• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

Russia sending warships to Syria.

8

89DeaconMike

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 5, 2011
Messages
887
Reaction score
57
I guess this whole "Cold War is over" thing has about run its course. When Putin moves back in (not that he moved out) we might want to hold off on those defense cuts.
 
We've already had the Cold War defense cuts. They were insitituted twenty years ago by Bush 41/Sec of Def Cheney.
 
I think he's referring to the aftermath of the super committee boondoggle.
 
RJKarl said:
We've already had the Cold War defense cuts. They were insitituted twenty years ago by Bush 41/Sec of Def Cheney.
Click to expand...

Bingo - and those cuts you refer to were huge contributors to the Clinton surpluses. It's about time you gave some credit to Bush/Cheney.
 
Funny how you don't mention the additional revenues created by the Budget Bill of 1993 as a major factor or the expansion of the economy.....

The savings on the military were more than overshadowed by the interest on the deficit Bush/Cheney created.
 
I'm certain that is has been concluded that what this world economy needs is a re-heating of a dormant cold war.

Best way to get product moving.
 
89DeaconMike said:
I guess this whole "Cold War is over" thing has about run its course. When Putin moves back in (not that he moved out) we might want to hold off on those defense cuts.
Click to expand...

No, the Cold War is, in fact, over, and has been for some time. Whatever you think Russia might be doing, it would be a new era of international politics.
 
Lectro said:
I'm certain that is has been concluded that what this world economy needs is a re-heating of a dormant cold war.

Best way to get product moving.
Click to expand...

Not nearly as effective as an actual war. And another benefit is that wars reduce population, so unemployment declines as well. Win-Win, #Winning.
 
Ahhhhh, drumming up the red scare again to scare the electorate.
 
A country sailing a warship somewhere is the ultimate "meh" military maneuver possible.
 
ArlingtonDeac said:
A country sailing a warship somewhere is the ultimate "meh" military maneuver possible.
Click to expand...

seriously, in the age of missiles sending anything other than an aircraft carrier is a joke. (submarines, while strategically awesome, are secretive and therefore not useful for "show of force' purposes)
 
ArlingtonDeac said:
A country sailing a warship somewhere is the ultimate "meh" military maneuver possible.
Click to expand...

Really? I think it's a pretty clear message that Russia will not tolerate overt NATO involvement in Syria; a message that Obama will have to take very seriously while considering military options. You also have to consider the effects that this show will have on the morale of the rebels. Not only does it show that Russia is likely to prevent external military assistance, but it also demonstrates their willingness to intervene if Assad's rule is ever seriously threatened. Sometimes it doesn't take outright violence to defeat a rebellion. In 1989 the U.S. helped preserve Corazon Aquino's government in the Philippines simply by running combat patrols above Luzon. The show of force alone resulted in defections from the rebel ground forces and a slowing of their momentum. It may seem like a "meh" maneuver when Iran parks warships outside of New York, but it certainly isn't when the U.S. sends warships to the Strait of Hormuz, or the Russians send warships to the Levantine Sea.
 
TR1982 said:
Really? I think it's a pretty clear message that Russia will not tolerate overt NATO involvement in Syria; a message that Obama will have to take very seriously while considering military options. You also have to consider the effects that this show will have on the morale of the rebels. Not only does it show that Russia is likely to prevent external military assistance, but it also demonstrates their willingness to intervene if Assad's rule is ever seriously threatened. Sometimes it doesn't take outright violence to defeat a rebellion. In 1989 the U.S. helped preserve Corazon Aquino's government in the Philippines simply by running combat patrols above Luzon. The show of force alone resulted in defections from the rebel ground forces and a slowing of their momentum. It may seem like a "meh" maneuver when Iran parks warships outside of New York, but it certainly isn't when the U.S. sends warships to the Strait of Hormuz, or the Russians send warships to the Levantine Sea.
Click to expand...

I think it's a clear message that Russia is irritated, but that's it. Nothing will come of it. Russia won't actually intervene, because no one is actually going to fight over Syria. Everyone understands that, but Russia doesn't like it. Thus, the military cruise. It's as "meh" as "meh" gets.
 
ArlingtonDeac said:
I think it's a clear message that Russia is irritated, but that's it. Nothing will come of it. Russia won't actually intervene, because no one is actually going to fight over Syria. Everyone understands that, but Russia doesn't like it. Thus, the military cruise. It's as "meh" as "meh" gets.
Click to expand...

They don't have to actually commit ground forces. What's to stop them from bombing rebel forces like the U.S. did in Libya? Assad is a key ally in the region, and they have a vested interest in keeping him in power. Russia doesn't send warships to random places for the hell of it. Unlike Iran, they are a rational geostrategic actor.
 
TR1982 said:
They don't have to actually commit ground forces. What's to stop them from bombing rebel forces like the U.S. did in Libya? Assad is a key ally in the region, and they have a vested interest in keeping him in power. Russia doesn't send warships to random places for the hell of it. Unlike Iran, they are a rational geostrategic actor.
Click to expand...

when was the last time Russia acted unilaterally outside it's now-tiny sphere of influence? Chechnya?
 
ImTheCaptain said:
when was the last time Russia acted unilaterally outside it's now-tiny sphere of influence? Chechnya?
Click to expand...

Chechnya is within Russia proper. The last time was the military occupation of South Ossetia and Abkhazia in 2008. And, as Georgia was a state being considered for NATO membership at the time, that action was not insignificant.
 
Last edited:
RJKarl said:
Funny how you don't mention the additional revenues created by the Budget Bill of 1993 as a major factor or the expansion of the economy.....
Click to expand...

funny how you never acknowledge the tech bubble as the reason for the "clinton economy"
 
TR1982 said:
They don't have to actually commit ground forces. What's to stop them from bombing rebel forces like the U.S. did in Libya? Assad is a key ally in the region, and they have a vested interest in keeping him in power. Russia doesn't send warships to random places for the hell of it. Unlike Iran, they are a rational geostrategic actor.
Click to expand...

Iran has been entirely rational in its geo-strategic actions over the last 30 years, but that's another debate.

Russia will not unilaterally bomb Syria. The situation in Libya is distinguishable, as the US first gained international and Arab consent, and got the action NATO approved, and, well, it's the US. Russia is not trifling, but they don't have that kind of juice. They won't spend so much political capital for Syria.

They sent a warship, and it's not just for the hell of it. But it won't fire a round. It's the ultimate token show of disapproval, physically expressing that Russia wants a say in whatever happens in Syria. And they'll get it. But no one is going to fight over it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top