Breaking news on Sky.....
"Expel the Turks
The Turks should be kicked out of NATO as soon as possible before this idiot Erdogan goes to far,and then we shall see who is playing with fire."
On the contrary. The Turks are standing up to the real aggressor and supporter of aggressors in the middle east. NATO should show backbone (and brains) in the way it supports Turkey and resists Vladimir's agenda. The Turkish shootdown was a miscalculation, but Russia is the aggressor and must be carefully restricted.
The Turks should be kicked out of NATO as soon as possible before this idiot Erdogan goes to far,and then we shall see who is playing with fire."
On the contrary. The Turks are standing up to the real aggressor and supporter of aggressors in the middle east. NATO should show backbone (and brains) in the way it supports Turkey and resists Vladimir's agenda. The Turkish shootdown was a miscalculation, but Russia is the aggressor and must be carefully restricted.
" The Turkish shootdown was a miscalculation, but Russia is the aggressor and must be carefully restricted. ". - I can't believe I just read that total contradiction of terms. Miscalculation ? You mean they got it wrong and an aviator, doing his job, attacking terrorists was killed as a result. And NATO should support the party in the wrong ? When did doing the wrong thing become the thing for "our side" to back? Are you a paid government spin doctor mate ?
smuj - Quite so.
GlobalNav,
I understand the US's historical perspective on this. Given that the US's principal strategic rival over many decades was the USSR, it made sense to ally with jihadists to harry the Soviets' southern flank and hinder their efforts to build alliances in the Middle East. It was a good strategy in as much as it achieved its primary aim and was compatible with good relations with the Saudis, which brought access to oil and helped the US's secondary post-WW2 aim of discouraging French and British colonialism in the region.
The trouble is, today, the Russians are no longer the principal grand strategic threat, certainly not to the US and not even to the Europeans. Putin's activities in Crimea and East Ukraine are significant roadblocks to normal relations with Europe, but no-one on this continent believes that his intentions are anything more than re-establishment of what he sees as Russia's historic zone of influence or buffer zone, whatever terminology you choose. Whether you think Russia is entitled to that is beside the point, and clearly where you reside in Europe has an effect. But the vast majority of us are not desperately unsettled by it; deterrence has prevented aggression against NATO members and, provided we maintain a credible deterrent (something the recent SDSR took care to address) then there is no reason why it should not continue to do so.
The problem for the US's tried-and-tested strategy is that its allies in the region, the Saudis and like-minded folk in Qatar and Turkey, are increasingly seen in Europe as "the problem" - indeed a grand strategic problem of far greater relevance to Western Europe than anything Moscow can threaten. The supplanting of traditional Islamic practices by Wahhabism, endorsed and exported with Saudi backing, has to a great extent underscored the current conflict in the Middle East and risks driving a wedge into societies wherever a significant Muslim minority exists. I offer that the US is better-placed than most to resist this effect thanks to its particular culture of patriotism and its small Muslim community. The same defences do not exist in Europe, where traditional patriotism has been dismantled over recent decades as a defence against nationalistic warfare, and where history, proximity and now a refugee crisis greatly complicate our relations with the Muslim world.
The result is that many of us are deeply uneasy over the US's strategy and worry that, through our traditional pro-US, anti-Russia, pro-Saudi, anti-Iran stances, and constrained by Turkish membership of NATO, we have got ourselves too firmly entrenched in the "Assad must go" camp to have any hope of meeting our strategic objectives at acceptable cost. Even the Daily Mail has not fallen for the "70,000 moderates" line. That is why we are very worried about our NATO treaty commitments dragging us into conflict with Russia when they seem, to many, to have a better grand strategy than we do. The parallels between the current mess and the system of alliances that helped bring about WW1 are quite uncomfortable.
GlobalNav,
I understand the US's historical perspective on this. Given that the US's principal strategic rival over many decades was the USSR, it made sense to ally with jihadists to harry the Soviets' southern flank and hinder their efforts to build alliances in the Middle East. It was a good strategy in as much as it achieved its primary aim and was compatible with good relations with the Saudis, which brought access to oil and helped the US's secondary post-WW2 aim of discouraging French and British colonialism in the region.
The trouble is, today, the Russians are no longer the principal grand strategic threat, certainly not to the US and not even to the Europeans. Putin's activities in Crimea and East Ukraine are significant roadblocks to normal relations with Europe, but no-one on this continent believes that his intentions are anything more than re-establishment of what he sees as Russia's historic zone of influence or buffer zone, whatever terminology you choose. Whether you think Russia is entitled to that is beside the point, and clearly where you reside in Europe has an effect. But the vast majority of us are not desperately unsettled by it; deterrence has prevented aggression against NATO members and, provided we maintain a credible deterrent (something the recent SDSR took care to address) then there is no reason why it should not continue to do so.
The problem for the US's tried-and-tested strategy is that its allies in the region, the Saudis and like-minded folk in Qatar and Turkey, are increasingly seen in Europe as "the problem" - indeed a grand strategic problem of far greater relevance to Western Europe than anything Moscow can threaten. The supplanting of traditional Islamic practices by Wahhabism, endorsed and exported with Saudi backing, has to a great extent underscored the current conflict in the Middle East and risks driving a wedge into societies wherever a significant Muslim minority exists. I offer that the US is better-placed than most to resist this effect thanks to its particular culture of patriotism and its small Muslim community. The same defences do not exist in Europe, where traditional patriotism has been dismantled over recent decades as a defence against nationalistic warfare, and where history, proximity and now a refugee crisis greatly complicate our relations with the Muslim world.
The result is that many of us are deeply uneasy over the US's strategy and worry that, through our traditional pro-US, anti-Russia, pro-Saudi, anti-Iran stances, and constrained by Turkish membership of NATO, we have got ourselves too firmly entrenched in the "Assad must go" camp to have any hope of meeting our strategic objectives at acceptable cost. Even the Daily Mail has not fallen for the "70,000 moderates" line. That is why we are very worried about our NATO treaty commitments dragging us into conflict with Russia when they seem, to many, to have a better grand strategy than we do. The parallels between the current mess and the system of alliances that helped bring about WW1 are quite uncomfortable.
Last edited by Easy Street; 29th Nov 2015 at 00:35.
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
@Phil, seconded, would that our media pundits and talking heads could be as concise.
You are utterly naive and ill-informed if you believe that Russia is not a major strategic threat to the West.
Nato thinks Russia is on par with Daesh
NATO Chief Names IS and Russia as Greatest Threats to Peace | News | The Moscow Times
Russia, views NATO as enemy number 1
https://www.rt.com/news/217823-putin...tary-doctrine/
Russia is not in Syria to fight 'terrorism' they are their to defend their strategic interests, Assad at this point but their naval base in reality. Syria is extremely important to them, its geographically close. But they are not there to fight Daesh and Russia is not our ally. Russia will will their situation to attack and weaken Nato.
Repeatedly overflying Turkey and bombing the border crossing were a deliberate policy to attack and weaken Nato. Divide and conquer via Hybrid Warfare is their goal.
The Russians believe the Holy Russia Empire is the descendant of the Roman Empire they are the want to rebuild their empire. Nato has been cast as The Nazi's and they see them selves as the rebuilt Soviet Empire with a heavy dose of Religious fanaticism added.
I think a nuclear armed nation who believes it has a divine right to rebuild its Empire, through the destruction of Godless, debauched savages (you) is more of a threat than IS.
Nato thinks Russia is on par with Daesh
NATO Chief Names IS and Russia as Greatest Threats to Peace | News | The Moscow Times
Russia, views NATO as enemy number 1
https://www.rt.com/news/217823-putin...tary-doctrine/
Russia is not in Syria to fight 'terrorism' they are their to defend their strategic interests, Assad at this point but their naval base in reality. Syria is extremely important to them, its geographically close. But they are not there to fight Daesh and Russia is not our ally. Russia will will their situation to attack and weaken Nato.
Repeatedly overflying Turkey and bombing the border crossing were a deliberate policy to attack and weaken Nato. Divide and conquer via Hybrid Warfare is their goal.
The Russians believe the Holy Russia Empire is the descendant of the Roman Empire they are the want to rebuild their empire. Nato has been cast as The Nazi's and they see them selves as the rebuilt Soviet Empire with a heavy dose of Religious fanaticism added.
I think a nuclear armed nation who believes it has a divine right to rebuild its Empire, through the destruction of Godless, debauched savages (you) is more of a threat than IS.
Yes, excellent post ES. The logic of which seems to be that Saudi Arabia, and certain other Gulf States, are the real threat to world security, rather than various gangs of their proxy thugs.
I have posted elsewhere that if we can embargo other "rogue states" such as N Korea, South Africa, and Myanmar, then logic would suggest the same applies here, if a UN resolution to that effect can be obtained. That of course would immediately deny us of their oil, which in turn would have very serious economic repercussions. It would indeed be a "courageous decision, Prime Minister", but anything less will simply be a re-run of all the other Middle East adventures and turn out for the worse rather than the better I would suggest.
I have posted elsewhere that if we can embargo other "rogue states" such as N Korea, South Africa, and Myanmar, then logic would suggest the same applies here, if a UN resolution to that effect can be obtained. That of course would immediately deny us of their oil, which in turn would have very serious economic repercussions. It would indeed be a "courageous decision, Prime Minister", but anything less will simply be a re-run of all the other Middle East adventures and turn out for the worse rather than the better I would suggest.
Chugalug2,
Totally agree with your appraisal, and our apparent slavish adherence to the House of Saud's direction, with regard to Middle East involvement since 2003. With the Bliar as the prime example, there's no doubt that politicians in the correct positions can do well for their bank accounts. No wonder Cameron is such a tosser.
Smudge
Totally agree with your appraisal, and our apparent slavish adherence to the House of Saud's direction, with regard to Middle East involvement since 2003. With the Bliar as the prime example, there's no doubt that politicians in the correct positions can do well for their bank accounts. No wonder Cameron is such a tosser.
Smudge
I, too, am not enthusiastic about the US "strategy" in the Middle East, or rather, lately, the practical lack of one. Nor am I enthusiastic about the ill-fated strategy attempted by the US in Iraq and Afganistan. I believe we do need to go after our enemies, but that doesn't include "nation-building" on the premise of "fix what you broke." Let the natives build their own country and if the result is a dangerous enemy of the free world, then suffer the consequences. We stuck around in Iraq and Afganistan thinking we could change their hearts and minds and have them secure their own government. Sorry, they have a different set of values and we won't and shouldn't try to change that. Not much of what the US created and propped up lasted after we left.
Perhaps, Easy Steeet is correct that Russia is not the number one strategic threat. But I think Putin wouldn't mind changing that, and if the truth be known, he is in the background fomenting many anti- west activities in this world, including particularly those of Iran. He is a bigger threat than is obvious. I believe his objective is to restore super-power status of Russia, and do that primarily by undermining the welfare of the US and her allies. He needs to be consistently resisted because he promotes international insecurity. This is evidenced by the lack of a single true peace-seeking action from that country. Crimea, Ukraine, and even the remainder of former Soviet/Warsaw Pact states have no doubt about Vladimir's designs. We ignore them at our peril.
Perhaps, Easy Steeet is correct that Russia is not the number one strategic threat. But I think Putin wouldn't mind changing that, and if the truth be known, he is in the background fomenting many anti- west activities in this world, including particularly those of Iran. He is a bigger threat than is obvious. I believe his objective is to restore super-power status of Russia, and do that primarily by undermining the welfare of the US and her allies. He needs to be consistently resisted because he promotes international insecurity. This is evidenced by the lack of a single true peace-seeking action from that country. Crimea, Ukraine, and even the remainder of former Soviet/Warsaw Pact states have no doubt about Vladimir's designs. We ignore them at our peril.
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Here and there. Here at the moment but soon I'll be there.
Posts: 758
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Unsurprisingly it looks like the Russians are arming their SU-34 with air-to-air capability. I don't understand a word of this video, anyone out there care to translate the gist of it?
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=cc0_1448898886
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=cc0_1448898886
