OT? A New Cold War

[RN7]

Originally Posted by Raellus

That is possible, but Russia will have to all of that while fighting jihadists/rebels/freedom fighters. That is much easier said than done.

If Russia wants to take its place as greatest of all the "great satans", why try to stop them? Let them deal with what Western Coalitions in Iraq and Afghanistan have been dealing with for the last 14 years- a seemingly unstoppable stream of very persistent local and foreign insurgents/jihadis dedicated to their destruction.

Russia is very good friends with Iran, the nation that termed America the Great Satan. And I don't think the Russians will be sending their soldiers to Syria, just enough to deter any nosy Jihadis well away from Latakia.

Originally Posted by Raellus

Also, any Russian strategic assets based in Syria will be fairly isolated and nearly surrounded by unfriendly parties- Turkey to the north, Israel to the South, NATO's Mediterranean assets to the west. I see that as more of a strategic liability than a strategic asset.

The alternative to Russian involvement in the Syrian Civil War is what? More NATO muscle-flexing? Ultimatums? More sanctions? Then what? A tussle between NATO and Russian combat aircraft in Syrian airspace? The place is a tinderbox under a powder keg. You've got Iranian interests at play there, which the Saudis will no doubt act to counterbalance, you've got NATO, you've got ISIS, you've got Kurdish rebels, you've got Hezbollah, you've got a very nervous, very jumpy Israel watching from next door...There's no easy solution, especially a military one.

Russia already is isolated in Syria. But Israel won't attack the Russians as there are links between both countries that transcend the Arab/Islamic-Israeli/Jewish conflict. Russia has a lot more in common with Israel than it does with any Muslim state. The Muslims just buy a lot of their weapons. Israel prefers American weapons or making its own. But what has Turkey or the rest of NATO (without America) got that could threaten the Russians, and would Turkey attack Russian forces in Syria when it faces Russia across the Black Sea?

What can the West do. They could do what Russia is doing on a bigger scale. ISIL is not a particularly powerful organisation and has no support outside of the Sunni Muslims in Syria. America if it wanted could slaughter it and very publically too. However you are right about Iranian and Saudi involvement. Obama I think tried to do get the Iranians on his side in Syria but Putin stepped in and threw a spanner in the works. America really needs to deal with the Saudi's effectively. They export terrorism, have an appalling record on human rights and have been causing no end of trouble in the worlds oil industry with their manipulation of oil prices to harm rising US shale producers and rival OPEC members such as Iran and of course Russia.

[SquireNed]

Originally Posted by RN7

Russia is very good friends with Iran, the nation that termed America the Great Satan. And I don't think the Russians will be sending their soldiers to Syria, just enough to deter any nosy Jihadis well away from Latakia.





Russia already is isolated in Syria. But Israel won't attack the Russians as there are links between both countries that transcend the Arab/Islamic-Israeli/Jewish conflict. Russia has a lot more in common with Israel than it does with any Muslim state. The Muslims just buy a lot of their weapons. Israel prefers American weapons or making its own. But what has Turkey or the rest of NATO (without America) got that could threaten the Russians, and would Turkey attack Russian forces in Syria when it faces Russia across the Black Sea?

What can the West do. They could do what Russia is doing on a bigger scale. ISIL is not a particularly powerful organisation and has no support outside of the Sunni Muslims in Syria. America if it wanted could slaughter it and very publically too. However you are right about Iranian and Saudi involvement. Obama I think tried to do get the Iranians on his side in Syria but Putin stepped in and threw a spanner in the works. America really needs to deal with the Saudi's effectively. They export terrorism, have an appalling record on human rights and have been causing no end of trouble in the worlds oil industry with their manipulation of oil prices to harm rising US shale producers and rival OPEC members such as Iran and of course Russia.

One thing to remember about Iran is that it's Shi'ite, while the majority (or at least decently sized portion) of other states in the region are Sunni (Iraq is currently Shi'ite-aligned, but has some internal division over religion). ISIS is Sunni, and Syria is primarily Sunni with Shi'ite leadership. (I may be getting the terms wrong, because I'm not good with Arabic terminology)

As far as partners in the Middle East, there's a little bit of interesting tension there. We've worked with a lot of the states, notably Egypt, that we no longer really work with any more. We're not quite as close with Israel as we used to be, but they don't really do international interventions (especially not with current conflict). Most of the people we're aligned with have some fairly dirty laundry; more or less the only country that doesn't have some huge elephant in the room is Jordan.

Interestingly, I attended a speech by Reza Pahlavi just last week, and he feels that Iran could be the next great Western ally in the region, but only after the fall of the current regime. We've seen instability come and go there, so hopefully if it comes again we'll see an outcome more favorable to us.

[Webstral]

Originally Posted by RN7

So we still have the issue of Russia in Syria, and as Russia knows that it is there to stay as long as it wants it can also place whatever it likes in Syria. The more I think about it the more it strikes me that Putin as pulled off a masterstroke here. He can if he wants to help Assad or Iran target the entire Middle East and Europe from Syria. Russia already has Su-34 strike bombers at Latakia Airbase which has a combat range of 1,000 km. Israel, Saudi Arabia and the Gulf States, Turkey and Greece are easily in range. So if Russia decides to place anti-ballistic missiles, a squadron of Tu-22M bombers with a combat range of 2,400 km, or enlarges their naval dock at Tartus to support nuclear submarines, and then decides to bomb anti-Assad forces outside of Syria what can be done about it?

This is really not much different than it was during the Cold War. All those possibilities existed in one way or another. If the Russian presence in Syria brings peace to the country, let the Russians stay. They already have the means to attack all of the countries neighboring Syria. Adding short-range bombers to the list of assets that can attack Syria’s neighbors doesn’t change very much. I would view a Russian air attack on Saudi Arabia or the Gulf States as a godsend. If we were all very, very lucky the Russians would knock 20% of the oil production out. Prices would rise precipitously, and we would invest in other energy.

If the Russians want to cross the border to attack ISIS, I’d be willing to send the ground crews a keg of beer.

Originally Posted by .45cultist

It's been done. Both Middle East and Chinese have been found among the Mexicans scooped up.

To quote my hazmat instructor, “We worry about two things: volume and concentration. If neither meets the threshold, we have other things to worry about.”

Originally Posted by .45cultist

Terrorists have tried to sneak in through Mexico and found out they needed Mexican Spanish lessons.

No surprises there.

[Webstral]

Originally Posted by RN7

America really needs to deal with the Saudi's effectively. They export terrorism, have an appalling record on human rights and have been causing no end of trouble in the worlds oil industry with their manipulation of oil prices to harm rising US shale producers...

All very true.

[unkated]

Originally Posted by RN7

Russia is estimated to have 34 fixed-wing aircraft based at Latakia. A mixture of types comprising 12 Su-25s, 12 Su-24M2s, four Su-30SMs and six Su-34s. Basically an entire air wing. I don't recall Russia ever basing that many aircraft in Syria or deploying advanced aircraft such as the Su-30SMs and Su-34's to Syria.

They have done it for exercises in the 70s and 80s. They have obviously done it now for air strikes. Or are you suggesting that this is to be a permanent reassignment? Not a very useful one with a limited sortie capability - I see the capability for 1 raid at a time, small air defense capability.

Originally Posted by RN7

Also if Russia has no intention of increasing its military capability in Syria why did it launch 26 Kalibr-Nk naval cruise missiles from warships in the Caspian Sea at targets in Syria before/while they were established an air strike capability at Latakia.

Not following where this is relevant. Obviously, they fired these because the air assets were not in place. How do expended cruise missiles equal expanded capability in Syria?

Originally Posted by RN7

Look at the length of Latakia's runway unkated. It is 9,175 feet.

But it is no longer than it was two months ago. Or 10 years ago. I still am not tracking where you see a sudden expanded strategic threat. Are they building more hardened hangars, expanding the base? More magazines?

Originally Posted by RN7

And the Russians when sending their An-124 cargo planes to Latakia would be mindful of exactly when the US ISR satellite in orbit is passing overhead, and will be unloading their cargo well before they are seen.

Except they would have to fly through corridors well covered by Turkish/NATO ground-based radar.

No major increase in transport ops.

When the US built up for Desert Storm and Desert shield, it was very noticeable due to the large number of aircraft required to bring in the equipment. At 2-3 vehicles per trip, even bringing in a company's worth would be noticeable. And yes, even an Antonov is limited to carrying no more than 3 APCs.

I don't think the Russians are interested in expanding their base just increasing their capabilities. Does anyone know for certain that some of the S-300 batteries have not been upgraded with S-400 systems?

Do you know if there were any S-300s in the first place? Note, I said "if."

Other than a small air unit in total smaller than two squadrons that cannot maintain much of a tempo of air ops, I don't see a basis for your fears on a strategic level.

I'd rather they not be present, and would relish if a soviet aircraft or two was hit with an SA-27 or some other relic of Soviet support. But I don't think they constitute a new strategic level threat.

Are you worried about Russian units being placed in Cuba, too? I don't know of any report that they have not done so.


Uncle Ted

[RN7]

Originally Posted by unkated

They have done it for exercises in the 70s and 80s. They have obviously done it now for air strikes. Or are you suggesting that this is to be a permanent reassignment? Not a very useful one with a limited sortie capability - I see the capability for 1 raid at a time, small air defense capability.

It looks fairly permanent to me. Maybe not for 50 years but certainly for the next five.

Originally Posted by unkated

Not following where this is relevant. Obviously, they fired these because the air assets were not in place. How do expended cruise missiles equal expanded capability in Syria?

Because they had no capability to launch air strikes in Syria at the time and wanted to make a forceful statement. Now they have 34 combat aircraft in Syria which are mainly focused on air strikes.

Originally Posted by unkated

But it is no longer than it was two months ago. Or 10 years ago. I still am not tracking where you see a sudden expanded strategic threat. Are they building more hardened hangars, expanding the base? More magazines?

You asked for intelligence and satellite resources. Here have a look and reach your own conclusion...

http://foreignpolicy.com/2015/09/14/...-construction/

http://www.wsj.com/articles/russia-e...how-1442937150

Originally Posted by unkated

Except they would have to fly through corridors well covered by Turkish/NATO ground-based radar.

No major increase in transport ops.

When the US built up for Desert Storm and Desert shield, it was very noticeable due to the large number of aircraft required to bring in the equipment. At 2-3 vehicles per trip, even bringing in a company's worth would be noticeable. And yes, even an Antonov is limited to carrying no more than 3 APCs.

But Iran has opened its airspace to Russian flights in response to Greece and Bulgaria closing their airspace to Russian military aircraft. A lot more direct now for the Russians to fly into Syria via Iran and Iraq. And the An-124 can carry between 120 and 150 tons of cargo depending on the model. More than a C-5 or any version of Boieng-747 freighter.

Originally Posted by unkated

Do you know if there were any S-300s in the first place? Note, I said "if."

Other than a small air unit in total smaller than two squadrons that cannot maintain much of a tempo of air ops, I don't see a basis for your fears on a strategic level.

I'd rather they not be present, and would relish if a soviet aircraft or two was hit with an SA-27 or some other relic of Soviet support. But I don't think they constitute a new strategic level threat.

Are you worried about Russian units being placed in Cuba, too? I don't know of any report that they have not done so. Uncle Ted

How about you go and google it. Here are a few references to it........

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-22652131
http://www.globalresearch.ca/syria-s...opters/5471009
http://www.theguardian.com/world/201...missiles-syria

http://theaviationist.com/2015/10/02...ikes-in-syria/
http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the...pressive-14080
https://www.rt.com/news/318122-russi...ry-syria-isis/

[unkated]

Even less worried about Russian aircraft in Syria -

Harsh Conditions Are Foiling Russian Jets in Syria

[RN7]

Yet Russia still continues to attack anti-Assad forces and is building more military facilities in Syria.

http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/...-numbers-syria
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...ing-Assad.html
http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/...0RM21520150922

And despite alleged Russian logistical problems the US military uses Russian cargo planes.

http://www.eurasianet.org/node/68186

And Russia continues to send An-124 cargo planes to Syria.

http://www.express.co.uk/news/world/...mic-State-ISIS
http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/...ria/ar-AAe4Iqe

[Webstral]

It really does seem like the US senior leadership is struggling to correlate their desire to influence events with the means to do so. If the point of this whole exercise was to oblige the Russians to commit to an Arabic Angola, though, perhaps something went according to plan.

[RN7]

What really are Russia's motives in Syria?

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/378b5f8a-6...#axzz3pqZYwPdZ
http://www.popularmechanics.com/mili...ia-october-15/
http://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/put...why-1537656215
http://www.vrworld.com/2015/03/19/wh...es-everything/

[RN7]

This is also interesting article about Russian thinking.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/26/wo...ncerns-us.html

[Webstral]

Goodness knows we can use more understanding of what the Russians really want. It's easier to demonize behaviors when we don't understand the thought process guiding them.

[StainlessSteelCynic]

Originally Posted by Webstral

It's easier to demonize behaviors when we don't understand the thought process guiding them.

So very true in so many ways.
I won't be saying the Russian government are good guys any time soon, but the majority of the Russian population are the same as ours, relying on the media to tell them the "facts" and we know what media "facts" are like.
There's a lot of young Russians who have been brought up to believe that the NATO countries and the USA in particular are trying to destroy the Motherland, so it shouldn't be so surprising that these young Russian internet warriors carry on like they do.