[Closed] Are we at war with Russia now?

Are you in Berwick?

Can it end well, see Vietnam, Afghanistan etc.

You're not keeping up. read some of the other threads on here.

Russia is friendly and has no aggressive foreign policies.

Scrap trident and wear flowers in your hair.

They're bombing people "we"don't like.
Let's go home and leave them to it.

from the news it seems the russians arent bothering with IS and just going straight for the rebels weve been arming/supporting

Are we at war with Turkey?

zippykona - Member
They're bombing people "we"don't like.
Let's go home and leave them to it.

according to our press, the Russians are attacking the non-ISIS rebels.

ie, the groups we hope will replace Assad.

One thing I've learnt from my advancing years is that our leaders really can't be trusted to have a war.
Have been reading about Thatcher and Indonesia. Shocking.
I can't imagine today's meddling is any more ethical and we certainly aren't in a position to criticise Russia.

Different objectives innit?
The russians just want Assad to remain in power, the west wants IS gone, then Assad gone, with the FSA in the wings ready to step into power.
Putin bombing IS AND the FSA isn't going down well with the west, but why should he GAF?

Are we at war along with Russia now?

FIFTY

Interesting how the press are resorting to the types of reportage that they used to use all the time in the cold war.

We have Interim Presidents, they have Puppet Rulers

we bomb places with impunity, Russia bombs indiscriminately

We have stragetic interests, they have Military Gambles

It's Russia using it as an excuse for increasing its reach. The key question is are the Turkish, Israelis and Saudi's happy with that and what are they going to do?

Swift withdrawal on the cards, we haven't got the minerals for this.

We let them invade Ukraine without any true implications, we certainly won't stop them doing whatever they want outside of Europe.

About time someone weed in his shoes.

It's Russia using it as an excuse for [s]increasing[/s] maintaining its reach.

A bit rich for us to say only we can decide who can be bombed in Syria

Reality is Russia want a friendly nation there for naval/strategic reasons and they wont give that up, literally, without a fight.

according to our press, the Russians are attacking the non-ISIS rebels.

ie, the groups we hope* will replace Assad.

To be fair, we've not been very good at working out who the good guys and the bad guys are in the past. The results of arming who we thought were the good guys, only for them to turn not to be, haven't been good, to say the least.

I'm prepared to bet that there aren't actually any good guys left, as they've all fled to Europe, and all you're left with are varyious factions of utterly psychotic jihadist nutjobs all backed by different regional powers, and all having their petty proxy wars with each other, as well as Asad. So if the Russians want to bomb them all into the stone age, let them get on with it. I Presume they'll be a lot less piecemeal, squeemish, hangwringing and generally useless at it as we've been

I'd happily see them nuke the whole region

I've not been called up, so I guess we are safe.

Hang on, is that my phone ringing....

binners - Member

To be fair, we've not been very good at working out who the good guys and the bad guys are in the past. The results of arming who we thought were the good guys, only for them to turn not to be, haven't been good, to say the least.

that's what the '*' was for, it's obviously [s]much more complicated than i can begin...[/s] a tragic mess of epic proportions.

I'd happily see them nuke the whole region

Nice.

and all you're left with are varyious factions of utterly psychotic jihadist nutjobs

I'm not seeing a whole lot of difference between them and those we supposedly elect into Government.

I'm not seeing a whole lot of difference between them and those we supposedly elect into Government.

I'd happily nuke them too. 😀

nyet yet!

I've not been called up, so I guess we are safe.

Hang on, is that my phone ringing....

Well, I'm too old for that call up nonsense, but I shall consider which role I may take in 'Dad's Army'. I quite fancy being 'Sgt Wilson', but suspect I'll end up somewhere between Cpl Jones and Pvt Pike

I work with a few Ruskies (all good lads and lasses actually)...Putin is proper popular back home in Mother Russia and with a lot of ex-pats too.....I have a feeling they were a little brain washed during their School years and anything goes as long as Mother Russia is okay.

Two points, far as they are concerned, there was no Ukraine until recently and before that....it was Russia.

Oh, and they have never started a war.....I pointed out that perhaps the Finns might feel a bit different about that...but no....Mother Russia can do no wrong.

Mmmm, we are bombing "men with guns", they are bombing "men with guns". How do they tell them apart ?

Not like the old days when they all wore a uniform and waved flags and such. Its just friction at the edges of empires. Been like that since history started. Wont go away till there is just one empire.

I shall consider which role I may take in 'Dad's Army'. I quite fancy being 'Sgt Wilson', but suspect I'll end up somewhere between Cpl Jones and Pvt Pike

Well I'm ready
[img] [/img]

2 things,

"Never trust a Russian"

"Never fight against Russians. Your every cunning will be responded by their unpredictable stupidity"

I'd be most interested to hear Putin's views on children smoking carrier bags in their parent's cars.

It's often a good idea from a 'leader's' point of view to start a war when your economy is tanking and your people are about to get restless. It takes their attention away from their falling standards of living and uses their energy up elsewhere instead of on you. + spending money on war is a kind of economic stimulus.
Russia is in recession and there's serious concern that we're about to drop into a global recession/economic collapse as China growth stops and it becomes clear just how much debt has built up since 2008 with super-low interest rates...

So I suspect it suits both sides for this current action to be going on...

Aren't they only protecting their assets in the area?
Just like us.supposedly.

Russia is protecting its long established interests in the region (access to the eastern med through Syria).
Most people in the West recognise this. We can hardly criticise Russia, given the extent of Western interference in the region.
Are we at war with Russia? No.
Are neocons at war with Russia? Possibly. As they still hold a huge amount of influence in the US, we could be looking at a continued disintegration in US-Russia relations.
So this could end badly.

from what I've read the dominant 'tribes' of Syria are pretty much as bad as each other with ISS being the worst and perceived as a threat to the west with terrorism. So I dont see any decent choices:

let russia bomb those opposed to Assad, the old leader. Assad comes back to power and its still not good but is at peace of sorts.
we bomb the ISS only, Assad or other bad guy takes control, see above conclusion.
we go in with all guns ablaze, see Afghanistan, still fighting Taliban.

in the meantime ordinary people get off their backsides and try to find a better life, well wouldnt you. the refugee crisis has begun to give the worlds super powers the mandate to act. for better or worse. its been the way of the world for many many millennia. you dont always like your neighbour, but better the devil you know sometimes.

The russians just want Assad to remain in power

Yes but it's nothing personal, they owe him nothing. What they don't want in power in Syria is either a bunch of lunatics who will behead you simply because they don't like you, or a bunch of Western stooges - either of the totally corrupt sectarian Iraqi type, or the medieval beheading dictatorship of the Saudi type.

I completely agree with them. And I hope they succeed in securing a secular Syria of the Assad type. My understanding is that Assad's support in Syria isn't because he's considered to be "a great guy" but because the only real alternatives are far worse.

It seems like all these Dictators who have been removed would have actually been slightly better left in place.

Like Libya, Iraq and now Syria.

They did keep the lid on the religious nutters with guns.

Are there examples of post Dictators that have ended well ?

I don't disagree with them, but their reasons are not for peace or fairness, it's because he's an ally and moreover; a customer, which I have no problem with.
The west wanting the FSA to take power will result in utter chaos, just as it has everywhere else but they still see it as an opportunity to unseat a russian and iran friendly govt.

If there's any American casualties this could get awkward:

[i]Reuters: Russian air strike hits training camp of Syrian rebel group trained by CIA. [/i]

It's often a good idea from a 'leader's' point of view to start a war when your economy is tanking and your people are about to get restless. It takes their attention away from their falling standards of living and uses their energy up elsewhere instead of on you.

Except that is completely unnecessary in Russia today. Despite the poor performance of the economy Putin's approval ratings are overwhelming. He doesn't need to find new ways of bolstering a flagging popularity.

[i]"As Russia deals with a dramatic fall in the price of oil and Western sanctions over its actions in Ukraine, fewer Russians say the economy is good and that Russian President Vladimir Putin’s actions in Ukraine have led to more favorable views of Russia. Nonetheless, Putin, who has entered his 11th year as leader of the country, garners overwhelming support from the Russian people on both his domestic and foreign policies, including record-high confidence in his ability to handle international affairs."[/i]

http://www.pewglobal.org/2015/06/10/2-russian-public-opinion-putin-praised-west-panned/

Are there examples of post Dictators that have ended well ?

Germany, Italy, Japan, France

As Ernie said, Putin is not in the situation of most Western leaders, i.e. start a war to boost the popularity rating.
Their intervention is old school - protection of national interests.
But this could easily spiral out of control, especially if the people at NATO and the Pentagon fancy a showdown with Russia.
Russia's announcement to the Americans - one hour's warning over a phone call - suggests relations are at the lowest they've been since the cold war.

[i]Are there examples of post Dictators that have ended well ?[/i]

Russia if you believe Putin's popularity ratings...

Libya has already taught us that without boots on the ground propping up a government anarchy will ensue as all the rebel groups that had been in a loose coalition turn on each other once the dictator's gone.

Even when there are boots on the ground Iraq and Afghanistan have already taught us peace isn't achieved once the dictator (or oppressive regime) is removed.

I can't see a solution to Syria personally; Assad staying in power propped up by the Russians won't help the civilians, not getting involved probably results in an IS victory (once the rebels and government have sufficiently weakened each other to be destroyed) and the US propping up the rebels and them defeating Assad probably ends up like Libya but with IS there in a much stronger position.

And yes with the Russians clearly using IS as a veil to undertake anti-Rebel ops behind the chances of a Russian-US accident happening are worryingly high

I don't disagree with them, but their reasons are not for peace or fairness, it's because he's an ally and moreover; a customer, which I have no problem with.

So a bit like the West then.

There's also the small point that Russia claims that possibly thousands of it's citizens are fighting with terrorist organisations in Syria, like the UK it's something which they aren't very happy about. Specially as they have had to deal with far more Islamic terrorist atrocities at home than the UK.

So a bit like the West then.

Amidst all the hysteria, I have to say I feel for Obama.
He has had war-mongering neocons biting at his ankles for military intervention in the Ukraine, which he withstood.
Now the media is setting him up as a weak leader who is getting pushed around by bullyboy Putin. Obama knows the Americans don't want any more wars so is acting like a representative president.
The neocons still want a showdown with Russia. Thankfully he is in his last term, so doesn't need to start wars for election purposes.

I don't get that :

Obama knows the Americans don't want any more wars so is acting like a representative president.............. Thankfully he is in his last term, so doesn't need to start wars for election purposes.

If he knows that 'Americans don't want any more wars' why would he 'start wars for election purposes' if he was in his first term ?

Btw I don't feel in the least bit sorry for Obama. He could have been a different president but as it turns out he's barely distinguishable from a Republican imo.

If he knows that 'Americans don't want any more wars' why would he 'start wars for election purposes' if he was in his first term ?

Your right, a contradiction in my earlier statement. I'm hoping that the majority of Americans are now against military intervention, period. But as a country it does suffer from a messianic attitude and this means it is relatively easy to turn the average American into a warmonger, especially if words like "democracy" are flung around by neocons in the press.

So I expect the future Presidential candidates to start using anti-Russian sentiments in their speeches from now on. Hilary Clinton will definitely play this card, and if she gets elected on an anti-Russian platform...well, find your closest nuclear bunker.

I'm hoping that the majority of Americans are now against military intervention, period.

Ah fair enough.

it is relatively easy to turn the average American into a warmonger, especially if words like "democracy" are flung around ...

Probably the same as the UK then. When Argentina invaded the Falklands the overwhelming majority of people didn't have a clue where the Islands were, yet despite that and the fact there had been no historical hostility between Argentina and the UK, and therefore no long softening up with decades of anti-Argentine rhetoric, the British public were pretty much overnight prepared to support the most serious military conflict since Korea. Despite having been told just previously by their prime minister that the government coffers were allegedly empty (it's a very old Tory script)

And that'll be the same public btw who couldn't give a toss when 2 years earlier the British Nationality Act 1981 had stripped Falkland Islanders of their full British nationality and right of entry to the UK.