The all purpose terrorism thread featuring plenty of allah akbar

[ikalugin]

Is the Turkish change of stance on Syria covered in Western media? If so, how is it covered? Thanks in advance

[Skybird]

The building of an axis Turkey-Russia-Iran has been noted. The recommended countermeasures are to bow even deeper to the Turkish Sultan Him-whose-name-is-not-to-be-criticised, and to not set up the Iranians by questioning their good will of not wanting to go after nukes that they want so much, and that Russia must be talked dizzy more urgently.

Naive. But thats how it is with toothless wannabe tigers. The stunning weakness of the EU and the inner rifts tearing it apart, have been noted in Teheran, Moscow, Ankara. They even do their shares t help it. EU talks. Moscow, Teheran and Ankara act and create hard facts on the ground that the EU can no longer get around.

Meanwhile German world market leader for advanced robotics Kuka has been sold to China, after the American daughter got split away and remains in US hands. The Germans just cannot imagine that China could stomp German industry into the ground once it got the wanted knowhow. The Chinese currently are on a buying frenzy in the German industry, buying the filet pieces and key technology companies as if there is no tomorrow. And Germany - lets it happen.

Turkey, Russia, Iran, China - four symptoms of how weak and clueless the EU is.

[Oberon]

Originally Posted by Skybird

Turkey, Russia, Iran, China - four symptoms of how weak and clueless the EU is.

Well, what do you expect? The EU is being torn apart from the inside, of course it's not going to respond to external problems effectively, it's utterly paralysed because half of it wants to destroy it. So then Germany, France, the UK and the like will be all on our own to deal with the manufacturing and economic might of America and friends.
We had our chance, we threw it away, now we must kowtow to Moscow to survive.

[ikalugin]

now we must kowtow to Moscow to survive.

Wait, what? We are not threatening western Europe with an invasion.

[Oberon]

Originally Posted by ikalugin

Wait, what? We are not threatening western Europe with an invasion.

I mean more economically and politically. Europe has to hitch its wagon to someone, it can't stand on its own any more, it used to be America but that doesn't seem to be an option any more.

[yubba]

Originally Posted by Oberon

I mean more economically and politically. Europe has to hitch its wagon to someone, it can't stand on its own any more, it used to be America but that doesn't seem to be an option any more.

We finally wised up and voted out the loyalist ,, for the last 70 years you would have thought we never had a American Revolution and gained our Independence from Merry ole England. So what's up with all the Nato troops massed along the the Russian border,, you starting to believe your own fake news,,, I get a kick out of folks here starting to believe what the CIA has to say as the truth,,after the Bush years the same CIA that said there was mwds in Iraq CIA. ,,,American Government Intelligence,, now there's a contradiction in terms.. Happy New Year, give the UN the boot

[August]

Originally Posted by Oberon

I mean more economically and politically. Europe has to hitch its wagon to someone, it can't stand on its own any more, it used to be America but that doesn't seem to be an option any more.

Maybe Europe ought to remember how to stand on it's own again. Is it possible?

[ikalugin]

Maybe Europe ought to remember how to stand on it's own again. Is it possible?

Individual countries in Europe lack mass. Only a federalised EU would have enough mass to be a super power.

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by ikalugin

Wait, what? We are not threatening western Europe with an invasion.

Eastern Europe and Baltic, the former Warsaw Pact territory. The worries and concerns are for real reasons - Crimean games have shown us that. Use of force, and spreading by power are a key patterns in Russian history - not expansion through being culturally attractive for others. Its about brute force. A language that many Russian leaders of the past and also the current one understand well, so seem to do many of the Russian people, my impression is.

NATO can not hold a Russian invasion of Eatsern European countries or the Baltic states currently, and the Kaliningrad enclave is a major, decisive vulnerability in NATO'S Russian "front", it could turn the whole East into a no-go zone for NATO's most important weapon: air power.

[ikalugin]

Originally Posted by Skybird

Eastern Europe and Baltic, the former Warsaw Pact territory. The worries and concerns are for real reasons - Crimean games have shown us that. Use of force, and spreading by power are a key patterns in Russian history - not expansion through being culturally attractive for others. Its about brute force. A language that many Russian leaders of the past and also the current one understand well, so seem to do many of the Russian people, my impression is.

NATO can not hold a Russian invasion of Eatsern European countries or the Baltic states currently, and the Kaliningrad enclave is a major, decisive vulnerability in NATO'S Russian "front", it could turn the whole East into a no-go zone for NATO's most important weapon: air power.

You seek threat where none exist. How and why would we invade, say, Poland? If not Poland then which Eastern European/NATO country are you talking about, Romania? Bulgaria?

Morever that whole "Russia try to conquer Baltics" narrative is just plainly silly - what use would we have out of a depopulated, de industrialised region that promotes rusophobic hysteria within it's citizens? The only possible reason for the Russian invasion of Baltics that I see is to counter the military threat, comming from NATO.

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by August

Maybe Europe ought to remember how to stand on it's own again. Is it possible?

No. Europe is done, will simply be left behind by the major players of the 21st century - which Europe will not belong to. Really.

Originally Posted by ikalugin

Individual countries in Europe lack mass. Only a federalised EU would have enough mass to be a super power.

There has been only one superpower in history - the United States after the Sovjet collapse and before it started to mess up its strategic stance with the war 2003. This super power status lasted for just a bit longer than one deacde. Int he cold war, there were no two superpopwers - the term implies that there is just one power that can domi8nate all others at will, but the USSRT and the USA/NATO would have m utually annihilated each other in case of a serious confrontation. And today, deeper in the 21st century already, high tech capabilities are spreading and cyberweapons get distributed all over the planet, making even the United States extremely vulnerable to such attacks, all the time with their conventional military power being reduced due to budget cuts, but also by getting neutralised by conventional restrengthening of potential adversaries.

So there has been only one super power in modern history indeed, and it already is gone again by now: the United States covering roughly the 90s decade, the years from 1990 to 2002. And that super power no more is there.

Speaking on military things, ignoring the power of soft faciors like economy, industry etc. Here, America sees a split between its strengths in economic key technology branches (where Europe by now is hopelessly weak and falling behind even mnore every year), its slow dying of heavy insutries, and its vulnerabilities due to the misery of the paper money collapse and the incredibly high debts. A mixed bag of factors, some being advantages, others having written "disaster" all over them.

Major business challenge of course is China. Also an uncalculatable risk for the global "fiscal" :LOL system.

One thing is certain only: Russian economy will never be in a shape where it could be used as a threat against the West. Which makes it even more certain that any major pushes on the world stage will include Russian force, not subtle Russian economic subtelties. Russian economy is not important enough.

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by ikalugin

You seek threat where none exist. How and why would we invade, say, Poland? If not Poland then which Eastern European/NATO country are you talking about, Romania? Bulgaria?

Morever that whole "Russia try to conquer Baltics" narrative is just plainly silly - what use would we have out of a depopulated, de industrialised region that promotes rusophobic hysteria within it's citizens? The only possible reason for the Russian invasion of Baltics that I see is to counter the military threat, comming from NATO.

Your forefathers did all that already once, and kept the status then for several decades. It was called the Warsaw Pact. It is no secret that quite some Russian politicians cry for the loss of what once was their empire, and that they want to have it back. The more paranoid also demand it back as a pressure zone to NATO.

After the Crimean adventure, I fear you have no argument there to convince people that Russia prioritizes peace before anything else. Not to mention Syria.

[Oberon]

Originally Posted by ikalugin

Individual countries in Europe lack mass. Only a federalised EU would have enough mass to be a super power.

Bingo, and since that's off the table because people seem to think that it's still the 1900s and individual nations of Europe actually mean something anymore. So it's either Russia or China, really.

[ikalugin]

Originally Posted by Skybird

Your forefathers did all that already once, and kept the status then for several decades. It was called the Warsaw Pact. It is no secret that quite some Russian politicians cry for the loss of what once was their empire, and that they want to have it back. The more paranoid also demand it back as a pressure zone to NATO.

After the Crimean adventure, I fear you have no argument there to convince people that Russia prioritizes peace before anything else. Not to mention Syria.

Only because we were invaded by NAZI Germans, where Eastern Europe was a valid buffer area and where every effort was made to industrialise the area (including Baltics).
Why would we do the same again, unless there is a NATO invasion happening? Further more, where would we get the capability to invade non-Baltics states, for example Poland or Romania?

If anything Crimea (and Ukraine crisis in general) shows that... we would not invade Baltics. The factors here are simple:
- Crimea, unlike Baltics, has military significance and pro-Russian majority.
- Crimea was a one off operation, unlikely to be ever repeated (and thus preparing for simmilar scenarios is a dumb waste of resources)
- Eastern Ukraine was not annexed despite it's pro-Russian majority and industrial capacity.
- There is no military capability being built in the north-western axis, if anything that operational-strategic axis has much less military build up than, say, south-western operational-strategic axis.

p.s. on Syria - we are there, supporting the legitimate goverment of Syria. Again, it is a separate matter from the Baltics or Ukraine.
p.p.s. using a quote from the meme paper by Gerasimov is sort of amusing by itself.

[Catfish]

Originally Posted by ikalugin View Post
Individual countries in Europe lack mass. Only a federalised EU would have enough mass to be a super power.

Originally Posted by Oberon

Bingo, and since that's off the table because people seem to think that it's still the 1900s and individual nations of Europe actually mean something anymore. So it's either Russia or China, really.

Roger that. I think it was self-evident, but since we are back to 1900 why not new wars, i mean let's enjoy patriotism, nationalism, isolation, and ignore science as long as we can.