|
|
Post by desman2 on Oct 10, 2015 1:46:42 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 10, 2015 7:09:51 GMT
About time someone stood up to them
altho it's probably playing into their hands
|
|
|
|
Post by bathstoke on Oct 10, 2015 7:13:33 GMT
I can't find any corroboration to verify this story
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 10, 2015 7:19:25 GMT
I can't find any corroboration to verify this story Just a few tweets at the mo |
|
|
|
Post by partickpotter on Oct 10, 2015 7:20:24 GMT
I wouldn't be surprised that this turns out to be a crash caused by plane failure rather than Turkish guns (even if it isn't, if you get what I mean). In other words diplomacy will look to minimise the incident.
What I find interesting (worrying) is this is the latest sign of the Great Bear weakening from its long slumber. Cowed by the catastrophe of Afghanistan in the '80s and the collapse if the Soviet Union in the '90s, Russia is now seeking to regain its position as the global superpower it was for decades after the Second World War.
They took their first steps internally surpressing Chechnya, partly using the West's War on Terrorism as a Flag of Convinience to provide legitimacy, now they are using the same trick (it seems to me) in Syria; using the war against ISIS to pursue a narrow Russian interest in the region, upholding their long term ally Assad.
In other words, as also seen with Ukraine, Russia seems to have regained the confidence to become militarily active outside its borders.
Return of the Cold War?
|
|
|
|
Post by Etain Tur-Mukan on Oct 10, 2015 7:21:49 GMT
If confirmed...trouble ahead :(
|
|
|
|
Post by harryburrows on Oct 10, 2015 7:23:56 GMT
Economic sanctions will do the trick . As long as they promise not to shut down europes gas supply
|
|
|
|
Post by The Drunken Communist on Oct 10, 2015 7:49:48 GMT
Can't see anything on BBC, Sky or Al Jazeera. I find it hard to believe Turkey would be so reckless as to shoot a plane down either, you know how these things play out, they'd just escort it out of their airspace & some diplomat would get a slap on the wrist.
Sounds like propaganda to me.... And untill it got confirmed by Russia I wouldn't change that view point.
|
|
|
|
Post by derrida1437 on Oct 10, 2015 8:12:08 GMT
I wouldn't be surprised that this turns out to be a crash caused by plane failure rather than Turkish guns (even if it isn't, if you get what I mean). In other words diplomacy will look to minimise the incident. What I find interesting (worrying) is this is the latest sign of the Great Bear weakening from its long slumber. Cowed by the catastrophe of Afghanistan in the '80s and the collapse if the Soviet Union in the '90s, Russia is now seeking to regain its position as the global superpower it was for decades after the Second World War. They took their first steps internally surpressing Chechnya, partly using the West's War on Terrorism as a Flag of Convinience to provide legitimacy, now they are using the same trick (it seems to me) in Syria; using the war against ISIS to pursue a narrow Russian interest in the region, upholding their long term ally Assad. In other words, as also seen with Ukraine, Russia seems to have regained the confidence to become militarily active outside its borders. Return of the Cold War? That's not really how most observers are looking at it. Putin has just followed fairly easy to achieve objectives that played to Russia’s modest strengths. In Ukraine, Russia had one goal: to prevent that country from moving closer to the EU, eventually becoming a full member, and then joining NATO. Putin wasn’t interested in trying to reincorporate all of Ukraine or turn it into a clone of Russia, and the “frozen conflict” that now exists there is sufficient to achieve that. Such a negative objective was not that hard to accomplish because Ukraine was corrupt, internally divided, and right next door to Russia. Putin’s goals in Syria are simple. He wants to preserve the Assad regime so that it remains a sphere of Russian influence and a part of any future political settlement. "He doesn't want to conquer Syria, restore the Alawites to full control over the entire country, defeat the Islamic State, or eliminate all Iranian influence. And he’s certainly not building democracy there. A limited deployment of Russian airpower and a handful of “volunteers” may suffice to keep Assad from being defeated, especially if the US and others eventually adopt a more realistic approach to the conflict as well."There is hypocrisy here, too; Russia is acting the same way the US has long acted when dealing with the West. US policy in Syria is just wishful thinking and muddled. The US has been trying to achieve a series of difficult and incompatible goals. It says, “Assad must go,” but doesn’t want any jihadi groups (i.e., the only people who are really fighting Assad) to replace him. It's illogical. At best. "Because Russia is much weaker than the United States (and destined to grow even weaker over time), it has to play its remaining cards carefully and pursue only vital objectives that are achievable at modest cost. The United States has vastly more resources to throw at global problems, and its favorable geopolitical position allows it to avoid most of the repercussions of its mistakes. Add to that the tendency of both neoconservatives and liberal internationalists to believe that spreading the gospel of “freedom” around the world is necessary, easy to do, and won’t generate unintended consequences or serious resistance, and you have a recipe for an overly ambitious yet under-resourced set of policy initiatives. Needless to say, this is the perfect recipe for recurring failure."foreignpolicy.com/2015/10/09/who-is-a-better-strategist-obama-or-putin/ |
|
|
|
Post by stokeharry on Oct 10, 2015 8:22:37 GMT
Shame the Russians don't nuke the bastards
|
|
|
|
Post by partickpotter on Oct 10, 2015 9:36:53 GMT
I wouldn't be surprised that this turns out to be a crash caused by plane failure rather than Turkish guns (even if it isn't, if you get what I mean). In other words diplomacy will look to minimise the incident. What I find interesting (worrying) is this is the latest sign of the Great Bear weakening from its long slumber. Cowed by the catastrophe of Afghanistan in the '80s and the collapse if the Soviet Union in the '90s, Russia is now seeking to regain its position as the global superpower it was for decades after the Second World War. They took their first steps internally surpressing Chechnya, partly using the West's War on Terrorism as a Flag of Convinience to provide legitimacy, now they are using the same trick (it seems to me) in Syria; using the war against ISIS to pursue a narrow Russian interest in the region, upholding their long term ally Assad. In other words, as also seen with Ukraine, Russia seems to have regained the confidence to become militarily active outside its borders. Return of the Cold War? That's not really how most observers are looking at it. Putin has just followed fairly easy to achieve objectives that played to Russia’s modest strengths. In Ukraine, Russia had one goal: to prevent that country from moving closer to the EU, eventually becoming a full member, and then joining NATO. Putin wasn’t interested in trying to reincorporate all of Ukraine or turn it into a clone of Russia, and the “frozen conflict” that now exists there is sufficient to achieve that. Such a negative objective was not that hard to accomplish because Ukraine was corrupt, internally divided, and right next door to Russia. Putin’s goals in Syria are simple. He wants to preserve the Assad regime so that it remains a sphere of Russian influence and a part of any future political settlement. "He doesn't want to conquer Syria, restore the Alawites to full control over the entire country, defeat the Islamic State, or eliminate all Iranian influence. And he’s certainly not building democracy there. A limited deployment of Russian airpower and a handful of “volunteers” may suffice to keep Assad from being defeated, especially if the US and others eventually adopt a more realistic approach to the conflict as well."There is hypocrisy here, too; Russia is acting the same way the US has long acted when dealing with the West. US policy in Syria is just wishful thinking and muddled. The US has been trying to achieve a series of difficult and incompatible goals. It says, “Assad must go,” but doesn’t want any jihadi groups (i.e., the only people who are really fighting Assad) to replace him. It's illogical. At best. "Because Russia is much weaker than the United States (and destined to grow even weaker over time), it has to play its remaining cards carefully and pursue only vital objectives that are achievable at modest cost. The United States has vastly more resources to throw at global problems, and its favorable geopolitical position allows it to avoid most of the repercussions of its mistakes. Add to that the tendency of both neoconservatives and liberal internationalists to believe that spreading the gospel of “freedom” around the world is necessary, easy to do, and won’t generate unintended consequences or serious resistance, and you have a recipe for an overly ambitious yet under-resourced set of policy initiatives. Needless to say, this is the perfect recipe for recurring failure."foreignpolicy.com/2015/10/09/who-is-a-better-strategist-obama-or-putin/I've no idea how you know "how most observers are looking at it". What you really mean (and excuse me for putting words in your mouth) is "I've some other perspectives that I've found articles I can cut and paste supporting opinions from". Fair enough. There's many ways of looking at what's going on. And, as always, no single truth. No need to try and diminish other people's observations. |
|
|
|
Post by partickpotter on Oct 10, 2015 9:42:23 GMT
Shame Russian don't nuke the bastards Which bastards do you want nuking Harry? I ask because Russia doesn't appear to be attacking ISIS...  In fact, as folk are speculating (eg in this NY Times news story), ISIS are gaining ground in the areas Russia's been bombing. |
|
|
|
Post by derrida1437 on Oct 10, 2015 9:55:34 GMT
That's not really how most observers are looking at it. Putin has just followed fairly easy to achieve objectives that played to Russia’s modest strengths. In Ukraine, Russia had one goal: to prevent that country from moving closer to the EU, eventually becoming a full member, and then joining NATO. Putin wasn’t interested in trying to reincorporate all of Ukraine or turn it into a clone of Russia, and the “frozen conflict” that now exists there is sufficient to achieve that. Such a negative objective was not that hard to accomplish because Ukraine was corrupt, internally divided, and right next door to Russia. Putin’s goals in Syria are simple. He wants to preserve the Assad regime so that it remains a sphere of Russian influence and a part of any future political settlement. "He doesn't want to conquer Syria, restore the Alawites to full control over the entire country, defeat the Islamic State, or eliminate all Iranian influence. And he’s certainly not building democracy there. A limited deployment of Russian airpower and a handful of “volunteers” may suffice to keep Assad from being defeated, especially if the US and others eventually adopt a more realistic approach to the conflict as well."There is hypocrisy here, too; Russia is acting the same way the US has long acted when dealing with the West. US policy in Syria is just wishful thinking and muddled. The US has been trying to achieve a series of difficult and incompatible goals. It says, “Assad must go,” but doesn’t want any jihadi groups (i.e., the only people who are really fighting Assad) to replace him. It's illogical. At best. "Because Russia is much weaker than the United States (and destined to grow even weaker over time), it has to play its remaining cards carefully and pursue only vital objectives that are achievable at modest cost. The United States has vastly more resources to throw at global problems, and its favorable geopolitical position allows it to avoid most of the repercussions of its mistakes. Add to that the tendency of both neoconservatives and liberal internationalists to believe that spreading the gospel of “freedom” around the world is necessary, easy to do, and won’t generate unintended consequences or serious resistance, and you have a recipe for an overly ambitious yet under-resourced set of policy initiatives. Needless to say, this is the perfect recipe for recurring failure."foreignpolicy.com/2015/10/09/who-is-a-better-strategist-obama-or-putin/I've no idea how you know "how most observers are looking at it". What you really mean (and excuse me for putting words in your mouth) is "I've some other perspectives that I've found articles I can cut and paste supporting opinions from". Fair enough. There's many ways of looking at what's going on. And, as always, no single truth. No need to try and diminish other people's observations. Each to their own. I know most observers look at the prospect another Cold War as ridiculous because of what I do. Some people disagree, but on balance most observational critics of international relations view the prospect of another Cold War as, frankly, ridiculous. Sorry if you feel I've diminished your view. As I said, each to their own view. |
|
|
|
Post by partickpotter on Oct 10, 2015 10:07:29 GMT
I've no idea how you know "how most observers are looking at it". What you really mean (and excuse me for putting words in your mouth) is "I've some other perspectives that I've found articles I can cut and paste supporting opinions from". Fair enough. There's many ways of looking at what's going on. And, as always, no single truth. No need to try and diminish other people's observations. Each to their own. I know most observers look at the prospect another Cold War as ridiculous because of what I do. Some people disagree, but on balance most observational critics of international relations view the prospect of another Cold War as, frankly, ridiculous. Sorry if you feel I've diminished your view. As I said, each to their own view. How do you know what "most observers" think? Let me put this back to you, by way of illustration; most informed educated observers are concerned that Russia's recent actions in Ukraine and now Syria reflect Russia's growing confidence in returning to a position of being a military super power and a possible return to the days of the 20th century Cold War. Do you get my drift? Neither of us know what "most" folk are thinking. Oh - I don't think you have diminished my view. I said you "tried" to. |
|
|
|
Post by The Drunken Communist on Oct 10, 2015 10:09:05 GMT
Which bastards do you want nuking Harry? I ask because Russia doesn't appear to be attacking ISIS... <snip the map out> The Yanks are getting their propaganda going 'cos the Russian's are ruining their chances of grabbing that oil on the Israeli/Syrian border. Russia are helping the Syrian Government, best place to start is by attacking those closest to you I'd imagine, start to drive them back, wouldn't you agree? It also seems that a lot of the Russian attacks are aimed at the 'rebel groups' (As the US/UK media like to call them. Lets call them what they are instead shall we, Al Qeada affiliated terrorists) Also looks like the Russian's are trying to get the Syrian Government forces linked-up with the Kurds so they can control the Turkish border & stop the flow of supplies & recruits from Turkey, again seems a sensible idea don't you think? All seems a perfectly logical starting point to me. Or should they just start dropping random bombs here & there throughout Syria which will be of no strategic value? (Kinda like what the US/UK are doing) |
|
|
|
Post by desman2 on Oct 10, 2015 10:09:58 GMT
Economic sanctions will do the trick . As long as they promise not to shut down europes gas supply We get ours from Norway. |
|
|
|
Post by partickpotter on Oct 10, 2015 10:17:19 GMT
Which bastards do you want nuking Harry? I ask because Russia doesn't appear to be attacking ISIS... <snip the map out> The Yanks are getting their propaganda going 'cos the Russian's are ruining their chances of grabbing that oil on the Israeli/Syrian border. Russia are helping the Syrian Government, best place to start is by attacking those closest to you I'd imagine, start to drive them back, wouldn't you agree? It also seems that a lot of the Russian attacks are aimed at the 'rebel groups' (As the US/UK media like to call them. Lets call them what they are instead shall we, Al Qeada affiliated terrorists) Also looks like the Russian's are trying to get the Syrian Government forces linked-up with the Kurds so they can control the Turkish border & stop the flow of supplies & recruits from Turkey, again seems a sensible idea don't you think? All seems a perfectly logical starting point to me. Or should they just start dropping random bombs here & there throughout Syria which will be of no strategic value? (Kinda like what the US/UK are doing) Don't get me wrong. I'm not talking about the rights and wrongs of Russian bombing in Syria. In fact, what you've described makes perfect sense to me. They are looking to secure what they see is in their national interest. And why not, that's what America is doing. And what we do (to whatever effect our limited capacity allows). There's two points that's interesting. Folk in the West thinking there is some common purpose with Russia in Syria - there isn't. Also, Russia becoming increasingly belligerent outside its borders and implications this may have in the future. |
|
|
|
Post by The Drunken Communist on Oct 10, 2015 10:27:34 GMT
Don't get me wrong. I'm not talking about the rights and wrongs of Russian bombing in Syria. In fact, what you've described makes perfect sense to me. They are looking to secure what they see is in their national interest. And why not, that's what America is doing. And what we do (to whatever effect our limited capacity allows). There's two points that's interesting. Folk in the West thinking there is some common purpose with Russia in Syria - there isn't. Also, Russia becoming increasingly belligerent outside its borders and implications this may have in the future. Syria is a long time Russian ally, they have naval bases there, the Syrian Government requested Russian help. I really don't see what's wrong with it. If Russia had just bowled in their off it's own back & decided the place needed a regime change then that'd be different. Ukraine saw a democratically elected Government overthrown by the US/UK/EU, and had a pro-Western Government illegally stuck in it's place. I again don't blame Russia in the slightest for wanting to protect their naval bases in Crimea (A place which was given a vote & overwhemlingly voted to be a part of Russia.... Of course in the West we're told this is all wrong & illegal & we wont recognise it, and Russia are to blame & at fault. It's staggering irony. Imagine if Russia did the same thing in Canada & overthrew their Government & installed a pro-Russia Government illegally, how do you reckon the Yank would react?) Again I really don't see what Russia has done wrong, they haven't invaded or attacked anywhere 'first', they've both situations they've been dragged into & forced to act in. |
|
|
|
Post by partickpotter on Oct 10, 2015 11:01:11 GMT
Don't get me wrong. I'm not talking about the rights and wrongs of Russian bombing in Syria. In fact, what you've described makes perfect sense to me. They are looking to secure what they see is in their national interest. And why not, that's what America is doing. And what we do (to whatever effect our limited capacity allows). There's two points that's interesting. Folk in the West thinking there is some common purpose with Russia in Syria - there isn't. Also, Russia becoming increasingly belligerent outside its borders and implications this may have in the future. Syria is a long time Russian ally, they have naval bases there, the Syrian Government requested Russian help. I really don't see what's wrong with it. If Russia had just bowled in their off it's own back & decided the place needed a regime change then that'd be different. Ukraine saw a democratically elected Government overthrown by the US/UK/EU, and had a pro-Western Government illegally stuck in it's place. I again don't blame Russia in the slightest for wanting to protect their naval bases in Crimea (A place which was given a vote & overwhemlingly voted to be a part of Russia.... Of course in the West we're told this is all wrong & illegal & we wont recognise it, and Russia are to blame & at fault. It's staggering irony. Imagine if Russia did the same thing in Canada & overthrew their Government & installed a pro-Russia Government illegally, how do you reckon the Yank would react?) Again I really don't see what Russia has done wrong, they haven't invaded or attacked anywhere 'first', they've both situations they've been dragged into & forced to act in. I don't fully agree with your analysis of Ukraine. The truth is Ukraine, at its inception, was a country divided. The Eastern part looking to Russia, while the Western part looked to Europe (much more so than the US). Add to that the endemic corruption of its Governments and the visceral hatred behind the east / west divide (going back to Stalin's famine and WW2), something was going to give at some point. I don't particularly blame anyone outside Ukraine for what happened. Or inside for that matter. It was always going to happen. And so it came to pass, and the consequences were predictable as was the reaction from the West. I reckon Russia has been quite restrained publicly. They could easily have rolled the tanks in, although I have no doubt there are very active out of sight. Frankly, the only solution, IMO, to the 2014 revolution was to redraw Ukraine's boundaries to reflect the reality of life. |
|
|
|
Post by tomkinson67 on Oct 10, 2015 11:23:46 GMT
No they haven't.
|
|
|
|
Post by derrida1437 on Oct 10, 2015 13:25:39 GMT
Each to their own. I know most observers look at the prospect another Cold War as ridiculous because of what I do. Some people disagree, but on balance most observational critics of international relations view the prospect of another Cold War as, frankly, ridiculous. Sorry if you feel I've diminished your view. As I said, each to their own view. How do you know what "most observers" think? Let me put this back to you, by way of illustration; most informed educated observers are concerned that Russia's recent actions in Ukraine and now Syria reflect Russia's growing confidence in returning to a position of being a military super power and a possible return to the days of the 20th century Cold War. Do you get my drift? Neither of us know what "most" folk are thinking. Oh - I don't think you have diminished my view. I said you "tried" to. As I've said before it's each to their own. I'm sorry if you feel I was trying to diminish your view. Besides it's a moot point. No one is going to forceably prove any of the worlds ills on an Internet message board and minds aren't changed on here. It's essentially something to do on the train if I've had enough of reading. Interesting discussion, though. |
|
|
|
Post by derrida1437 on Oct 10, 2015 14:36:50 GMT
Don't get me wrong. I'm not talking about the rights and wrongs of Russian bombing in Syria. In fact, what you've described makes perfect sense to me. They are looking to secure what they see is in their national interest. And why not, that's what America is doing. And what we do (to whatever effect our limited capacity allows). There's two points that's interesting. Folk in the West thinking there is some common purpose with Russia in Syria - there isn't. Also, Russia becoming increasingly belligerent outside its borders and implications this may have in the future. Syria is a long time Russian ally, they have naval bases there, the Syrian Government requested Russian help. I really don't see what's wrong with it. If Russia had just bowled in their off it's own back & decided the place needed a regime change then that'd be different. Ukraine saw a democratically elected Government overthrown by the US/UK/EU, and had a pro-Western Government illegally stuck in it's place. I again don't blame Russia in the slightest for wanting to protect their naval bases in Crimea (A place which was given a vote & overwhemlingly voted to be a part of Russia.... Of course in the West we're told this is all wrong & illegal & we wont recognise it, and Russia are to blame & at fault. It's staggering irony. Imagine if Russia did the same thing in Canada & overthrew their Government & installed a pro-Russia Government illegally, how do you reckon the Yank would react?)Again I really don't see what Russia has done wrong, they haven't invaded or attacked anywhere 'first', they've both situations they've been dragged into & forced to act in. A lot of what has happened in respect of Western attitudes towards Russia is hypocritical, and you're right to draw on it. In respect of Ukraine, there are socio-political differences within Ukraine, but any large country with diverse cultural regions will have differences. It's perfectly normal. The Ukraine government decided not to sign an agreement with the EU back in 2013. This was not just a trade agreement, but also a political agreement that committed Ukraine to adhere to certain European values and principles. Since then Ukraine has moved very quickly to corruption and regime change. "In general...Russian understanding is often shaped by nineteenth-century Russian historians—before Ukraine became a modern nation. These historians created a model that has Russian history beginning in Kiev. After all, many Ukrainians (except for those in the West) came under the rule of Russia over the last few centuries.
For many Russians, Kiev is in a foreign country. It’s a historical misunderstanding to have it belong to Ukraine. It’s a bizarre notion that the 1991 map shows Ukraine no longer in Russia. So to many Russians, annexing Crimea is simply repairing a historical wrong."In addition, it's worth noting that Ukraine agreed to give up its inherited Soviet nuclear weapons in 1994. In return, Ukraine was reassured by the leaders of the United States, Russia, and the United Kingdom of its security, sovereignty, and of its borders. Russia then invaded Crimea, but whilst the United States and the United Kingdom are technically still committed to this promise they deliberately did nothing. That's geopolitical Realpolitik! As for Syria, relations between Syria and Russia deepened after Bashar al-Assad's father, Hafez, developed a strategic and military alliance with the Soviet Union. Since then, Russia has backed the Assad regime. Russia isn't necessarily pro-Syrian, it's pro-Assad. Russia has counted an Assad-led Syria as its closest ally in the Arab world for more than 40 years. Therein lies the common denominator. You're right to point out the dichotomy between Western words and actions. Here are some pretty good articles on the Russia-Syria relationship and for some context on the Ukraine, too, if you're interested. www.washingtoninstitute.org/policy-analysis/view/russias-many-interests-in-syriawww.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-34422209www.summer.harvard.edu/blog-news-events/conflict-ukraine-historical-perspective(Source of above quote) |
|
|
|
Post by Skankmonkey on Oct 10, 2015 15:26:35 GMT
The differences between East and West Ukraine date back further than has been mentioned. Probably to the 16th Cent. formation of the Ukrainian Orthodox church in Kiev as distinct from the Russian Orthodox church. The western part has always tended to the West and Poland has always had an interest there.
During WW1 Germany set up an independant Ukrainian state in the west following Russia's exit from the war and the signing the treaty of Brest-Litovsk in 1917. They became embroiled in the Russian Civil War and were subsumed in the Soviet Union by 1921(ish).
|
|
|
|
Post by harryburrows on Oct 10, 2015 16:56:56 GMT
Economic sanctions will do the trick . As long as they promise not to shut down europes gas supply We get ours from Norway. 10% from Russia , Germany 45% from Russia , France , Greece Holland , I think 30% . So they have us by the short and curlys |
|
