The Russian/Syrian connection thread

[BC]

BC,

Don't discredit yourself.  Controlled fusion?   Come on!   

http://www.iter.org/proj/inafewlines

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Ignition_Facility

Other projects and info here:

http://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/current-and-future-generation/nuclear-fusion-power.aspx

No, it's not that guy claiming cold fusion in his basement.  Some serious efforts going on.

[jone]

I believe we will have regular space flight to other planets before we have fusion driven cars.

[Boethius]

The CCCP collapsed in large part due to the costly war in Afghanistan.  The US CIA ran covert operations to stir up the  Mujahideen, prompting the Soviets to invade Afghanistan to support the dictator in power.   Is Syria a similar "trap" for the Russians?    There are differences, yet there are important similarities.

No, the USSR would have collapsed even without the invasion of Afghanistan. 

The Soviets invaded before the CIA ran covert operations.  The CIA did analyze Afghanistan before the Soviet invasion, when Taraki seized power.  There was already opposition to him, because of (a) tribal differences; and (b) human rights abuses, and that lead to the mujahadeen rebelling against him. 

Brezhnev insisted on invading Afghanistan, against the advise of both the KGB and the GRU.  It was then that the US trained the mujahadeen.

The Soviet economy was stagnating even before the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan.  It had been stagnating since the 1950's, and was only kept afloat with oil sales and arms deals.  The collapse of oil prices in the 1980's probably had more to do with the collapse than the cost of the war in Afghanistan.  That, and outside factors, such as Eastern Europe not being kept in check, the influence of Pope John Paul, Reagan's arm's escalation, and the flaws in the KGB's "Khrushchev redux", Gorbachev, and so called "perestroika", including not foreseeing a Yeltsin.

[Gator]

I believe we will have regular space flight to other planets before we have fusion driven cars.

I thought the cars of the future would be driverless.  Why do we need a fusion to drive our cars?  Who or what is this fusion thing?  Can you buy one at Amazon?  Can I now see a fusion from my home?

                                  [My attempt at your style of humor ]

[Gator]

No, the USSR would have collapsed even without the invasion of Afghanistan. 

Boethius, I know just enough to get into trouble, especially about the reasons why the CCCP collapsed.  My main point when I first mentioned this is that Putin must proceed carefully in Syria or he may create the equivalent of a second Afghanistan for Russia.  Few tribes are aligned with Putin's man Assad. 


The CCCP was doomed to collapse eventually,  yet  Afghanistan was to the Soviets the equivalent of power workout to an elderly man with a weak heart.  The damage had already been done, yet the cost of fighting a losing war accelerated the inevitable.

The Soviets invaded before the CIA ran covert operations.  The CIA did analyze Afghanistan before the Soviet invasion, when Taraki seized power.  There was already opposition to him, because of (a) tribal differences; and (b) human rights abuses, and that lead to the mujahadeen rebelling against him. 

You are correct that Charlie Wison and  Philip Seymour Hoffman did not get started with the muj  until a year or two after the Soviet military was invited by the Afghan government.  Charlie and Gust eventually developed the largest-ever CIA covert operation. 

Regarding my point, in the 1960s and 70s the Peace Corps and USAID operated programs in Afghanistan.  I saw them during my little holiday in western Afghanistan (bus ride from Iran).   I guarantee that if these two organizations were there, the CIA was there too, albeit very small. 

Around the time the Shah in Iran was facing increasing opposition, Afghanistan went through some bloody regime changes.  A socialist eventually came to power and attempted to change the country in ways that angered the fundamental Islamists, starting a civil war.  I can not find any report of this, yet rumor has it that our little CIA operation helped the Pashtun conservatives.  It may have been nothing more than arms deliveries from Pakistan.   I feel confident that the CIA was doing something, and the "something" maybe altered nothing as Taliban type fundamentalists would have fought the socialist leader with or without our help.  The fundamentalists evidently were enough of a threat to force the Soviets to save their ally.  [Sound familiar to Syria?]   

It had been stagnating since the 1950's, and was only kept afloat with oil sales and arms deals.  The collapse of oil prices in the 1980's probably had more to do with the collapse than the cost of the war in Afghanistan.

 

[Sound familiar to today's Russia?]

[Boethius]

Boethius, I know just enough to get into trouble, especially about the reasons why the CCCP collapsed.  My main point when I first mentioned this is that Putin must proceed carefully in Syria or he may create the equivalent of a second Afghanistan for Russia.  Few tribes are aligned with Putin's man Assad. 

Unlike Afghanistan, there are no significant troops on the ground in Syria.  I don't think there is an equivalency there.  However, military spending, to the detriment of spending on infrastructure and social programmes, could be an issue. 

I don't know if we can compare things to the USSR.  In the case of the USSR, the elites believed they could continue to control the program.  My husband told me, 11 months before the failed coup, that the USSR would collapse within a year.  He saw it from everything around him, and from reading papers and watching the evening news.  He said when they started glorifying Pinochet, he knew the end was at hand.

[Gator]

Surely trust is an issue, in fact THE issue on all sides.  As for Putin one should of course be wary.  One has to try and clearly understand his goals and then decide to work either for or against him along with having one's own 'end game' that is not just a simple stop sign here or there.  Here's a very interesting article I stumbled across this morning:

http://www.meforum.org/5876/why-putin-wants-syria  It is a bit long but well worth the time to digest.

It has so much substance, it took me a long time to read it.  Very informative analysis, especially from the perspective and history of Russia.  It is recommended reading for anyone interested in Russia's history, especially expansion in the Black Sea region and beyond.  I appreciate your posting it, especially knowing it was critical of Obama (and Hillary by default).  More later.   
 

Regarding oil prices it seems that low production cost countries / OPEC / RU / IQ / IR and independent producers will attempt to keep their pricing right below US production costs.  This maximizes their profits.  While the US/CA can produce plenty of oil, the resulting profits will likely be much lower.  Economic might is a huge part of 'Power' in military and political terms.  Putin would not have been in a position to act as he did without a long period of high petro prices that allowed him to spend a ton on rebuilding military might or at least getting 'ship shape'.  So yes, the US will have plenty of oil, but at low profits whilst allowing other producers to profit more handsomely thus gaining more relative 'Power', even factoring in higher production costs on both sides.

Given the US economy is 17x greater than Russia's, the change in relative "power"  is hardly changed even if oil prices double.  Yet to Russia, with 60% of Russia's budget deriving from energy revenue, oil prices are far more important.   

Unlike Russia,  US does not derive a mineral extraction tax for production of oil.  Federal income taxes on the energy industry, a large part of the economy, is about the only direct link.  In fact, lower rather than higher oil prices may be more beneficial to the overall US economy in the form of savings to the consumer from cheaper gasoline, lower utility bills, etc. 

As an aside, the US could gain considerable edge in this argument by investing heavily in building the most awesome electric cars and trucks, along with nuclear and alternative energy resources on a much greater scale and future technologies such as controlled fusion.  This should be THE national plan, comparable with Kennedy announcing we will go to the moon and back. These are all achievable goals and I am sure we have the technological know how to do it if only we can get past the petro lobby.

Obama spent considerable R&D funds on clean energy.  IMO it is better if the market develops it.
 

Turkey does have a good bit of wealth, quite industrious with a solid manufacturing base. I wouldn't call them whores but yes I do wonder about their political future.  Maybe you or Bill can expound on the whore part as I don't quite 'get it'.

     
I looked up 2tallbill's comment.  He did not call Turkey a whore (I apologize).  He said "Turkey is back to their historical role of sitting in the middle and getting payola from both sides. The Black Sea is a lake without Turkey and team Obama always look to pay money first, second and third any time something comes up. Guess what? Things will keep coming up. "  Not a prostitute but taking money from all sides for a piece of Turkey, whatever than makes them.   

It's not about being involved, but instead how that involvement is formed.  I'll support every diplomatic and economic efforts possible, but I don't support covert CIA and other actions that attempt to disrupt political systems from the outside.

The US mainly acts in it's own interests and that's ok with me as long as we take the high road and do not try and force our ideology upon others.  Let them learn by example.

Again, I responded to the thought that you seem to be justifying Russia's actions.   My point is even after our decades of involvement throughout the Middle East, not one country in the region fears the US. 

I don't believe so.. as the article seems to point out, Putin is quite flexible and adept to avoid past failures and pitfalls.  Some may call him a dictator, but I see him more as a very smart and astute leader that is unencumbered by a burdensome political system.  Yes he pushes limits in the strategic interests of RU and will take advantage of every opportunity presented.  He is showing that RU can stand on the world stage regardless if others like it or not.

You opinion is opposite the position taken by Tim Kaine when  criticizing Trump's remarks about Putin being a strong leader.  I agree with your position, except I add McCain's characterization that Putin is a "thug and murderer."   Tim Kaine suggested Trump needs to retake 5th grade civics. 

[Anotherkiwi]

...You are correct that Charlie Wison and  Philip Seymour Hoffman did not get started with the muj  until a year or two after the Soviet military was invited by the Afghan government.  Charlie and Gust eventually developed the largest-ever CIA covert operation.

You are kidding, right? 

[jone]

You are kidding, right? 

You did see him name him Gust in the next sentence.   I think  Gator is pulling your leg, AK.  I don't know where he gets such an odd sense of humor from.  Must be hanging around the wrong people.

[Gator]

In a recent interview published October 2, President Obama talked about his decision making process during his eight years.  He chose five issues "he believes, will have outsized historical impact."  The issues included the Republicans, Obamacare, BP Oil Spill, Cuba, and Drones.  He touched on Syria. 


http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2016/10/barack-obama-on-5-days-that-shaped-his-presidency.html

Obama states he basically followed his own judgment because of incoherent advice,  analysis and posturing from Washington.   

So much so that at a certain point the whole foreign­-policy debate in this town got so scrambled that in some ways it was liberating for me. You start realizing at a certain point, well, folks aren’t even trying to be consistent. They’re not even trying to be fair-minded in their assessments or recommendations. In which case the best thing for me to do is to try to figure out what the right thing to do is and just do it, and worry later about how Washington is grading me.

That was a valuable lesson. It was a valuable lesson in two ways. One, because it taught me to trust my judgment. Two, it taught me that I had to be self-critical and build a structure for effective, constructive criticism of decisions I might make, and make sure all viewpoints were heard, because frankly, I just couldn’t trust the noise out there. And if you examined a bunch of the decisions that we made subsequently, whether it was the decision to be part of the international coalition to stop Gaddafi from killing his own people or the decision to go after bin Laden, but most prominently I think the decisions around Syria after Assad used chemical weapons — in these various decisions, part of what I tried to institutionalize is a really rigorous process internally. But also an insistence than I’m not going to simply accept whatever the playbook was here in Washington, in part because it was often incoherent.

And this is what Obama had to say about his decisions affecting Syria.

You take the case of Syria, which has been chewed over a lot. But it continues to puzzle me, the degree to which people seem to forget that we actually got the chemical weapons out of Syria. The notion seems to be that, “Well, you should have blown something up, even if that didn’t mean that you got chemical weapons out.” There continues to be, I think, a lack of examination of the fact that my decision was not to let Assad do whatever he wanted. My decision was to see if we could broker a deal without a strike to get those chemical weapons out, and to go to Congress to ask for authorization, because nowhere has Congress been more incoherent than when it comes to the powers I have. You had people, I think, like Marco Rubio, who was complaining about us not doing anything, and when I said, “I’m gonna present to Congress,” suddenly he said, “Well, I’m gonna vote against it.” Maybe it was Ted Cruz. Maybe both. They’re all over the map. The primary principle—and this is not true for all of them, but for many of them—was “Just make sure that we don’t get blamed for whatever decision you make.”

Obama did not discuss the deteriorating Syria situation in the three years  after his chemical weapons decision, how a continuing conflict has killed hundreds of thousands of civilians, created millions and millions of refugees, allowed Russia to become the lone Superpower in the Middle East, and moved the US to an ineffectual position.


Later I will present another opinion of what happened in Syria, the opinion of scholars who know Russia fairly well.     

[Gator]

Yesterday I mentioned how Obama self-applauded his role in removing chemical weapons from Syria three years ago, yet mentioned nothing about how the civil war has since deteriorated into a near cataclysm.

This is the opinion of two analysts with an in-depth understanding of Russian foreign policy.  It comes from the article referenced by BC. 

http://www.meforum.org/5876/why-putin-wants-syria

In summary, Obama withdraws from Iraq, greatly weakening the US presence in the region.  Obama threatens a military attack against Assad for using chemical weapons.   Putin warns Obama not to attack Assad even though Putin's military is inferior to the US military in the region.  Obama does not call Putin's bluff.  A chain of events unfolds:  annexation of Crimea, rebellion in SE Ukraine to threaten Ukraine's aim to embrace the West, the nuclear treaty with the US brokered in part by Putin enables Iran to buy Russian weapons, Merkel sees the US as playing a minor role in Syria, Russia deploys its ground and air forces into Syria to support Assad, Russia is allied in Syria with Iran and the Hezbollah, Assad's ground troops go on the offensive, and the widespread killing of civilians continues.  

Putin intervened in Syria because of his goal to regain Russia's prominence as a world power and to protect national security and commercial interests.   So why is Syria a part of Russia's security and commercial interests?  Three reasons:

     1.  Syria is important to keep open Russian sea routes to the Mediterranean because of the Russian navy base in the Syrian port of Tartus, where Putin has spent billions in renovation since 2009.  The same as Putin did not want to lose Sevastopol in Ukraine and Ochampchire in Georgia, he does not want to lose Tartus.

     2.  Gas pipelines are another consideration as BC explained.  Assad had turned down a Qatar pipeline to serve Europe that would have competed with Russian gas.

     3.  Putin had approved the UN resolution about protecting Libyan civilians from Gaddafi,  and later felt misled when the US and NATO used it for regime change,  quickly ushering in chaos.   

Before the chemical weapons incident in Syria, Putin had done little other than supply military weapons to Assad.  That changed.

On August 21, 2013, the Syrian regime was reported to have used chemical warfare on rebel enclaves, killing some 1,300 civilians. With this atrocity, Assad appeared to have crossed President Obama's "red line" on chemical weapons and risked a strong U.S. response..... on August 27, Washington deployed four destroyers near the Syrian coast equipped with Tomahawk Cruise missiles whose initial mission was to punish the Syrian regime.

...With U.S. forces so close, Putin decided not to permit regime change in Damascus as he had in Tripoli. Still, he must have understood that direct confrontation between his navy and the superior U.S. forces was not a smart choice for Russia. Rear Adm. Vladimir Komoyedov....confirmed this and warned that the Russian navy could not match the U.S. Navy in the eastern Mediterranean.

Putin, however, also wagered that Obama would not opt for a direct confrontation with Russia. Thus, sailing to the fray were some aged Russian navy ships. But equipped with modern rocket systems and nuclear torpedoes, even an old ship can be formidable. Russia also mobilized its armed forces, as did Iran's Revolutionary Guards, while Moscow's foreign ministry warned that U.S. intervention in Syria could have "catastrophic consequences."

On August 27, as Obama met with the three leaders of the Baltic republics, .... the Head of the Baltics section of the Moscow Institute, CIS, ....suggested that in the event of a U.S. attack on Syria, Russia should invade the Baltic states, claiming that "half of the population of Latvia and Estonia will meet the Russian troops with flowers as it was in 1940."
 
Putin's deterrence, pressures, and public diplomacy—he even went so far as to write a New York Times op-ed—must have ultimately worked. Obama backed down, as Putin foresaw. The Russian president then helped his counterpart to defuse the crisis by brokering a deal to help Assad get rid of his chemical weapons.

In summary, Putin bluffed Obama, and Obama did not call his bluff.   Yet Obama explains it away by saying chemical weapons were removed.   More important, Putin felt emboldened.   Putin soon annexed Crimea and, to create a land bridge, fostered a rebellion in SE Ukraine.     And the West's response was sanctions, which Russia so far has managed to endure.

Related to Russia's intervention in Syria is the US nuclear treaty with Iran.   

Like Syria, [Iran] has been buying Russian weapons systems, engaging in cooperative pipeline projects, and buying nuclear power plants. The conclusion of the U.S.-Iran nuclear deal on July 14, 2015, in Vienna was also a game-changer. Putin, having helped Obama broker the deal, had waited to make any Syria decision until the agreement was concluded. Now, with the deal done and Iran sanctions soon to be lifted, Tehran could readily pay for Russia's long-range S-300 anti-aircraft system. Putin also hoped that, now, Iran-U.S. relations would improve, making it easier for Russia to work with Iran and Hezbollah to protect Assad.

Indirect support for Putin was also coming in diplomatic channels.   In discussing the huge refugee issue in Europe, Merkel made a statement in September 2015 that revealed her conclusion that "the United States under Obama had ceased to be the indispensable power."  Merkel said in a Washington Post report: 

      We have to speak with many actors, this includes Assad, but others as well. Not only with the United States of America, Russia, but with important regional partners, Iran, and Sunni countries such as Saudi Arabia.

A few days later,  Putin deployed ground and air forces to Syria, realizing Assad would fall without support.  Assad did not fall due to support from Russia s well as from Iran and Hezbollah too.   Assad is now on the offensive to take back territory occupied by Syrian rebel groups. 

[jone]

Assad is now on the offensive to take back territory occupied by Syrian rebel groups.

You have a way of understating genocide.   

[Gator]

The second ceasefire declared by Syria and Russia seems to be holding.  A historical study of ceasefires shows most collapse.  Yet, if a second, third,...ceasefire is attempted, the prospects improve for long term peace.   

The Russians are deploying more forces to the region.  Now steaming through the English Channel headed south is Russia's lone aircraft carrier.  Note the black smoke.  This is close to a joke.  The New York Times referred to it as, "...previously known more as a threat to its crew than anything else."  Is Putin trying to bluff Obama again?

[alex330]

Now steaming through the English Channel headed south is Russia's lone aircraft carrier.  Note the black smoke.  This is close to a joke.  The New York Times referred to it as, "...previously known more as a threat to its crew than anything else."  Is Putin trying to bluff Obama again?

Their aircraft carrier is a joke. Outdated and prone to frequent breakdowns.

[BillyB]

Their aircraft carrier is a joke. Outdated and prone to frequent breakdowns.

Yeah but when the bombs land on your head, does the quality of the runway the bomber took off from really matter? The aircraft carrier isn't going to sink because America isn't going to stop Russia's escalation of military equipment in order to close out the Syrian war. Ceasefires are agreed on only to get the other side(America) to pause our activities.

[alex330]

Yeah but when the bombs land on your head, does the quality of the runway the bomber took off from really matter? The aircraft carrier isn't going to sink because America isn't going to stop Russia's escalation of military equipment in order to close out the Syrian war. Ceasefires are agreed on only to get the other side(America) to pause our activities.

It is all show.


"The fighters must stay light, meaning they can carry only a few air-to-air missiles and a partial fuel load. Their patrol endurance is measured in minutes rather than hours."

[jone]

The second ceasefire declared by Syria and Russia seems to be holding.  A historical study of ceasefires shows most collapse.  Yet, if a second, third,...ceasefire is attempted, the prospects improve for long term peace.   

The Russians are deploying more forces to the region.  Now steaming through the English Channel headed south is Russia's lone aircraft carrier.  Note the black smoke.  This is close to a joke.  The New York Times referred to it as, "...previously known more as a threat to its crew than anything else."  Is Putin trying to bluff Obama again?

That black smoke, what are they doing, going to Rome to elect a new Pope?

[2tallbill]

Note I am copying this post to the Global Warming thread in case anyone
else is interested in posting things about fusion cars, time travel, or realistic
liberal solutions to real world problems or other oxymoronic ideas 

I believe we will have regular space flight to other planets before we have fusion driven cars.

I believe that we will have pixie dust powered vehicles before we have a single
Solar or wind farm that produces a profit without government subsidies.

Future car from a publication in 1957



Self Driving car that actually exists 2016. I don't think that the 2tall family will be playing
dominoes with Mini Me in it anytime soon.  Actually if I got in that car they might have
to use the jaws of life to get me back out



Here is the one that pisses me off the most. We were supposed to have flying cars by
now and I was supposed to be swooping around with Angel Eyes and our dog Astro

[BillyB]

Since Obama was foolish to notify the enemy we're going to attack them in Mosul. ISIS has executed hundreds of people and dumped them in a mass grave. ISIS is keeping others alive to use as human shields against the attack. Since they knew we'd be busy in Mosul, ISIS has advanced closer to Baghdad by attacking Kirkuk.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/10/21/middleeast/iraq-kirkuk-attacks/
That black smoke, what are they doing, going to Rome to elect a new Pope?

[/quote]

Nah, they know we're in a difficult war against pollution so they are making our fight even more difficult. The media chose a photo that gives the readers the impression the ship isn't running very well. I've seen photos of the ship sailing without the smoke. Usually diesel motors smoke when the engine is under a big load and will burn cleaner under less stress. I also suspect Russia wanted the make their presence known sailing through the English Channel. Also issuing insult. The equivalent of passing by people you don't like and farting.

[Gator]

Rumor says Trump has little interest in Syria other than the destruction of ISIS. 

In other words, the US will not help Aleppo militarily, Assad will stay in power, Russia remains the largest military power in the Middle East, and Iran is unchecked on this front. 

Personally, I would like to see Trump negotiate some autonomy for the Kurds who are leading part of the battle against ISIS.   Thorny issue considering Turkey does not want the Kurds to have an independent state. 

[fathertime]

I hope Trump sends these two to Syria first!  The plan argues for among other things, covert US involvment to unseat Assad.  As if all other countries in the region with more pressing interests are just going to sit idly by and watch the USA being the determining factor in Syria.  I'm pretty sure Trump will have none of their great plan for US military intervention....I think there was a stronger chance that Hillary might have bit though...

Albright, Hadley urge U.S. to weigh using more force in Syria



The United States should prepare to use greater military power and covert action in Syria to help forge a political settlement to end the country's civil war, according to a bipartisan report to be released on Wednesday.

Produced by a task force led by former U.S. Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, a Democrat, and former U.S. National Security Adviser Stephen Hadley, a Republican, the report amounts to a bipartisan rejection of President Barack Obama's decision to limit U.S. military engagement in the nearly six-year civil war.

Largely drafted before Republican Donald Trump's victory over Democrat Hillary Clinton in the Nov. 8 U.S. presidential election, the paper, which...

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-mideas%E2%80%A6ort-idUSKBN13O2MS
Fathertime! 

[Gator]

Something we have been discussing for a  long time as inevitable


"Aleppo is Obama's Legacy" -  Charles Krauthammer. 


"Bloodbath in Aleppo will haunt humanity" - Washington Post editorial

Above all, Aleppo represents a meltdown of the West’s moral and political will — and in particular, a collapse of U.S. leadership. By refusing to intervene against the Assad regime’s atrocities, or even to enforce the “red line” he declared on the use of chemical weapons, President Obama created a vacuum that was filled by Vladimir Putin and Iran’s Revolutionary Guard.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/global-opinions/the-bloodbath-in-aleppo-will-haunt-humanity/2016/12/14/ffe0d646-c22a-11e6-9a51-cd56ea1c2bb7_story.html?utm_term=.a432c042c608

[Boethius]

I am not certain the Obama administration can be blamed.  Other than no fly zones, what was the option?  Sending in American troops?  What is the US advantage in that?  Given that the opposition is now primarily Sunni Islamists, what is the advantage to the West in defeating the Assad regime and installing another Sunni Islamist one?

Yemen, incidentally, is even more vicious than Syria.  But we don't hear much about it, as it's so bad, journalists aren't even covering it.

[Boethius]

I'll also state that this should tell us something about how much Russia respects human rights.  Obliterate apartment buildings, hospitals, even schools full of civilians.  It doesn't matter if civilians die en masse.  That type of scorched earth policy was used in Chechnya as well.

[GQBlues]

The US have absolutely no business here, or in any other regions of conflict. Period.

All of these are matters fit for the United Nations' disposition. That's what that organization is for, and if I may add, the international community's wishes as they kept harping about that the US have absolutely no right to act unilaterally in any of these international affair/s. IINM, there is no UN Resolution allowing the US to militarily assist any of these countries in conflict. NONE!

Send in diplomats, Europeans always say...Blame them.

May Americans ALWAYS remember Afghanistan/Iraq! In these matters, I (no longer can) can't put the blame on Obama.