Putin turns out to be a supreme strategic master after all.

According to a bloke on a R4 show about JC's foreign policy Putin's foreign office is a genius who understands the middle east. Our foreign office blokes aren't.

It had the ring of truth.

Lavrov.

Yeah cos Russian policy of blowing the sh*t out of anything not behind Assad is a lovely policy 🙁 I bet the US and UK would love to have their rules of engagement.

Putin no more understands the middle east than we do, he just has it easier on who to support for his best interests and doesn't need to worry about public hand winging when a kid gets killed.

Its all a very depressing mess.

The US and UK tend to regime change. Wipe the board then attempt to build a Police force, Army and government from scratch. I'd love to see the sucess stories of these attempted/action regime changes please.

(No in Germany they kept alot of the infrastruture/staff/managers and stayed armed presence in country to this day).

WHO is the US and UK supporting. If you read there are many radical factions facing the Syrian government.

Ironically Christian communities have been driven from their historic homes/communities where they were safe under Assad.

I wont post again tonight. Its not all bbc reporting good/bad guys you know.

In case it's not been posted yet: http://i100.independent.co.uk/article/the-russian-embassy-is-making-jokes-about-the-civil-war-in-syria-on-twitter--byoad1CmDg

ninfan - Member

True, I think the seminal point for the mess we witness now remains the end of the ottomans though.

I still can't decide if Suez was a complete moment of idiocy and arrogance, or a truly great and ultimately correct move that we should never have backed down (under USSR and US pressure) from.

Possibly, but there's a seminal point in all this I think - (oddly I learned this watching Pawn Stars a few years ago).

This picture was taken on a US Ship a few months after the end of WW2, it's FDR meeting with the King of Saudi, it's said this meeting was to decide the shape of the Middle East and who was going to run it for the sake of secure Oil supplies to the west.

[img] [/img]

Evening'. Tragically timely the US have destroyed a Hospital in Afghanistan.

Earlier last week truckloads full of US weapons found their way to a extremist group after the Free Syrian Army traded them for free passage.

Which superpower would you back?

US have destroyed a Hospital in Afghanistan

And yet the media haven't asked David Cameron whether he will condemn the American airstrike on a hospital.

So why haven't they asked him ? ........ I'm sure they would very interested in David Cameron's opinion if it had been a Russian or Syria airstrike on hospital.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-34463901

Belarus taking the opportunity to try and distance itself whilst it has the chance?

We're moving troops on a 'Long Term' mission (semi permanently apparently) to the Baltic Sates....so yeah, welcome to "Cold War" part 2

or will be a re-imagining of the original?

Sadly nickc, I think this one will be more confusing, with more 'sides' taken than us and them. I also reckon it is only a matter of months/weeks before we have an 'accident' leading to either 'us' and Russia having direct weapons contact - plane shot down, bombing of ground forces etc. 😕

It looks like just a matter of time before Turkey shoots down a Russian plane violating it's airspace, NATO will have to support them to so it just comes down to what Putin's reaction will be. He can't really attack Turkey directly (he's not ready for that big of an escalation yet) but he can't do nothing either without looking weak domestically, that probably leaves getting Syria to shoot down a Turkish plane 'accidentally'

that probably leaves getting Syria to shoot down a Turkish plane 'accidentally'

All unauthorized NATO warplanes entering Syrian airspace are violating international law and can be legally shot down.

As an aside this seems a perfect, in a nutshell quote from politicians involved in supplying weapons to fight "wars" that don't need fighting:

Shortly before the death of Alan Clark, who under Thatcher was the minister responsible for supplying Suharto with most of his weapons, I interviewed him, and asked: "Did it bother you personally that you were causing such mayhem and human suffering?"

"No, not in the slightest," he replied. "It never entered my head."

"I ask the question because I read you are a vegetarian and are seriously concerned with the way animals are killed."

"Yeah?"

"Doesn't that concern extend to humans?"

"Curiously not."

From [url= http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2008/jan/28/indonesia.world ]The Guardian - Our model dictator by John Pilger[/url]

http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/oct/08/britain-station-troops-poland-latvia-lithuania-estonia-russian-aggression

It makes me chuckle how Thatcher keeps being quoted, Indonesia, supplying arms, how blinkered is he who who have failed to accept that Labour walked us straight into Iraq and Afghanistan. The powers that be have managed to topple the powers that be, Saddam was aptly nicknamed the butcher of Baghdad.

We invaded Iraq under Thatcher / Major to overthrow him and all hell broke loose, has anyone stopped to think just why he was keeping the numbers down. Then as if there wasn't enough instability in the region Ghadafi got the good news and that whole region went into turmoil, Egypt, and now we are trying to topple Assad.

It's true what they say you can't teach stupid people to do clever things. And whilst in our own Country one party does one thing and another the other if the truth be told they are no different from each other. They are in it for themselves whether you choose to accept that is up to you but Corbyn is the most vile excuse for a human being that has ever been awarded any hope of power and will quite happily steer the UK into total destruction, we wouldn't last a weekend with the likes of Putin out there whilst Corbyn runs ragged in his sandals topping up the vases in number 10 with Daisy's and daffodils. Dave is trying his damdest to create Little Britain in the hope that he can create what his parents view of Great Britain should be.

I'm with the afore mentioned quotes and would quite happily Nuke the lot. At least that way we could empty the Armoury ready for Corbyn, save him having to dispose of it.

We did not invade Irag under Thatcher/Major/Bush. We invaded Kuwait to remove the Iraq army. Some would say that the failure to remove Sadam during the first Gulf war was a mistake. What definitely was a mistake was going back for another go.

OP s question, we are at war with Russia, just because we believe we are not does not mean that Putin is not at war with us. It's all looking a bit Cold War to me.

Just waiting for Israel to shoot down a Russian plane violating its airspace or blow up a weapons convoy in Syria just to complicate this a little bit more.

Note: When Israeli planes blew up that secret Syrian chemical/nuclear site a few years back Turkey was a strangely silent on them entering its airspace to do it?

Just been catching up on this thread. Syria is a classic example of the complexity / mess of the Middle East

Russia is supporting its ally, Syria at Syria's request. It's perfectly entitled to bomb anyone threatening the government. The overflight over Turkey was absolutely deliberate IMO, the Turks are not going to shoot at a Russian warplane. The Russians have a navy base in Syria, they are not going to permit the government to fall without a very big fight. The news has had a number of videos of Syrian "rebels" with US anti-tank weapons destroying Syrian tanks, the Russians aren't going to allow that. Russia isn't messing about, they are not bound by "public outcry" they have troops and equipment on the ground.

All unauthorized NATO warplanes entering Syrian airspace are violating international law and can be legally shot down

Turkey is pursuing its interest by bombing the Kurds in both Syria and Iraq, they don't really care about IS, turning a blind eye to 30,000+ jihadists crossing into Syria, turning a blind eye to IS oil sales to Turks. The Turks have been trying to pressurise the West by allowing the refugees to leave un-obstructed, they have been pushing for a no fly zone from the West over the Kurdish territory as they want to weaken the Kurds by stopping allied bombing of IS there.

Well, after days of complaining that Russian aircraft have been entering its Air Zone uninvited, Turkey had just shot down an unidentified Aircraft.

This won't end well.

The Turks violate Greek airspace on a daily basis so their complaints now are monstrous hypocrisy.

thats not good, even assuming its russian military and not a passenger jet

edit, apparently a drone

test of Putin and NATO....

im guessing Turkey will be looking for a new gas supplier this winter, too

Small wager the Russians did this deliberately as a test. Drones are cheap and you don't risk a pilot. Putin will up the stakes further I'd imagine, more resources into Syria ? More threats in the Baltic ? I don't think they'll suspend gas supplies as they need the money.

Turkey is playing a very strange game, demanding €3bn, travel freedoms for their own citizens and a re-opening of EU membership discussions to slow down the flood of refugees to Greece. I wonder how much of that €3bn will be skimmed off by the government - 25% isn't unusual we saw that in Sri Lanka after the Tsunami. Glad their request for a no flow zone over the Kurds to prevent Nato assisting them was turned down.

By the way how do you "warn" a drone ?

I don't think they'll suspend gas supplies as they need the money

thats the bonkers thing

could end up with russia & turkey be engaged in a limited war but still trading partners

Drone is a bit grand, it looks like an average RC plane you see down at the park on a Sunday, given how small it is its a good effort to shoot it down with a jet 8)

[url= http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/oct/16/turkey-shoots-down-drone-near-syrian-border#img-1 ]Guardain Link[/url]

jambalaya - Member

Drone is a bit grand, it looks like an average RC plane you see down at the park on a Sunday, given how small it is its a good effort to shoot it down with a jet

Guardain Link

Yeah looks like they knocked it over rather than shot it down!

Anyway in my experience (of watching TopGun) shouldn't have it exploded in a huge fireball? There seems very little damager considering it crashed, never mind got dealt with by a F14 Tomcat (again, TopGun being my only point of reference).

Military Drones aren't all massive reaper sized things, that's pretty hefty compared to some:

[img] [/img]
[img] [/img]

(again, TopGun being my only point of reference)

You insinuate Top Gun isn't real.

I won't listen to this blasphemy.

Goose? Is that you Goose?

New medical director at work is 30yrs military, been the head GP for the entire UK forces, running the UK's middle East medical ops in recent years and worked and advised with NATO....he spent a day with me before he got the job, we talked recent Afghan/Iraq matters and risk to the UK....he corrected me and pointed out that Russia is still the main threat.

His opinion was that Putin is genuinely dangerous, Russia is still hurting decades after the break up of the USSR and that the Ukraine events is a Russian test on expansion again and how the EU will respond....his opinion is that Putin/Russia only respects strength and negotiating with him is as good as a green light to continue....he said keep US and UK forces in Germany and park a load of nukes there too....it worked in the past and he reckons it'd work again.

He thinks talks of getting rid of our nuclear deterrent is nuts and effectively waves the white flag to Putin. This was from a military man so it will have his spin on it but what was terrifying was that he says MPs are well advised on Russian military movements and don't seem that bothered!....the military are aware of increased Russian excursions into UK airspace and advise politicians accordingly....and they seem more concerned with other matters, he said it's part of the reason he wants out, lost faith in MPs to keep us safe!...it was an eye opening day.

A tragic loss of life
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-34687139

Even if it is not linked to Russia's activity in the gulf, I imagine it will result in an escalation of the conflict

Why?

Conflict seems to be a necessary part of human nature, its just a matter of time untill there's another big one...

I see the Ministry Of Truth in Russia has been busy - a technical fault/nothing to see here ladies and gentlemen/the worlds fastest investigated air crash.

According to bbc news IS have claimed responsibility.

And according to BBC News, IS don't have anything capable of reaching the height the airliner was flying at.

Given the plane was at 31,000ft it's unlikely to have been a ground launched missile. Certainly hope not anyway - especially given I'm in Sharm El Sheikh myself at the moment and am due to fly home on an A321 in a few days.

It's pure speculation, I suspect that human error/ mechanical failure is the most.likely cause, I just assumed that if it was IS retaliation. The simplest way to do it would be getting a bomb/ saboteur on board.

Saying that the Egyptian Military is the largest in Africa/middle East, the west and Russia have been supplying them for decades. I'm not sure what anti aircraft equipment they have but it's not impossible that some of it could fall into the wrong hands.
Either way Sisi's brutal regime has probably done much to push many Egyptian Muslims to IS

Terrible loss of life. Hard to say right now whether it's terrorist related, it certainly could have been a bomb onboard via an "inside job" at airport security / baggage ? With recent Russian interventions you can see ISIS in Sinai making such an attack. The BBC reports that no SOS/Mayday call was made, that's very odd if it where a technical fault and much more like a bomb. If it is terrorist related it will definitely heighten tensions and IMO harden Egypt's response in Sinai (inc Gaza border) and Russia in Syria.

@epic keep us posted, Air-France and Lifthansa have said they will not overfly Sinai until further notice

The airline are keen to blame ' external factors' while Putin has remained uncharacteristically quiet, if it was a bomb, it seems to have caught the Russians offguard.
The final results of the investigation will take a long time to come in, even if its most likely that it mas a mechanical failure, it will hurt the Russian and Egyptian tourist industries
If Sinai based militants were to blame, I doubt even Putin would start bombing egypt, though Sisi has been fighting insurgents there for some time and its a border with gaza and israel has always been a flashpoint

@kimbers French tv was saying mist likely a bomb very early on mainly based on scattered wreckage, no mayday. This is becoming the favoured explanation. I can see the politcal rationale for Airline and Putin explanations. It turns out British government advised in Dec 2014 not to overfly the Siani below 25000ft and UK airlines responded by avoiding the area all together. My gut feel remains an inflitration of airport security and a bomb smuggled aboard

Harsh and forcefuk reaction from Russia and Egypt I would expect

Harsh and forcefuk reaction from Russia and Egypt I would expect

Apparently Isis are hoping to provoke "Rome" into a final apocalyptic battle at Dabiq to fulfill their prophecy.

Previously they interpreted "Rome" as America.

I wonder if they've decided Russia will be a perfectly adequate "Rome" and figure blowing airline passengers up will be an effective way to lure Russia in.

If there is a massive confrontation at Dabiq or anywhere else my money is on Russia.

SOme background here:
http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2015/03/what-isis-really-wants/384980/

I'm not sure a final battle with IS will ever occur, as a guerilla force AQ/ISIS etc has defeated everyone else who's tried it on.
Russia were unable to defeat the mujahadeen in Afghanistan the last time they tried.
The Bedouin/ salafist militants in Sinai have been able to evade Sisi's attempts to root them out for years now, Israel could get involved, but they surely don't v want to destabilize the b region further.

I'm not sure a final battle with IS will ever occur, as a guerilla force AQ/ISIS etc has defeated everyone else who's tried it on.

If the article above is correct then AQ is an idea/flexible movement that cannot be defeated. In contrast ISIS is a physical state and without physical territory it no longer exists. ISIS is not a guerilla force. So if the article is correct you *could* defeat ISIS by taking its land.

Whether that's a good idea and whether you would just end up fighting other factions are different questions.

Question: How does ISIL pay for itself? My understanding is that it controls a number of oilfields and sells the product.
Why couldn't / hasn't the US or Russia eithe bomberd the fields or the pipelines to halt the ISIL cashflow?

And crude can be identified to a local field by its chemical signature. Surely clients buying it could be embargoed or otherwise penalised. Or is there another reason for maintaining ISIL ?

Oil will always have a buyer,

The oil companies keep tankers off Africa to buy back all the stuff nicked from their own pipelines

IS have also been selling looted artefacts, I think a Bible museum in the States just got into trouble for importing IS sourced clay tablets

IS obviously receive support through other avenues, of course it all gets a bit fuzzy as, ironically the Arab states we most suck up to happen to be the ones that channel IS the most $$

[img] [/img]

[img] [/img]

I might be mistaken however I believe that Turkey had been accused of buying oil without asking too many questions about it's source???

Turkey don't like IS, but then they are fighting the Kurds so let them off a bit
The Saudis and Qatar don't like IS, but then at least they are Sunni so, opposed to Shia Iran, so a lot of weapons have reached them (weapons we quite possible sold to Saudi, Qatar etc) that way.
Israel don't like IS, but then the IS associated salafist Jihadis in Sinai are rivals to Hamas, so they maintain an uneasy peace with them....

IS funding - in order of significance in my view

They captured the major bank in Mosel rumoured to have had a few billion in cash
Oil, yes lots of black market oil sales including through / to Turkey (very blind eye turned)
Hostage ransoms, eg France and Italy have paid for hostage releases (UK and US refuse to hence hostages executed)
Taxes - IS levy taxes especially on non-Muslims and Shia
"Charity fund raising" donations from outside Syria

@kimbers IMO Turkey cares quite little about IS as a threat but is very focused on the Kurds. Turkey is playing a cynical game turning a blind eye to 30,000 Jihadists travelling into Syria, asking for accelerated EU status negotiations in order for it to stop turning a blind eye for people smugglers shipping people to Greece and asking for a no fly zone over Kurdish Syria to stop the US supporting the Kurds. It's notable most of Turkeysmairstrikes have been against Kirds in Syria