How about South Eastern European?
Printable View
How about South Eastern European?
That would be wrong again. Most of Serbia is located there, but, the Danube is taken to be natural border between Southeastern Europe and Central Europe, and, since I live in Novi Sad...Quote:
Originally Posted by Papewaio
https://i.imgur.com/e56HNJL.jpg
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
...I'm actually Central European, so in this case I'm lumped with Germans, Austrians and Swiss (not to shabby, you could do worse, you know. Yes, even worse than the Germans. It is possible.). I do travel south, across the river often, though, and let me tell you, there are all kinds of uncouth barbarians living in the Balkans.
There are resorts mosrly, but I wouldn't call that income inequality, just people who can afford nice houses,bthe person who transports the toothpaste didn't invent toothpaste. Life isn't bad there, cheap products, nice houses, nice people. I could live in a mansion there for what I payed for a single etage here.Quote:
Originally Posted by Papewaio
edit, it is SMALL
That's an oversimplification. There is theory, and there is practice. As an example, the UAE seems fond of handing out the odd death by stoning sentence, but they don't appear to be carrying them out very often (if at all):Quote:
Originally Posted by Sarmatian
http://7days.ae/expat-faces-death-st...eating-husbandQuote:
He added that Abu Dhabi Criminal Court has previously sentenced defendants in similar cases to death by stoning, but the sentences were never carried out.
A judicial expert said that although UAE laws are based on Sharia law, the courts exercise leniency as much as possible on people charged with such offences.
Furthermore, the legal system of different countries appear to be flirting with sharia to different degrees.
I am using it with a very common and meaningful sense of the word (like it is used e.g. here and countless other places). When one wants to specify a certain type of democracy, one uses modifiers: modern democracy, liberal democracy, Western democracy etc. Such use with modifiers is extremely common; just look around.Quote:
So, there's really no point in using the word at all. Why did you use it then? Or are we all supposed to assume that democracy means whatever you want it to mean at that specific moment to suit the point you're making?
Using different sources I can find different definitions; and no matter which definition is agreed upon, there will be borderline cases.Quote:
Originally Posted by HitWithThe5
It's not just a matter of how you and me use the word, but also potential sources describing the situation in Syria.
I see nothing about them being "former Al-Nusra people".
I find it hard to believe that Islamists are hard to identify, especially when all their charters share a centerpiece.Quote:
Originally Posted by Viking
I can't find those words specifically in English. You should look into them, they are hardline Salafis who turned it down in order to attract more people with sketchy unIslamic past to confront Al Nusra. After their defeat quite a few of them turned over to Al Nusra now as well. Just a bunch of disgruntled rebel officials switching allegiances nothing to see here.Quote:
I see nothing about them being "former Al-Nusra people".
In any case, they don't matter because they've pretty much disbanded. This is old news, so no moderates in Syria this is the point.
How many definitions can you find of the word "pedantic"?Quote:
Originally Posted by Viking
I doubt every tiny rebel group will have an official charter.Quote:
Originally Posted by HitWithThe5
That's indeed the old news, the they're back now.Quote:
In any case, they don't matter because they've pretty much disbanded. This is old news, so no moderates in Syria this is the point.
Considering that that sub-thread concerned definitions right from the get-go, the word you are looking for is amnesia.Quote:
Originally Posted by CrossLOPER
They do. They're also not that tiny because they're a coalition of various salafi rebel groups.Quote:
Originally Posted by Viking
This is a problem that most of these news outlets have. Even in the link you provided, the flag of the so-called "Levant Front" doesn't even say that, it's now officially Ahrar Al Sham aka Levant Liberators or something like that.Quote:
That's indeed the old news, the they're back now.
This is them now: http://www.middleeasteye.net/columns...yond-455405201
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ahrar_ash-Sham
edit, que wrong thread
That group has a charter (and that charter is obviously islamist), yes, but I was having Syrian rebel groups in general in mind.Quote:
Originally Posted by HitWithThe5
Wiki says something else, and the other source does not appear to mention the Levant Front at all.Quote:
This is a problem that most of these news outlets have. Even in the link you provided, the flag of the so-called "Levant Front" doesn't even say that, it's now officially Ahrar Al Sham aka Levant Liberators or something like that.
This is them now: http://www.middleeasteye.net/columns...yond-455405201
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ahrar_ash-Sham
You failed at proving your point and decided to start your own argument as a tool of misdirection.Quote:
Originally Posted by Viking
I'll say this again: it is IMPOSSIBLE to have a healthy democracy where there are explicit, institutional violations of human rights.
Yet another example of a straw man argument. I have said nothing about a 'healthy' democracy, I said this:Quote:
Originally Posted by CrossLOPER
In other words, what matters is if they can vote for representatives that can alter the constitution, the legal frame work etc. - it doesn't matter whether or not adulterers are stoned to death at the time of voting any more than the amount of Syrian pounds they have to pay for speeding. There is an opening for change.Quote:
Originally Posted by Viking
Now if you could argue against what I said rather than what you imagine I said, that would be a massive improvement.
The argument about what constitutes an islamist was a minor sub-thread that had nothing to do with the democracy line of debate.
Show me an Islamist group with no charter.
it doesnt matter that the other source doesnt mention this. Levant front is a subordinate movement, which isn't moderate.Quote:
Originally Posted by wiki
You tried to argue that slavery is more acceptable under a democratic society and now you are trying to peddle that, because its a democracy, it is more likely to go away and is therefore acceptable. It's hilarious.Quote:
Originally Posted by Viking
What's really hilarious is how people are trying to judge ancient societies by modern standards. Athenian Democracy, Roman Republic, were some of the most advanced social constructs of their time, slavery or not. But oh, it's sooooo easy to piss on them from a high horse of the 21st century.Quote:
Originally Posted by CrossLOPER
No one did this itt.Quote:
Originally Posted by rvg
This "moderate" thing is getting stupid too. There is little to NO opposition in the countries that are **cked that isn't completely INSANE that's why we're in this mess. All of their goals are completely unrealistic.
We'll see.Quote:
Originally Posted by HitWithThe5
Nope. I said that a democratic state allowing slavery is better than a non-democratic state allowing slavery (everything else equal).Quote:
Originally Posted by CrossLOPER
No, it's been rather silly for a while.Quote:
It's hilarious.
Quote:
Originally Posted by CrossLOPER
OK, well if that is the case, why don't we let Islamic State take over, but first let them draft a democratic institution. I mean let them have all of it. The Balkans, Southeast Asia, the Middle East, and anything else that they want. All of it. But they will be a *democratic state*, so it will be OK.Quote:
Originally Posted by Viking
https://i.imgur.com/izgYZ7V.png
ALL OF IT. BUT IT WILL BE DEMOCRATIC SO IT WILL BE OK.
There's nothing to see bud, their time is almost up.Quote:
Originally Posted by Viking
Headshot.
An ally of the ghostly entity named FSA was killed in action.
I am sure that some of his soldiers might have 18th century democratic ideas. A terrible loss to the world's activism against secularism movement.
A summary of Putin's adventure in Syria:
http://www.jamestown.org/single/?tx_...1#.VjoacLfhBMx
http://en.abna24.com/service/middle-...457/story.html
Almost three years were these heroes of Secular Syria besieged by the opposition. Moderate wahhabists, at first, followed by not so moderate wahhabists. A great strategic and prestige victory for the Syrian state. It must be quite a terrible experience living for several months under the threat of being beheaded by your captors in case of a successful offensive.
I really do wonder why we are in such a rush to get rid of the dictators when we are then put in a position to kill many more to resolve the power vacuum we create.
Or overthrow democratically elected governments and wonder why the terrorist groups we invested in don't play nicely when they are in power.
If the goal is to destabilize a country, taking out the incumbent is the way to go.
I'm sure this was the goal, or else it would've been resolved years ago.
This article about researching the background of ISIS fighters is interesting. Not really bought into the caliphate.
http://www.thenation.com/article/wha...sis-prisoners/
Pissing off a bombmer jet is never smart:
https://www.facebook.com/67514442261...9825858483013/
Attachment 16987
I think that we now have the opportunity to coax forces on the ground. We can enact and enforce a ceasefire/dmz line (black line on map) coupled with a no-fly zone. Jordanian and Saudi ground forces could enforce this in the southern DMZ (yellow arrows), Turkish ground forces could enforce this in the Northern DMZ (blue arrows). This would force both the Alawite/Russian coalition as well as the Rebel coalition to focus in the center and East simultaneously (generally less populated and more prone to ISIS influence)
This will assist the Rebels as it diminishes both Assad and ISIS. Once the rebels secure Homs, the DMZ can be extended to isolate Alawite Syria into a Lebanon like mini-state (removing both them and the Russians from the conflict) and further concentrate rebel forces eastward as Turkish, Jordanian and Saudi ground forces police the Western areas.
Western Air and intelligence services enforce the DMZ/No Fly and continue to hammer ISIS.
Good idea? Terrible Idea?
Good idea; all you need is for Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, and Iran to agree to a joint incursion into Syria.
At that point, why not go whole-hog and "assist" the Iraqi government in retaking the country? While the ground forces are there, might as well have a conventional war over who gets to be hegemon in Mesopotamia.
As for the geographic particulars of your proposed DMZ, I'm confused. Besides being concerned more with current areas of control as opposed to clear topological/cartographic divisions and landmarks, it tacitly assumes that IS will never be pushed back in the context of the overall conflict.
Assad isnt focused on ISIS, he spends his ordinance attacking western rebels. Blocking that would focus him along his borders in the East - which would bring him into more regular and exclusive contact with ISIS controlled towns.Quote:
Originally Posted by Montmorency
Additionally, the cover which this woulf buy the Rebels would allow them to re-focus East as well; rather than in every direction. They would have more regular and less clandestine access to supplies and more constant influence from establishment/moderate forces. This would allow them to focus on clearing their limited areas of regime/isis forces and also move eastward into renewed conflict with ISIS held towns.
We have no interest in re-establishing the Iraqi governments sectarian control over the West of Iraq - we did that already and their policies failed in in record time. It would be better to keep Western Iraq and Central/Eastern Syria apart, as semi-autonomous regions within distinct nations (Iraq and, what would probably be a former segment of Syria) - this would help to avoid a Sunni "Jihadistan" under the influence of Saudi Arabia - ensuring that the Turks, The Kurds, the Shiaa & Moderate Sunni Iraqi's, the Gulf States, Saudis and Jordanians have a balanced stake in a divided region.
I envision a single nation of Syria controlled like Berlin or Bosnia; Sunni Arabs & Kurds in the North and East (with the Arab areas under the security of Turkish and Emirati Forces), Sunni Arabs in the South, (under the joint security of Saudi and Jordanians, bordering with the Israeli occupied Golan Heights) and an overwhelmingly Alawite Shia Coastal Region under the control of the Baathist party and their Russian Benefactors, just a bit larger than Lebanon.
So given the obvious barriers against international partition and occupation (not least when you want Turkey and Saudi Arabia to do the legwork, and cooperate while doing so), why not aspire to that specifically?
What you presented seems to be the problematic occupation and partition, plus encouragement of the rebels and Assad to grab as much land as they can from each other that doesn't constitute a DMZ?
Since if the (unified for our scenario) rebels and Assad are pushed to concentrate on fronts against IS, leading to loss of territories by IS, then why wouldn't Assad and the rebels subsequently contest the ground that IS has abandoned? You would essentially need to continually expand the DMZ, and maintain considerable military and security deployments for the sole purpose of preventing DMZ violations. :dizzy2:
Pretty terrible, even if it was applicable.Quote:
Originally Posted by ICantSpellDawg
To begin with, I would prefer it if states that actively supported Al-Nusra, the representative of AQ in Syria, whose leader is a former lieutenant of Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, like Turkey and Saudi Arabia have no military presence in Syria. Especially Turkey, whose goal is to incorporate the Turkmeni Syrian regions to Turkey.
Secondly, I'm not sure what you mean by rebels securing Homs. Thankfully, there are no rebels in the city itself, since they were wiped out in May 2014, during what is the most decisive victory of the Syrian Army:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Homs
That's the Idea. Demilitarize the zones of fighting that dont benefit our interest and focus the fighting in areas with low civilian populations that WOULD be in our interests. A "no fly zone" absolutely benefits the more moderate rebels at the expense of Assad, but we would still benefit from Assad and Russian airstrikes in the center and East of the country, so dont cut them off completely. Show them a reason to push East. Additionally, Crandar, there are still rebels in Homs generally, in towns outside of the city. From what I understand there is still rebel presence & pretty fierce fighting in these places.Quote:
Originally Posted by Montmorency
When I say OUR, I mean Western and Sunni interests.
Would Turkish control over these regions short of annexation be a bad thing?Quote:
Originally Posted by Crandar
And you seriously think there could be no bad side effects to pushing and shoving Putin and Assad around and telling them who and where they can bomb and not? Who is going to enforce that and how do you justify it? Do you just tell them that you do it because you do not want them to bomb "your" rebel kittens or do you spin an RT-level story that everybody knows is completely made up?Quote:
Originally Posted by ICantSpellDawg
And at what point of this are you actually proud of yourself or improving your image with anyone?
The beauty of the Caliphate is that once declared, all opposition is termed external/alien.
The danger is no longer the existence of the Caliphate, but the very idea.
A purely military solution will leave the idea, therefore the poles of conflict, very much in tact.
Battle of hearts and minds: Caliphate 1, opposition 0.
There's a silver lining for only containing it, draws the nutjobs out of here, must be a lot of preassure on wannabees in Europe to go there. Just don't allow them to get back. We have a major problem thanks to Merkel who made it possible to get in and spread out though. Every security-agency and their mother warned against the risks but a relinut with a messias-complex will never listen.Quote:
Originally Posted by HopAlongBunny
As I said, they (including ISIL) have a small presence in the suburbs of the town. The opposition in the city of Homs has been completely eradicated, they didn't retreat, no. Thousands of them were either killed or captured, since the Syrian Army made a surprising encirclement.Quote:
Originally Posted by ICantSpellDawg
Currently, I would say that taking Homs is the most difficult task for the opposition, with the exception of Lattakia. They are simply inexistent and keep in mind that they disastrously failed to even capture Daraa, a city very sympathetic towards sunni extremism and sunder siege by a large group of rebels directly equipped from USA.
It would be, because it would signify the ethnic cleansing of Arabs or Kurds. Turkey has already assimilated Alexandretta (having incorporated it in the early 20th century), in spite of the fact that there were no Turks at all.Quote:
Originally Posted by ICantSpellDawg
You think that Turks, when given nominal defensive control over the North - but not to occupy the Kurdish territory - would exterminate and cleanse Arabs? I dont think this is a realistic fear at the moment.Quote:
Originally Posted by Crandar
Well, they haven't hesitated to arm the ex-ally of ISIL, Al-Nusra or Al-Qaeda of Syria.
Speaking of Al-Qaeda, a video has been uploaded, where the terrorist commander of Al-Nusra thanks the moderate commander of FSA, for giving him TOWs.
Not that they need them, considering that Saudi Arabia arms them directly, but it's alright, guys, they don't belong to the Axis of Evil.
http://macedoniaonline.eu/content/view/28444/53/
Might be bad, Turkey admitted they shot down a Russian jet, but it wasn't flying over Turkish territory. Putin is probably not able to sell a diplomatic solution back home, he would look weak. Bad idea in Russia
After reading about it...I'm still not sure what happened:
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-34907983
Don't we all. If Russia flew over Turkey Turkey did nothing wrong, If they didn't things are getting even more complicated.Quote:
Originally Posted by HopAlongBunny
BBC article says the plane was warned about violations of airspace. Reuters article mentions an "official" who said planes were approaching Turkish territory and were given warnings they are getting too close, but also mentions multiple airspace violations.
Gonna be funny. Turkey has its own interests in Syria. Prop up Sunnis, annex the north where Turkmen live, help everyone (including Al Nusra and ISIS) who fight Assad and Kurds.
Putin has the benefit of not needing to respond to a public. That makes his actions more predictable in some ways, less so in others- which is good and bad for him.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fragony
I doubt that Russia could take Turkey in any offensive war, notwithstanding their 4x higher military expenditure, and notwithstanding any NATO support. Turkey is economically self-contained and has a modernized military. The amount of money it would cost to do significant damage would bankrupt the Russian State
You are probably right, so far only some economic sanctions, not retaliations on the rotaliations on the Turkoman rebels who killed the pilot. Would still be good if Turkey apoligizes though.Quote:
Originally Posted by ICantSpellDawg
A year or two ago some predicted he would be marching on Berlin by now, now he can't even take on Turkey.Quote:
Originally Posted by ICantSpellDawg
Politics are confusing.
Turkey has a rather large and modern military. In a conventional total war, Turkey would stand no chance (even with nukes taken out of the equation), but Russia couldn't take on Turkey painlessly, they would suffer serious casualties, and the funds needed would be quite significant indeed.Quote:
Originally Posted by Husar
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern...orces#VehiclesQuote:
Originally Posted by Sarmatian
You mean all those modern Patton tanks would stop them for long?
Of course they would suffer serious casualties, even the Pattons are not a complete pushover, but I was comparing this to an evasion of the EU, so...
Turkey stands no chance in what sense? Of not losing the war? That obviously depends on what the political goals are for the participants. Of not being conquered? Russia would find it easier to conquer Finland and Scandinavia than to conquer Turkey.
Or Luxembourg and Monaco, much easier.Quote:
Originally Posted by Montmorency
Conquering Finland might not be that hard now that they could attempt it with combined arms rather than just millions of poorly trained and ill equipped foot soldiers conscripted from the rural areas. Running these poor sods at the Mannertheim line with the NKVD behind their backs was comrade Stalin's way to do it. It's like whipping a bunch of kindergarteners untill they can pull a truck up a hill. Enough kindergarteners and enough whipping and it can probably happen.Quote:
Originally Posted by Montmorency
Now though that land connection to Finland and the improved infrastructure on it would mean that Russia will have an easy time to provide logistics for its tanks, artillery, airforce and so on. Oh, and modern day missile cruisers will cause heaps of trouble for the finns as well.
In the case of a 1v1 war between Russia and Turkey where nukes are banned I don't see how anyone can favour Turkey. The Russians can have a safe route through Georgia (Russian-Georgian relations are pretty warm) and just roll over Turkey. Alternatively they can gather their fleet and choke Istanbul out. It will be harder to land troops through the Black Sea or to get permission to pass through Romania and Bulgaria. But it's possible.
I think you are misinterpreting the character of relations between Georgia and Russia. After 2008 war and losing its territories Georgia will never allow any passage of the Russian military in spite of the fact that the new president is pre-disposed towards Russia. He would face popular dissatisfaction (to put it mildly). Besides, for a massive land operation Russia will need quite a time for passing through Georgia and, most importantly, KEEPING THAT ROAD OPEN for even longer time what with the purpose of bringing in reinforcements and withdrawing the wounded and suppying the fielded armies. The longer the road through Georgia is open, the greater is the likelihood of popular discontent (even if the Georgian president is lenient) and still greater is the likelihood that Turkey would try to stop that corridor by using its aiforce, which Georgia (both in the meaning "the people" and "the authorities") would not relish. So land operation via Georgia is out of question for Russia.Quote:
Originally Posted by Myth
:laugh4: Those rusty tubs? I would advise you to find a video from the Russian fleet military parade in Sevastopol this year. You will see how effective that navy is.Quote:
Originally Posted by Myth
Besides, I guess that Turkey has its own fleet (and a more modern one) in the Black Sea which will offer its resistance. And don't forget the NATO support in case Turkey is openly attacked.
Landing troops will mean introducing isolated detachments which will be forced to act without the hope of reinforcements or supplies in the hostile environment. Any Turkish territory is not Donbas or the Crimea,so it will be sheer waste of manpower. Not that Putin would mind it much, though.Quote:
Originally Posted by Myth
No, he means the 750 Leopard I and II tanks.Quote:
Originally Posted by Husar
Turkey has more Leopard II tanks than Germany.
Also, unlike the Germans, the Turks mean business and any Russian invasion would be made to suffer as much as possible - no punches would be pulled.
That's ridiculous....Quote:
Originally Posted by Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
How is the Leopard 1 modern? Their Leopard 2 are only like 30 or 40 more than Germany has and the A4 standard is not entirely new either, the A5 was introduced in the early 90s...
Not to forget that Germany would not be the only country they'd have to face when invading Europe.
Even if I take your comment about the Germans not meaning business seriously, the glorious British would obviously bravely send their superior tanks and singlehandedly beat back the evil red flood, so there, invading Turkey is much easier...
Turkey has the second largest standing army in NATO.
Remember, the US couldn't defeat Vietnam.
Sorry Husar - our army is in a pretty bad way too, our armour has been even more ground down that yours.Quote:
Originally Posted by Husar
If you need to stop the Red Flood may I suggest the Greeks?
I'm sure they're only too happy to help fellow Europeans.
Back when you were serious about defending the Fulda Gap you had over two thousand tanks - now you have a tenth of that.
Turkey has a massive tank force, yes they have many older tanks but the spearhead are the Leopard II and Leopard I tanks in that order. Russia doesn't have a huge number of modern tanks either, remember, the majority of their tanks are still T-80s.
Add to that the fact that Anatolia is one of the worst places to invade in the world and you rapidly conclude it's not worth it for the Russians, it would require a general mobalisation and I don't think Russia can afford that financially or domestically.
If we want to stop the "Red Storm" we have to built tanks, APC, heavy guns and trained the crews and troops. I don't know for you guys, but thanks to the strain of Presidents on France, we don't have any more the capacity to do so, as Sarkozy sold France to NATO, dismantled our factories (including the one producing special metal to Mittal who shut it down) producing weapons, and sold the premises and field where we were training to friends and relatives. The Infantry Combat School where I trained doesn't exist any more and is now a area of nice (but expensive) flats. All went for so-called inter-arms school, on the principal that a mechanic has the same needs than a grunt. All the "savoir-faire" based on experience and traditions is just gone.
Like others, France sacrificed the heavy gears for light intervention brigades, light infantry brigade type Legion/paratroopers/overseas troops, equipped with magnified APC, well, even not APC but glorified lorries (VAB)... And even not enough of them. Operations type Mali put an unsustainable strain on the French Army: No troops, no helicopters, no planes, limit of ammunition, logistic just good enough thanks to US Air force back-up. With a more robust enemy... So, Red Storm, let have a laugh...
And that why I think Hollande went to see Putin for Iraq. If France want to sent boots (Foreign Legion first, I suppose), France will need the MI-24 and the Russian Controlled facilities...
Larger than all EU countries together?Quote:
Originally Posted by ICantSpellDawg
That was my point, most of these tanks are still in service in EU countries: Spain, Poland, Sweden, Greece...Quote:
Originally Posted by Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
Add to that the British tanks, the Italian ones, the French Leclercs, the Polish Twardys and you're seriously going to argue that attacking the EU is easier than Turkey? Or did you just forget how we started this argument? We didn't even get to the Air Forces and other assets yet...
These T-80s can take on all of these Turkish tanks, especially upgraded T-80s that are more modern than pretty much all the active tanks Turkey has.Quote:
Originally Posted by Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
I never said they're going to invade, I said it's strange how people used to say Putin is coming for Europe and now even Turkey is too much for him...Quote:
Originally Posted by Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
That is this strange "schizophrenia": Putin will invade all the world, but Putin can't attack even Georgia as his armies are made of tin foiled tanks/planes/whatever manned by drunken crews...
And they believed both proposals...
This article on the situation in Turkey is actually being rather kind to Erdogan. They speak of smuggled oil from ISIS and don’t bring up Erdogan’s son, who seems involved with it and is the Turkish equivalent of a Mafia Don.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...-BURLEIGH.html
It tells us the Turkish Army is around 500,000 strong.
Yesterday, I here of two prominent Turkish Journalists were arrested, charged with espionage, and helping a terror organisation, (a US based opposition group to Erdogan) when in fact what they did was expose government cooperation and aid to ISIS.
http://www.hurriyetdailynews.com/two...&NewsCatID=339
Eh. Either russia would fail to beat the turkish army or they win but end up in another afghanistan.Quote:
Originally Posted by Brenus
If you mean my comment, then you again misread it. I said of zero likelihood for Russians TO BE LET THROUGH Georgia. I don't doubt Russia can FIGHT ITS WAY through Georgia and win. But it will mean fighting one enemy to create a landbridge to fight another. Too much fighting OPENLY. Putin will do things in his favorite surreptitious mean way. Perhaps we will soon hear of oppressed Armenians, their Orthodox brethren, living amid bloodthirsty Nazi Turks and calling on Putin the Deliverer to free them from the yoke.Quote:
Originally Posted by Brenus
At least as far as I'm concerned, these arguments come more from the direction of our two resident doomsday posters who can't wait to die in a glorious explosion in WW3, PFFF and ICPFFF (obviously I don't want to spell either ~;) ).Quote:
Originally Posted by Gilrandir
"If you mean my comment, then you again misread it" Nope, wasn't yours. A bit like Husar, but not really aimed at someone in particular... But you probably remember some comments about Russian being drunk and their armies crap. And as well some comments Russia was massing troops at the borders reading to take Berlin...
"First we take Manhattan, then we take Berlin"
https://youtu.be/JTTC_fD598A
Tanks in Greece do you no good if Russia invades Germany - by the time you can transfer the tanks between fronts the Russians are through the Gap. By contrast Turkey has 3,000 tanks in Anatolia.Quote:
Originally Posted by Husar
If Russia deployed all it's T-80 tanks it could probably beat Turkey, but that means stripping a lot of its garrisons and Russia is unlike to do that. Like the Turks Russia would be likely to use a mix of older and newer tanks. Turks are reputed to be good tankmen and if you're invading Anatolia it can be hell on Earth, like Russia itself.Quote:
These T-80s can take on all of these Turkish tanks, especially upgraded T-80s that are more modern than pretty much all the active tanks Turkey has.
The amount of armour in German is between 1/4 and 1/5 of what's in Germany including all German, British and American formations. the German army has recieved a reputation in recent years for being demoralised and overweight, while the UK army today has very low morale due to constant cutting of men and fun stuff like tanks.Quote:
I never said they're going to invade, I said it's strange how people used to say Putin is coming for Europe and now even Turkey is too much for him...
Even so, nobody was saying that Putin would invade NATO/the EU but that we would struggle to stop him from annexing parts of EU countries because of our unwilingness to fight. You don't want to fight - you've openly said that in the event of war you'll run away and hide.
Me, I know I'm of draftable age and if the proverbial hits the air circulation mechanism I'm going to end up in the Green. So I'd prefer SigInt or failing that Artillery because I might actually be not-terrible at those.
I don't want to fight, thanks, but I'm perfectly willing to if required.
Germany and Greece are not the only countries in the EU.Quote:
Originally Posted by Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
Good for them.Quote:
Originally Posted by Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
¿Qué?Quote:
Originally Posted by Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
And the Russians are all drunk, so I guess we're even.Quote:
Originally Posted by Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
I'm pretty sure that you or someone else talked about that it may be better to strike against Russia now before Putin comes or something like that back in the Ukraine thread.Quote:
Originally Posted by Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
Yes, it depends on the circumstances as well, but especially if it is a war over something I consider a stupid political event where "my side" may even be to blame for the escalation.Quote:
Originally Posted by Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
Define "required" in this context.Quote:
Originally Posted by Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
"Germany and Greece are not the only countries in the EU." Is it not the Greece made of overpaid lazy greedy tax dodgers we speak about here? The one who should have been expel from EU?
Well, apparently the French, Spanish, Italian and others are not in Europe, or perhaps not considered as forces...
Breaking news.
Fateh Halab (Conquest of Aleppo) is a member of the Free Syrian Army, an organisation with a media-friendly name that conquers cities very moderately. They are also allies of the West and today they claimed that , after heroic and intense fighting, they manage to... conquer the villages of Kashtar and Taneb. From whom?
Not from the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant.
Not from the Syrian Army.
Not from Al-Qaeda.
Not from the Lebanese, the Iranians, the Israelis or the Turks.
From the Kurds? Well, not exactly.
They captured them from the equally moderate Syrian Democratic Forces, a new moderate coalition between Arabs and Kurds, an ally of the West, with the task of liberating Syria and giving the media a new catchy name, to replace the exhausted FSA.
So, whom are we supposed to attack and whom to arm? The Free or the Democratic guys? Who are the terrorists and who the partisans, for god's sake?!
The key word here is "if". It doesn't explain HOW Russians are going to get their tanks in contacts with the Turks.Quote:
Originally Posted by Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
The freedomest ones.Quote:
Originally Posted by Crandar
The bulk of Russia's armory consists of T-72 and T-80 tanks. Granted those are modernized and are not as crappy as some would believe, but the Patton tanks still used by Turkey and others have also been heavily pimped.Quote:
Originally Posted by Husar
In a dick measuring contest between Turkey and Russia the latter would obviously win, but Putin isn't stupid and he's not going to attack a NATO country in retaliation for a single jet fighter. Even if Turkey wasn't a NATO member it would not be worth it. Things will stay flaccid.
Allthough if Turkey weren't a NATO member and got into a fight with Russia, I would not root for either of them. Both countries are run by complete scumbags. Most NATO countries dissaprove when al-Assad kills civilians, but Erdogan is bothered because most of those happen to be Sunni muslims, and more than a few Turkic.
I don't even understand anymore why the "Assad question" is discussed at all, or why people such as Hollande are so determined to get rid of him. I can understand the argument that a peace settlement with al-Assad remaining isn't workable because more than half of the country hates him, but at the same time it's clear that the Syrian state isn't going to collapse any time soon. Even now the Syrian state is still the biggest player in that quagmire and any sort of peace settlement will need its support. And by that I mean the support of the military and the bureaucracy, which is held together mostly by its loyalty to al-Assad and his family.
Those of you who believe this seem to be looking at raw counts of available materiel and troops, which is rather stupid; for example, it suggests that the United States would have a good shot at conquering Russia.Quote:
In a dick measuring contest between Turkey and Russia the latter would obviously win
War is not like a game of RISK, in which 8 chits against 5 chits by definition results in total victory for the former. Militaries have to cover actual ground to get to their enemy and their enemy's strategic places, unless you figure that wars are about to be fought entirely by Space Marines coming down on in drop-pods.
There's the question of quality of personnel, too.
All true, an invasion/occupation wouldn't work. I didn't mean to imply so, but I guess my bit about tanks gave that impression.Quote:
Originally Posted by Montmorency
What it boils down to: if the gloves where off, could Russia deter Turkey from interfering in Syria again and tolerate the occasional violation of its airspace? Assuming that NATO wouldn't intervene, yes they could.
Russia would simply pull their reserve aircraft out of storage and move them into position to attack Turkey. No need for land forces to cross any uninvolved countries. The quality of Russia's navy in the Black sea doesn't matter that much, either. Realisticly Russia doesn't want to resort to this, but Turkey wants it even less, because it couldn't fight them off.
EDIT: I don't think hypothetical dick contests are important though, because it's not going to happen anyway. You should all be glorifying the exalted ruler Assad and debate wether he should rule for 40 more years. Or not.
In all fairness pulling the reserve aircraft and bombing Turkey sounds bad too. Static defences will mean russian planes being shot down. An expensive endeavour for little gain. Bombing anything other than ragheads is pointless, unless you supplement it with a ground based invasion. Otherwise you're basically feeding jets to the enemy SAM sites.
Neither Russia nor Turkey have any interest whatsoever in an armed conflict. It's all just posturing.
Syrian rebels in Homs strike a deal with the government to leave Homs.
In the next two months the rebels will leave the last areas of Homs they were controlling, bringing the "capital of the revolution" fully under government control for the first time since the conflict erupted. The agreement also specifies that only the police, and not the army may enter that quarter of the city, and an exchange of prisoners will also follow.
This was uploaded last year so I assume that the numbers would be higher now.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5WBbIA20eE4
Interesting video. At first I was confused about where (in the room) she was speaking from.