A very good interview appeared recently of Bashar Al-Asad with the Czech media. Some of it is standard politician talk, but much of it is very interesting and gives a side to the story that is (of course) never reported here in the West, for the usual reasons:

http://sana.sy/en/?p=63209

Some good quotes here.

On the French:

Definitely, if they wanted to learn from what had happened recently in Paris, why did not they learn from Charlie Hebdo? The same principle and the same concept. We said at that time that this is only the tip of the iceberg. What is under the water is much bigger. They did not learn. This is first. Second, you cannot fight terrorism while you are supporting the terrorists directly with armaments and having alliance with most zealous supporters of terrorism in the world; which is the Saudi Kingdom. You cannot. This is contradiction. You cannot be the police and the thief at the same time. You have to choose either way to stand.

On refugees:

The feeling is very sad, especially if you think that every person of those Syrians who left Syria has a sad story behind him. It reflects the hardship of Syria during the crisis. From let us say rational way of looking at this situation, it is a lost, everyone of those is a human resource that left Syria, so this will undermine the society in your country definitely, but in the end we have to deal with the reasons. The question that I think every European should ask is why did they leave? For many reasons: the first one is the terrorists that have been attacking them everywhere, either directly or through attacking the basic requirements of living in our country; infrastructure, their way of life, different basic needs and so on, the second one is the European embargo, the European embargo played into the hands of terrorists directly and what was supposed to be with the Syrians became against the Syrians because every embargo is against the population of any country. Many people left Syria because they cannot live here anymore, because they do not have the basic needs of living, so they had to leave to Europe or to Turkey or any other country.

On Erdogan's shooting down of a Russian plane:

do not think so, but I think it has shown the relentlessness of Erdogan who let us say lost his nerves just because the Russian intervention has changed the balance on the ground. So, the failure of Erdogan in Syria, the failure of his terrorist groups means his political demise, so he wanted to do anything in order to put obstacles in front of any success. So, he did it, but I do not think it will change any balance. The war against terrorism is continuing. The Russian supportive participation is going to be stronger, it is strong anyway, and I think there is no way back on that regard, whether he does it again, this way or another way.

On his presidency:

I didn’t fail them [the Syrian people], I did not destroy their infrastructure, I did not give the arms to terrorists to kill and to destroy. The question is: who did that? The Europeans and the Saudis and the Qataris.


On secularism in Syria:

Secularism, because Syria is a melting pot. Of course secularism in Syria is different from the way some in the West, especially in France maybe, understand it to be against religion. Actually, secularism in Syria is to have freedom of religions, sects and ethnicities. Without this, you will not have the Syria that has been known for centuries. So, this is the most important thing that we can try to protect. The second thing is moderation, because of this variety of different factors in this society for centuries, you have moderation. Without moderation you cannot have this melting pot, what the terrorists are working on now is to create a new generation that knows nothing about moderation. They are going to be only killers, extremists, fanatics who do not accept the others, in a few years time this is going to be real danger, how can we deal with the new generation? It is not someone who is twenty or above, it is maybe twenty and below. This is the real challenge that we are going to face.

(12-03-2015 10:39 AM)Bill Wrote:  Seems like you know nothing about the political situation in Turkey. This guy is undisputet like Putin. He survived things that were 100 times more difficult. There were prove that he stole money but nobody could do anything about it. There is no opposition he crashed the military opposition successfully. His foreign policy makes him stronger in his country. Same method as of Putin.

Additionally this guy has no option to retire. Once the opposition comes to power he will be send to prison. So losing is no option for him.

I know one thing: once the country's elites decide you are no longer useful to them, it usually ends the same way for the guy who thought he was invincible. If Erdogan is isolated internationally and becomes useless to Turkish elites, he will go. The most interesting thing from yesterday's info release was the promise to release more and often - I bet a lot of folks are scrambling to distance themselves from Turks now lest they are tainted by this river of shit. Every politician in the West will now think twice before a photo-op with Erdo: "shit, can I plausibly deny later on that I knew absolutely nothing what this motherfucker has been up to". Once no one outside of maybe Qatar and Saudi Arabia wants to talk to you, it's tough going, and it's usually a quick slide down from there..

(12-03-2015 10:39 AM)Bill Wrote:  Putin and Erdo will solve their problems and will try to make US angry now and then like before.

No, they won't. Putin will never shake Erdogan's hand again, nor deal with him in any substantial manner.

(12-02-2015 07:24 AM)Nineteen84 Wrote:  RUSSIA HAS PROOF THAT TURKEY IS FINAL DESTINATION FOR ISIS OIL – DEFENSE MINISTRY

People don't understand the magnitude of this.

Russia is now going public with hard evidence of the ISIS and Turkey Oil deals.

I am to busy to really going into much detail but please try to Google and research this.

One again for years being called a "tinfoil" hat wearing for suggesting that Turkey was the whole reason ISIS was getting any money, so now this is refreshing.

What this essentially does is remove the skirt from Turkey and NATO. There is no denial now of how ISIS has been funded and emboldened.

Now ask yourself with NATO essentially telling the USA to fuck off, and only the UK now by the USA's side with its Syria policy do they now find it good timing to roll out some random Arab with too much hair gel to go shoot shit up in California. The MSM is not fixated on the shooting versus the mammoth blunder in USA global strategy. Simply a distraction to keep Americans in the dark.

USA policy is officially dead.

All that is left for Putin to back the Kurds/PKK to help finish off Turkey.

Iraq has backstabbed the USA, siding with Russia
France is teaming with Russia
NATO won't support USA anymore

Things are falling apart.

The USA/UK click is trapped. All they have left is to ratchett up Syria and hope that Russia gets bogged down and over committed and then attempt to weaken them also in Ukraine.

If that doesn't work, they have nothing left.

Here is some color for the hand-picked sources below.

(12-03-2015 05:18 AM)Byzantium Wrote:  

(12-01-2015 08:15 PM)Newyorker Wrote:  The only difference between Putin and Erdogan is that Putin is blonde. Both are egoistic, self centered, and not willing to back down. However I see Putin is very much loved on this forum, Russia's military capabilities are grossly exagerated due to love for Putin by some members here. There is no way the East bloc can take on the West, heck Russia would have a hard time taking on Turkey alone even if NATO wasn't involved.

Legendary US Army Commander Says Russia Would "Annihilate" US In Head-To-Head Battle:

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-11-07...ead-battle

What you left unsaid / unquoted : in a regional battle in the Baltic, which happens to be Russia's back yard, given the US's current ability to project its power in that part of the world. I'm sure a battle in the Yucatan or in New England would be similarly skewed.

Quote:

(12-01-2015 08:15 PM)Newyorker Wrote:  Their military budget is 1/10th of that of the USA, and only 2.5x higher than Turkey.

The Russians are getting what they paid for. The USA isn't.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UQB4W8C0rZI

There's ample corruption and shortage of usable equipment in the Russian military. Far from the levels of the 1990s, but high enough that most non spec-ops soldiers barely shoot more than a few hundred rounds down range in the entirety of their active service. Even spec ops guys tend to spend their own money on scopes, mag carriers and other upgrades to their standard issue gear.

Quote:

(12-01-2015 08:15 PM)Newyorker Wrote:  Russia is in no way a superpower.

Russia is a mere regional power (if that) according to Obama, yet as the joke goes, "The last time we saw a Russian beat a black man so badly, Apollo Creed died."

Syria means much more to Russia than the US, hence the results.

Quote:

(12-01-2015 08:15 PM)Newyorker Wrote:  The only undisputed superpower in this world is the United States of America whether we like it or not.

Russia disputes it (largest country in the world), China disputes it (largest population in the world), yet the USA is the "undisputed superpower," just like the USA annually declares itself "World Champion" in sports where no other countries participate.

I somewhat agree with you here. However, Russia can't handle a conventional conflict against the US or NATO. Russia changed its defensive doctrine in the 1990s to allow nuclear retaliation to conventional warfare because it was determined that the military couldn't handle an all-out war.

Especially since 2008, the Russian army was reconfigured, however, to better deal with asymmetric warfare. It is moving away from a conscription army to a professional one, and has invested heavily in the ability to rapidly move and rebalance its forces. However, most of this is in mind with the potential of regional conflict in the FSU and its former spheres of influence.

Syria is one thing. Deploying to the other side of the world (say, Latin America) is completely another. The US has an international network of military bases, partnerships with allies, and a massive navy to enable it to project power worldwide. This is unmatched by Russia, who has just one aging aircraft carrier, or China, who also has just one carrier (bought as scrap metal from Ukraine after the fall of the USSR), and who is likewise primarily concerned with its own sphere of influence.

That being said, Russia has always bet heavily on asymmetric warfare, particularly in the case of war with NATO.

Quote:

(12-01-2015 08:15 PM)Newyorker Wrote:  Not to mention was all those sanctions worth for a tiny land in Crimea, Russian people are 2x poorer compared to last year because of Rubles devaluation.

http://www.investopedia.com/articles/inv...vering.asp

This article is overstated. Most of Russia's economy depends on commodities exports. The (state-affiliated) companies in commodities are doing well, but most of the profits wind up in numbered bank accounts in tax havens.

That being said, while not 50% poorer, most people have suffered 10+% cuts to their real income over the previous year, and taxes have only been going up. Imports are being substituted by goods of inferior quality. For example, butter in food products being replaced with palm oil, less real meat or lower quality meat in sausages, etc.

(12-03-2015 02:55 PM)kosko Wrote:  People don't understand the magnitude of this.

Russia is now going public with hard evidence of the ISIS and Turkey Oil deals.

It makes perfect sense. Turkey is the U.S./Nato "bridge" country in the middle east. It's a military and economic proxy of the anglosphere and Israel. ISIS is a spawn of multiple islamist factions which have direct links to "moderate" factions supported by Israeli/U.S. interests created in the mess after secular regimes were attacked to reshape Syria, Egypt, etc.. Arab Spring created the power vacuum necessary for all this to happen. Remember when Arab Spring happened many secular governments in the middle east were accusing U.S. and various western intel agencies of fomenting unrest/dissent through media and even social media. Arab Spring can't be blamed for all current events but it was just one major thread that started to unravel the middle east into the mess that we see today.

Quote:One again for years being called a "tinfoil" hat wearing for suggesting that Turkey was the whole reason ISIS was getting any money, so now this is refreshing.

Turkey is a known sponsor of terrorism not just connected with ISIS linked islamists but also fundamentalists operating in the western provinces of China as well. They are all sponsored by U.S. intelligence agency interests and by default Israeli interests. It's not even a big secret or conspiracy but simply fact.

Quote:Iraq has backstabbed the USA, siding with Russia

Iraq has more Shia so it was inevitable in some ways. Even though Iran and Iraq fought a massive war back in the day Iraq is still majority Shia. So in some ways they will still be more receptive to Shia (Iran) influences. The rift between Iraq and Iran was created by mostly western intel interests back in the day who wanted to put Sunnis in charge of Iraq and create a gap between majority Shia muslim countries.

The biggest fear of U.S. policy makers was that the new "liberated" Iraq would gravitate towards Iran and then the Russian/China sphere of influence. That's what is happening now. It was inevitable.

Just for the record ISIS is sunni. It's obvious who funds Sunni terror groups these days. Most of the richest muslim countries..ie. the gulf arab countries are also sunni. Who do they bankroll? It's pretty obvious.

Dang Polar, seems like you are pretty well read on this topic.

Made me think of this.

Emanuel, no dramas with your post - just one point...

(12-03-2015 11:36 AM)Emanuël Wrote:  The US Airforce "realising" the limitations of stealth seems far fetched. As far as I know, High Command has never wavered in their commitment to the jsf?

That could be genuine commitment to the JSF ... or it could be a very unhealthy mix of sunk cost fallacy combined with kickbacks and shady connections between the military and Lockheed. The US military -- and especially the US Army going by the vast majority of John Reed's observations -- is a corrupt government bureaucracy from the mid- to high levels, with all that entails. The JSF has had more cash poured into it than seems healthy at all. It is the 'too big to fail' of military circles -- if they scrapped it now there would be too much embarrassment and potential corruption allegations to be thrown at military and corporate officials, so the West is likely to get a JSF whether it wants it or not.

I might note that Reed isn't the only one to make the sort of criticisms of the armed forces that he does. Eisenhower -- who fucking well should have known, being Supreme Commander of the Allies and later President -- basically alerted the public to the existence of the military-industrial complex. David Hackworth was the highest-decorated US Army officer of the 20th century, left the military over basically governmental bureaucracy, and wrote a wonderful 800-page book, About Face, which went through it.

Russia is one and only foreign country that has permission to fly military planes in Syrian air space.
How is Britain, France and Germany going to fight ISIS if they aren't allowed to Syria?
Or they don't give a fuck and fly there anyway.
EDIT: Well they don't give a fuck
http://tass.ru/en/politics/841561
This could boil into some serious shit. Imagine ISIS somehow manages to take down NATO plane (with USA made weapons, how ironic). And then Russia is to be blamed for this, because they have missile cruiser Moscow near Latakia and lots of S-300 and S-400 missile complexes there.

Germany 'draws up plans to prevent sharing intelligence' with Nato ally Turkey

Germany has reportedly drawn up plans to prevent sharing intelligence with its Nato ally Turkey as it prepares to support international air strikes against Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (Isil).

German Tornado aircraft are to commence reconnaissance flights over Syria and Iraq after the country’s parliament on Friday voted to deploy up to 1,200 military personnel.

Highly unsual measures have been ordered to prevent Turkey getting access to intelligence from the flights, according to Spiegel magazine.

The aircaft are expected to operate from Incirlik airbase in southern Turkey, and as Nato allies, the two countries would normally expect to share intelligence.

On every message board you will find the same types of people ranting and raving over the superiority of the American military and seemingly dripping with inside knowledge of Russia's (sad) state of military affairs.

Isn't it then interesting that the US haven't legitimitely won a war since WW2, if winning a war means meeting your objectives and securing a symphatetic future government.

Lost Korea, Lost Vietnam, created hell on earth in Middle East, got asked to gtfo by new Iraqi government, got their ass handed in Mogadishu.

Military nerds can rave all they want about superior equipment and better game consoles, but the US military in a real-politik sense simply does not get the job done.

In the meantime, Putin and Russia without firing a single shot defeated insurgencies in Georgia, Ukraine and will bitch slap Turkey.

If the US is oh so almighty why did they not intervene in Georgia or Ukraine. I will bet you that no NATO or American plane would bomb the Serbs either if the Balkan's were going on today.

Fact is American military brass is probably very worried about how Putin seemingly outmaneuvers them with ease in real politikal situations. And for the technical superiority that might not even be there anymore, as many media reports that the Russians have advanced radar jamming tech, which eliminates the seeking mechanism in those F-22 rockets, which despite the advanced plane tech, is actually quite old.

It's not enough to have the better tech, you also need the leadership and the clout. The US leadership has a long series of failures behind it, not the least because the US acts like Nazi Germany and allows its military strategy to be determined by policy-wonks in Neo-Con think tanks and a leader of command who is a 'community organizer'.

The facts are there, Putin has an excellent track record in accomplishing with very few means, what he attempts to do. Georgia, Chechen, Crimea now Syriah.

Last but not least, I think the Neo-Cons and Israelis will face increasing difficulty getting Americans of Euro heritage to fight their cousins over the squabbles of Middle Eastern tribes.

(12-04-2015 01:39 PM)nomadbrah Wrote:  On every message board you will find the same types of people ranting and raving over the superiority of the American military and seemingly dripping with inside knowledge of Russia's (sad) state of military affairs.

Isn't it then interesting that the US haven't legitimitely won a war since WW2, if winning a war means meeting your objectives and securing a symphatetic future government.

Lost Korea, Lost Vietnam, created hell on earth in Middle East, got asked to gtfo by new Iraqi government, got their ass handed in Mogadishu.

Military nerds can rave all they want about superior equipment and better game consoles, but the US military in a real-politik sense simply does not get the job done.

In the meantime, Putin and Russia without firing a single shot defeated insurgencies in Georgia, Ukraine and will bitch slap Turkey.

If the US is oh so almighty why did they not intervene in Georgia or Ukraine. I will bet you that no NATO or American plane would bomb the Serbs either if the Balkan's were going on today.

Fact is American military brass is probably very worried about how Putin seemingly outmaneuvers them with ease in real politikal situations. And for the technical superiority that might not even be there anymore, as many media reports that the Russians have advanced radar jamming tech, which eliminates the seeking mechanism in those F-22 rockets, which despite the advanced plane tech, is actually quite old.

It's not enough to have the better tech, you also need the leadership and the clout. The US leadership has a long series of failures behind it, not the least because the US acts like Nazi Germany and allows its military strategy to be determined by policy-wonks in Neo-Con think tanks and a leader of command who is a 'community organizer'.

The facts are there, Putin has an excellent track record in accomplishing with very few means, what he attempts to do. Georgia, Chechen, Crimea now Syriah.

Last but not least, I think the Neo-Cons and Israelis will face increasing difficulty getting Americans of Euro heritage to fight their cousins over the squabbles of Middle Eastern tribes.

The objective of Vietnam was to stop the spread of Communism. They achieved that. The human loss on both sides was inconsequential to those who were orchestrating it.

Yugoslavia/Balkan War was another East vs West confrontation, and they(with UN + NATO) created Kosovo. I'm yet to meet a Serb who is OK with that.

The ME situation has been an unmitigated success from many neo-con and other points of views. It all benefits Israel, weakening its neighbours. No more Iraq and Libya, and Syria holding on by a thread.

Fake revolutions: Arab Spring and Ukraine, have both been successful from certain points of view.

We can speculate all day long about how Russian vs US military confrontations would pan out, we won't really know until it(if) happens.

I completely see your point, that the US is like a decrepit dinosaur, blundering from one international confrontation to another, but they're keeping their parasite happy, so that's what counts right?

(12-04-2015 01:39 PM)nomadbrah Wrote:  Military nerds can rave all they want about superior equipment and better game consoles, but the US military in a real-politik sense simply does not get the job done.

There also one covert war that the U.S. lost too that is barely mentioned in history. It's probably the biggest mistake thus far in recent history which allowed the communists to take over China and push out the KMT.

The U.S. sent in lots of black ops type CIA to try and create a separatist revolution in southern China sometime after the Korean war. As you would expect based on the U.S.'s awful history of asymmetric warfare failures it was an unmitigated catastrophe.

A number of U.S. covert CIA agents (T. Downey and Richard G. Fecteau)
were captured and thrown in deep dark and dank PRC prisons for decades. There are two that are publicly acknowledged by the CIA but probably many more than that were killed or "disappeared" too. They only acknowledge a few CIA agents but there were probably military special operations types people who disappeared too.

This covert war isn't even known by the vast majority of the people in the U.S.

The current CIA covert activity in western China will most likely backfire horribly too. Supporting fundamentalists is a bad idea if history is any proof of that.

So the Turkmen rebels who are directly and openly supported by Turkey execute a Syrian Army Colonel who was in captivity.

How did the Syrian Army want to respond? " Let's execute one of theirs". Russia says no ... make these guys regret the day they were fucking born.

90 minute long grad rocket barrage. Video was posted today on twitter and youtube from several sources on the ground. Imagine over an hour of this over a small town. Brutal!!





All i got to say is ....

(12-04-2015 06:32 PM)Anabasis to Desta Wrote:  So the Turkmen rebels who are directly and openly supported by Turkey execute a Syrian Army Colonel who was in captivity.

How did the Syrian Army want to respond? " Let's execute one of theirs". Russia says no ... make these guys regret the day they were fucking born.

90 minute long grad rocket barrage. Video was posted today on twitter and youtube from several sources on the ground. Imagine over an hour of this over a small town. Brutal!!





All i got to say is ....

That, gentlemen, is how the West should be fighting ISIS. The West's chief advantages are superior ordnance, superior range, and superior technology. US air forces and possibly naval arms could bring a barrage at least as devastating as this if not greater against a massive array of targets. Its problem is that it chooses to fight in a limited war and won't bring its full power to bear simply because the West is more afraid of its own media and fifth column than it is ISIS. More generally, this is the only language that radical Islam (if not Islam at large) understands and it's sadly about the only measure that works against Islam: ruthlessness on the same level as that which Islam brings against its enemies.

The other question being - why the fuck is the West fighting ISIS principally in Syria, when most of ISIS's moneymaking operations are based out of Iraq and the captured oilfields that lie there as I understood it? Because that's where a good hour or so of daisycutter and bunkerbusting barrages could do the most good.

(12-04-2015 07:28 PM)Paracelsus Wrote:  

(12-04-2015 06:32 PM)Anabasis to Desta Wrote:  So the Turkmen rebels who are directly and openly supported by Turkey execute a Syrian Army Colonel who was in captivity.

How did the Syrian Army want to respond? " Let's execute one of theirs". Russia says no ... make these guys regret the day they were fucking born.

90 minute long grad rocket barrage. Video was posted today on twitter and youtube from several sources on the ground. Imagine over an hour of this over a small town. Brutal!!





All i got to say is ....

That, gentlemen, is how the West should be fighting ISIS. The West's chief advantages are superior ordnance, superior range, and superior technology. US air forces and possibly naval arms could bring a barrage at least as devastating as this if not greater against a massive array of targets. Its problem is that it chooses to fight in a limited war and won't bring its full power to bear simply because the West is more afraid of its own media and fifth column than it is ISIS. More generally, this is the only language that radical Islam (if not Islam at large) understands and it's sadly about the only measure that works against Islam: ruthlessness on the same level as that which Islam brings against its enemies.

The other question being - why the fuck is the West fighting ISIS principally in Syria, when most of ISIS's moneymaking operations are based out of Iraq and the captured oilfields that lie there as I understood it? Because that's where a good hour or so of daisycutter and bunkerbusting barrages could do the most good.

The west is not trying to destroy them, they are indirectly funding them through SA and benefiting from their bounty through Turkey. They are being used to remove Assad.

Recently asked a syrian girl here what she thinks of assad. Said she loves him. Then asked her why she came here, said theres war there and the benefits are good here, plus she works under the table and that further supplements her income. So the US is causing war in her country, but all that is soon forgotten when money and prosperity is being offered. I'm pretty sure thats how many syrian men there view things too.

While I very much enjoy the world-stage cinema Putin is providing us with, I'm wondering whether this bombing had any additional effects after the first 10 minutes of continuous fireworks? Do these things not cost anything or how can he just blow it all away like it is confetti? Serious question, so if someone with military knowledge could comment on that I'd appreciate it.

(12-04-2015 08:27 PM)Requiem Wrote:  While I very much enjoy the world-stage cinema Putin is providing us with, I'm wondering whether this bombing had any additional effects after the first 10 minutes of continuous fireworks? Do these things not cost anything or how can he just blow it all away like it is confetti? Serious question, so if someone with military knowledge could comment on that I'd appreciate it.

The economics of scale are different. The U.S. blows a shitload of money on hardware while being actively fleeced by various military industrial corporations with insider connections. The U.S. overpays on just about everything.

Russia is more practical about this at least and i'm sure corruption is big time there too but probably within reasonable limits unlike the corporate super lotto where everyone except the U.S. taxpayer is a winner that is the U.S. military.

(12-04-2015 08:27 PM)Requiem Wrote:  While I very much enjoy the world-stage cinema Putin is providing us with, I'm wondering whether this bombing had any additional effects after the first 10 minutes of continuous fireworks? Do these things not cost anything or how can he just blow it all away like it is confetti? Serious question, so if someone with military knowledge could comment on that I'd appreciate it.

I don't know how to exactly put this.

I was 18 years old when my Dad forced me to join the Ethiopian Airforce and I was there for a year and 3 months. So I'm not even a rookie let alone an expert. Career military bros like forum member Vinman could give your more insight.

But we were told that the Russian cold war weapons cache could arm the whole planet in a continuous World War for 45 straight years.

It's fucking insane! I've trained in far east Russia near the Korean border ( Vladivostock) back in 2009 on some deserted Arctic small town. You'd think that shit is something out of a Sci-Fi movie. Three thousand T-55 tanks just rotting away in the middle of winter and some other crazy shit!

So to answer your question ...

Yes these things cost money. But for Russia, it's like taking out the trash and using it as artillery. They'll spend more money de-commissioning and destroying that shit than shipping it over to Syria.

But are 3,000 rotting T-55 tanks useful in combat? Not trying to be funny.

Edit: Just searched a bit. The T-55 was introduced in 1958. I wonder how many are needed to swarm one modern tank.

Quote:The objective of Vietnam was to stop the spread of Communism. They achieved that. The human loss on both sides was inconsequential to those who were orchestrating it.

That's not the case. South Vietnam fell to communists, and later both Laos and Cambodia became communist. The fact that I am looking outside right now and can see red flag with a yellow star on it says so.

Not to mention the fact that Ho Chi Minh had no plans for any sort of worldwide revolution like the USSR. His goal was Vietnamese independence, and communism was a useful vehicle to achieve that goal. All in all, US intervention had absolutely no effect on regional politics in SEA.

(12-04-2015 08:45 PM)Anabasis to Desta Wrote:  

(12-04-2015 08:27 PM)Requiem Wrote:  While I very much enjoy the world-stage cinema Putin is providing us with, I'm wondering whether this bombing had any additional effects after the first 10 minutes of continuous fireworks? Do these things not cost anything or how can he just blow it all away like it is confetti? Serious question, so if someone with military knowledge could comment on that I'd appreciate it.

I don't know how to exactly put this.

I was 18 years old when my Dad forced me to join the Ethiopian Airforce and I was there for a year and 3 months. So I'm not even a rookie let alone an expert. Career military bros like forum member Vinman could give your more insight.

But we were told that the Russian cold war weapons cache could arm the whole planet in a continuous World War for 45 straight years.

It's fucking insane! I've trained in far east Russia near the Korean border ( Vladivostock) back in 2009 on some deserted Arctic small town. You'd think that shit is something out of a Sci-Fi movie. Three thousand T-55 tanks just rotting away in the middle of winter and some other crazy shit!

So to answer your question ...

Yes these things cost money. But for Russia, it's like taking out the trash and using it as artillery. They'll spend more money de-commissioning and destroying that shit than shipping it over to Syria.

Exactly. Those rockets used in the barrage in the youtube video are "dumb" rockets, no different from the Katyushas first introduced by the Soviets back in WWII. The Russians must have untold quantities of them sitting in various storage facilities. Remember, the Soviet Union was prepared for a conventional conflict of gargantuan proportions: peak USSR vs peak NATO for control of Eurasia. In that context, attacking goat fuckers in the hills of the levant is a rounding error for those munition stocks.

(12-05-2015 01:35 AM)Sweet Pea Wrote:  

Quote:The objective of Vietnam was to stop the spread of Communism. They achieved that. The human loss on both sides was inconsequential to those who were orchestrating it.

That's not the case. South Vietnam fell to communists, and later both Laos and Cambodia became communist. The fact that I am looking outside right now and can see red flag with a yellow star on it says so.

Not to mention the fact that Ho Chi Minh had no plans for any sort of worldwide revolution like the USSR. His goal was Vietnamese independence, and communism was a useful vehicle to achieve that goal. All in all, US intervention had absolutely no effect on regional politics in SEA.

Thanks for the accurate correction, South East Asia is not an area I have any familiarity with.

Quote:the American failure to prevent a communist victory in Vietnam had much less of a global impact than had been assumed by the domino theory. Though communist regimes did arise in Laos and Cambodia after 1975, communism failed to spread throughout the rest of Southeast Asia

So perhaps the only entity to benefit from the Vietnam War was the corrupt US military-industrial complex.

(12-05-2015 01:55 AM)Fast Eddie Wrote:  Exactly. Those rockets used in the barrage in the youtube video are "dumb" rockets, no different from the Katyushas first introduced by the Soviets back in WWII. The Russians must have untold quantities of them sitting in various storage facilities. Remember, the Soviet Union was prepared for a conventional conflict of gargantuan proportions: peak USSR vs peak NATO for control of Eurasia. In that context, attacking goat fuckers in the hills of the levant is a rounding error for those munition stocks.

http://thesaker.is/week-seven-of-the-rus...intensity/

"I am quite certain that Russia can keep up this pace of operations for a long while: while the stocks of the latest “Kalibr-NK” are reportedly low, Russia is now using a lot of her immense Cold War arsenal where there stocks of cruise missiles and gravity bombs are plentiful. Russia will run out of targets long before she runs out of these strategic weapons."

(12-04-2015 09:58 PM)samsamsam Wrote:  But are 3,000 rotting T-55 tanks useful in combat? Not trying to be funny.

Edit: Just searched a bit. The T-55 was introduced in 1958. I wonder how many are needed to swarm one modern tank.

The US Army being the US Army, the number required is probably a lot less than the US Army would say are required. There were T-55s used in Desert Storm and apparently they were pretty shit against M1 Abrams, but as you alluded to -- a tank's only got one turret to fire at a time.

A modernized T-55 like the Ukrainian T-55AGM with a modern 125mm gun and ammunition(both with shells and gun fired ATGMs) can prove deadly to an Abrams if used properly. Just look at how Israel was able to use upgraded Sherman tanks to good effect against more modern arab tanks in their earlier wars with them.



Still, the Iraqis in '91 would've done better if they had clustered their T-55s in urban centers in Kuwait instead of foolishly engaging U.S ground forces in the open desert where their guns would get outclassed in range.