Russia has gone insane.....

Re: the thread title..............
SO HAVE I !!!!!!!!!!!

Making your citizens paranoid with fear has always been a decent tool to tighten, or keep, a demagogue's grip on power, or to send "messages" to one's "enemies". This strikes me as being no different.

Blacksword wrote: ..or has it? In an apparent North Korean style exercise in screaming hysteria and paranoia, Moscow has mobilised 40 million civilians, including the evacuation of 12 million people from cities in an unprecedented civil defence exercise; a rehearsal for a nuclear attack. Moscow has warned the population that nuclear war with the west could be imminent. Despite the scale and dramatic back story to this 'drill' western TV news media has been pretty much silent about the whole thing. The Independent As the relationship between Russia and the west nosedives further is the world - to quote Putin - "being pulled in an irreversable direction" or is he merely stirring up anti western feeling at home for political reasons? Does anyone have concerns about where the Syria and Ukraine crisis is leading?? Has anyone even noticed the gathering storm clouds?

lot of questions there

1) Yes - standard dictator/strongman tactics.. their economy is going to sh*t...so distract the population with fear and hypernationalism.
2) No - Hillary will hopefully do what Obama chose not to.. fully assert our power there arm the rebels and squash Assad and dare Russia to do a goddamned thing about it. Rebuilding Syria will be...a challenge.. but you can't start it until you have swept the slate clean.
3) Hell yes - much like Korea... that is a flashpoint that can engulf the world.
4) Yep - hard to ignore actually as the storm has brewing for years.

Blacksword wrote: You make point 2 sound very easy! I don't think Putin is going to back down on this one. Playing chicken with him is not a good idea. I certainly don't think it's worth risking nuclear war over.

I could be completely wrong... but don't think I am.

Putin is a thug.. but a very intelligent and savvy one.  Thus the difference between the Ukraine and Syria.

Directly interfering with his intentions on the Ukraine is playing with hellfire..

Syria..  if he was unstable yeah.. but I don't think he is.  It isn't worth it to him, and if HIllary draws the same conclusion she'll force the issue.  Bullies continue to be such until they are punched in the nose.  He has to be stood up to... perhaps before he moves into areas where it becomes even more dangerous, if not impossible to reign him in.

Easy? OF course not.. but light years easily and far less dangerous than the Ukrainian-Russian conflict could be.

First step... and the easiest.. . implement the damned no-fly zone with international of course backing.  And pull a Turkey and shoot their asses out of the sky if ignore warnings.  Without the backbone of Russian air power... Assad would likely collapse ... directly arming the rebels would likely expedite that. It wouldn't clean nor wthout blood.. but what is the alternative.. letting the situation there continue for years to come.

It is far more a global community now Jim than it ever was then.  I don't think Putin lacks for understanding.. even liking his share of Americans.  I think the storm per se is that he is power mad thug.. to hold power he has played the nationalism card on his card and regaining the glory and 'respect' of the old USSR. Keeping power is likely becoming more difficult due to the economic and financial crisis Russia is experiencing.  So what to do... divert attention of the masses from that.. to other things.

I don't see him or Russia as an enemy or direct threat to us. I don't think many do these days. Nor should they IMO.  Where he and Russia become dangerous is how to handle them. Pushing too hard where one should not could be catastrophic.. not pushing back at all could be equally as much for not dissading him from putting the west into a position where they felt the need to push back.

 Was the Crimea worth war with the west.. he made the bet it wasn't..  but does he have it within him to contain his expansionist notions for there could come a place where we, and western Europe, might feel they have no choice but to intervene

and that is what is scary. The sooner Russia gets rid of him, or he simply dies, Russia can get back to being a part of the international community.. not a pariah.. not the playground thug.. and the world could sleep just a bit more deeply.

Finnforest wrote: I thought Putin was very popular (in Russia)....but maybe its changed.  Haven't paid that much attention lately.  Certainly never thought he was in jeopardy of losing power though.

I don't think he is, Jim, but, like most nutters in positions of power, he probably is deeply paranoid that he might do soon.

micky wrote: Blacksword wrote: You make point 2 sound very easy! I don't think Putin is going to back down on this one. Playing chicken with him is not a good idea. I certainly don't think it's worth risking nuclear war over. I could be completely wrong... but don't think I am. Putin is a thug.. but a very intelligent and savvy one.  Thus the difference between the Ukraine and Syria. Directly interfering with his intentions on the Ukraine is playing with hellfire.. Syria..  if he was unstable yeah.. but I don't think he is.  It isn't worth it to him, and if HIllary draws the same conclusion she'll force the issue.  Bullies continue to be such until they are punched in the nose.  He has to be stood up to... perhaps before he moves into areas where it becomes even more dangerous, if not impossible to reign him in. Easy? OF course not.. but light years easily and far less dangerous than the Ukrainian-Russian conflict could be. First step... and the easiest.. . implement the damned no-fly zone with international of course backing.  And pull a Turkey and shoot their asses out of the sky if ignore warnings.  Without the backbone of Russian air power... Assad would likely collapse ... directly arming the rebels would likely expedite that. It wouldn't clean nor wthout blood.. but what is the alternative.. letting the situation there continue for years to come.

Many US politicians share that view on the no fly zone, but interestingly many top generals are reluctant and believe certainly that enforcing a NFZ over the whole country would involve actually going to war with Russia and Syria, which they want to avoid. This was certainly the view of Gen Joseph Dunford. This weekend France and Russia both tabled resolutions at the UNSC which involved no fly zones from their respective positions. The French resolution was not passed. I don't know how the vote went on Russia's resolution, but I suspect it was vetoed by the west as it required rebel forces in Aleppo to surrender in return for a safe passage out of the city. None of this has been very visible in western news media. I had to watch the French resolution being debated live at the UN, on Russian TV!!

It's worth remembering also - putting aside the rights and wrongs for now - that the Russians are in Syria at the invitation of the Syrian government, and in a global context it's also worth considering how the US would react if Russia were paying terrorists to overthrow the Saudi regime. Russian action in Syria has been appalling, but if one stops blindly supporting their team for a moment and looks at the bigger picture it's not unreasonable to regard the Russian action as logical and predictable if we were to apply our own standards in how we deal with threats to our own strategic and economic interests abroad. IMO.

^^ one thing though.  You really can't make the case that Syria is something Russia would go to war over.  It isn't their backyard.. not part of the old USSR.. it is a matter of international prestige. The solution perhaps is giving incentive to the Russians to adandon Assad. They have to know as much as anyone he is ..sooner or later.. going to end up against a wall or hanging from a streetlight.  Give them incentive to abandon him. The key there might be the finanical crisis which again is the one thing that couuld threaten Putin's hold on power.  Make an arrangement with him, we do this.. you don't veto a UN resolution for the no-fly zone, and his cover to abandon him is merely complying.

hard to say... but again why did Putin and Russia try so hard to influence our election for Trump. Sure there were probably some seriously shaddy business contacts that our press hasn't found yet.. but perhaps more than that. He saw..  most of us here saw that Trump was a goldfish in the shark tank of geo-politics.  He wasn't standing up to Russia. Hillary is anything if not as smart, savvy and shrewd as Putin. 

I think she'll be able to make an offer to Putin he can't refuse.. carrot and stick. We shall see... I have no doubts she will abandon Obama's laisse faire stance there however.


Edited by micky - October 09 2016 at 06:58

I'd defintely love to be educated on that... Syria is a sh*thole...  it's President only just a step ahead of a bullet or a noose. So what interests do Russia have there in propping up a dead man walking nation and leader if not prestigue and some gasp of being internationally relevant as a political force outside of their own back yard.

micky wrote: I'd defintely love to be educated on that... Syria is a sh*thole...  it's President only just a step ahead of a bullet or a noose. So what interests do Russia have there in propping up a dead man walking nation and leader if not prestigue and some gasp of being internationally relevant as a political force outside of their own back yard.

The Russians have active naval bases at Tartus in Syria. Syria is a military and economic ally of Russia. In recent days they have stationed SS30 STA missiles there to defend the base. Although Assad is clearly not a good guy, Syria was a reltively tolerant place before it was flooded with ragtag bands of terrorists, many of them funded and armed by the west.

Imagine if Russia armed and funded Iranian loyal Shia terrorists to overthrow the Saudi government. How do you think the US would respond?

Edited by Blacksword - October 09 2016 at 09:57