159 replies to this topic

[Helen of Annoy]

Lord Vetinari, on 12 January 2013 - 04:48 PM, said:

but that's the only warship they have sent. The others are landing ships, which, unless they're there to put troops on the ground to deter intervention, are exactly what you'd use to evacuate people, and one friggate, which could do with a paint job, is not going to be likely to deter the Armed Might of the U.S. ™.

While The Armed Might is busy bringing the Democracy elsewhere, Rusty Yaroslav is enough to send the visual message: we can afford to have her sunk if that will cause further trouble.
I have no illusions about Russian motives for supporting Assad. They are not there to protect anyone but their interests, from anchoring in Mediterranean to selling insane amount of weapons.  

I wish they evacuated him by now, even if it takes dragging him by his ears off his throne. (I can so vividly imagine that.) Because he made too much damage, people will not forget their dead. Maybe he had a chance before, to rig elections in less distasteful way (one and only presidential candidate?!), but now it’s too late for anything else but letting people consolidate new government and how Islamic it will be should have been carefully pondered about years ago, while he was only imprisoning and torturing the possible opposition, not yet bombing whole towns.  
Pressure works, but if there’s no valve to let the accumulated steam out, the pressure cooker explodes.
It keeps happening, yet the pressure cookers remain favourite part of political kitchens. Because it’s just vapour, right? Stands no chance against our steel, right? *boom* wrong.

I hope FSA is talking with Russians away from media attention and I certainly won’t blame them if they choose to make some arrangement since no one else is willing to touch Russian spot in Middle East. That too is quite understandable.
I only have no idea what would Russian top figures say to their, Russian population that keeps hearing about bloodthirsty terrorists that are the same as Chechens and so on and on.
“We made a little pact with people who we blackened as terrorists up to yesterday because upon closer look we came to conclusion they are, as from this morning, in fact, freedom fighters.”
And to be morbidly honest, they wouldn’t be the first to promote freedom fighter into terrorist and vice versa.

I wish it was possible for Syrians to get rid of psycho on their own, I also quite frankly wish they turn to the West, since that’s what I wish for my own part of the world, not to re-elaborate why, but pragmatic people are more likely to survive. And first you have to stay alive in order to change sides later

Saturday night live rant over Sorry, folks, this is my pressure cooker valve.

[and then]

Lord Vetinari, on 12 January 2013 - 04:48 PM, said:

but that's the only warship they have sent. The others are landing ships, which, unless they're there to put troops on the ground to deter intervention, are exactly what you'd use to evacuate people, and one friggate, which could do with a paint job, is not going to be likely to deter the Armed Might of the U.S. ™.

LV we have a lot of faults here in the US but as a rule stupidity isn't high on the list.  You don't POKE a BEAR.  Especially one who is hypersensitive anyway.  Lots of other ways to get what you want/need without intentional provocation.  But I agree with your assessment of what the forces are arrayed to accomplish.  Not enough to cause too much worry but plenty to do what is needed.  It's sort of an analog, though not perfect, to US forces in South Korea.  When the north gets agitated and decides to shoot it NEVER shoots where US forces might get even injured, let alone killed.

[Tutankhaten-pasheri]

Edited by Atentutankh-pasheri, 12 January 2013 - 11:36 PM.

[Tutankhaten-pasheri]

Helen of Annoy, on 12 January 2013 - 11:11 AM, said:

I’m also aware Russia would send freighters instead of frigates if the ships were there to evacuate instead of deter someone, probably the West.

You mean a freighter like the Lena moored alongside Jaroslav Mudry at Valeta. People here lag behind me in this affair.....

Edited by Atentutankh-pasheri, 12 January 2013 - 11:39 PM.

[and then]

Too funny - I used to know someone named "Lena" from Yaroslavl     Classic name for a ship - the "Helen"

[Helen of Annoy]

Helen needs fresh coat of paint too!

I still think Yaroslav is there to deter the West and Lena is only there to make him look less rusty.
It’s like a girl deliberately going out with the ugliest friend she has, so she looks better in comparison

Never mind me, Aten, I’m just entertaining myself here, I’m sure Lena can take both Assad and his supersized ego aboard... maybe that's the problem, maybe Russia should ask one of her oligarchs to send his private yacht so Assad can go away in style.

[Tutankhaten-pasheri]

Private yacht

[The New Richard Nixon]

Don't forget the Egyptians have an air force, don't know how big but it is sizable, with combined with the Royal Saudi Air force and the Turkish air force. Assad's weapons and tanks would be gone in 5 hours lol

[Colonel Rhuairidh]

The New Richard Nixon, on 13 January 2013 - 11:53 AM, said:

Don't forget the Egyptians have an air force, don't know how big but it is sizable, with combined with the Royal Saudi Air force and the Turkish air force. Assad's weapons and tanks would be gone in 5 hours lol

the Saudis would probably drop their bombs "accidentally" somewhere in the desert on their own side of the border, like they (*allegedly) did once or twice in Gulf War I, to avoid having to face the might of Saddam's air defenses.
I daresay you could also rely on Morsi to about the same extent as well.

[Tutankhaten-pasheri]

Yet it is highly improbable, impossible even, that with Egypt in political turmoil they would launch airstrikes anywhere in the world. Now, the total unreality of this scenario. What airspace do these Saudi and Egyptian planes fly to attack Syria? Why would Egypt attack Syria anyway? it is ridiculous to even think of them wanting to do this. With Saudis I can see them wanting to, but it will never happen. There is also the military and political aspects. Do these airforces have the capability of destroying 5,000 tanks, and it would also need to be other assets, for instance artillery, in a year, let alone 5 hours. They need intelligence for location of all these assets, they need awacs, and most of all they need to first destroy Syria's AA defences. As for Turkey, well, it will be difficult for them and would cause huge civilian co-lateral casualties as we have all seen in the two gulf wars. I do not think Turkey will launch all out war on Syria, and it will need to be all war for this scenario to take place.

Edited by Atentutankh-pasheri, 13 January 2013 - 12:38 PM.

[and then]

Atentutankh-pasheri, on 13 January 2013 - 12:38 PM, said:

Yet it is highly improbable, impossible even, that with Egypt in political turmoil they would launch airstrikes anywhere in the world. Now, the total unreality of this scenario. What airspace do these Saudi and Egyptian planes fly to attack Syria? Why would Egypt attack Syria anyway? it is ridiculous to even think of them wanting to do this. With Saudis I can see them wanting to, but it will never happen. There is also the military and political aspects. Do these airforces have the capability of destroying 5,000 tanks, and it would also need to be other assets, for instance artillery, in a year, let alone 5 hours. They need intelligence for location of all these assets, they need awacs, and most of all they need to first destroy Syria's AA defences. As for Turkey, well, it will be difficult for them and would cause huge civilian co-lateral casualties as we have all seen in the two gulf wars. I do not think Turkey will launch all out war on Syria, and it will need to be all war for this scenario to take place.

Playing devil's advocate here Aten.  If Syria's forces are really that formidable, why are they struggling, mightily it seems, against an insurgency?  It's not like they are showing restraint at all except in regard to the chemical weapons - or do I misread?  I agree that none of her Arab neighbors has any intention of attacking Syria/Assad.

Edited by and then, 13 January 2013 - 01:01 PM.

[Tutankhaten-pasheri]

Because Syria's forces are configured to fight Israel. What is happening in Syria is not a civil war in normal sense, there is not two sides that have taken half armed forces each to fight each other with. What is happening is rebellion by lightly armed groups who are fighting urban warfare. Tanks, artillery and planes are not the best weapons to use in such warfare. True they have been used, but there is no scope for mass movements of tank divisions launching attacks, or mass attacks by ground attack aircraft. So when you see on paper that Syria has large armed forces, they are the wrong type for what happens in Syria. An analogy is Northern Ireland. This caused problem for thirty years with comparitively few terrorist groups against entire British Army. Yet British never defeated IRA, even though they had military capability to turn Northern Ireland into a desert.

[the-Unexpected-Soul]

i think before the revolution, we could beat any arab country even if they had more advanced weapons, and that's becouse of many reasons Similar to the way the rebels are winning even they have much less/simple weapons, the moral high ground is just one of many

[Yamato]

A Russian cargo ship would concern me much more than a guided missile frigate, simply because it can carry so much more.  It's not the shipboard missiles that matter, it's the materiel they're offloading from the ship.

[and then]

Yamato, on 14 January 2013 - 01:30 AM, said:

A Russian cargo ship would concern me much more than a guided missile frigate, simply because it can carry so much more.  It's not the shipboard missiles that matter, it's the materiel they're offloading from the ship.

Exactly..... and if supplies from Moscow stopped coming in today Assad would be in serious trouble very quickly.  My guess is weeks rather than months.