"Saudi Arabia confirms that it will deploy troops to Syria"
3rd world war confirmed ?
The fucking madmen, they're actually doing it. I hope we leave them out to dry because I want no part in this.
>tfw this will encourage Turkey to start shit in the north which will probably bring them into direct conflict with the Soviets
Saudi Army is utter shit though.
They'll be losing lower enlisted as deserters to ISIS.
Having to project force and logistics through Shia Iraq.
It is going to be a shit show and they'll probably stop after losing a few hundred soldiers and committing some war crimes.
>Assad's veteran army, supported by Hez and by russian forces
>Against the Saudi's and gulf states
>Russia will shut the shit down declare Syria a no fly zone
> Guaranteed Saudi gets fucked up or your money back
And they gathered in a place called Ar-ma-ged-don...
I told you in the Syria thread.
Told ya plain as day it would happen.
so far they are making a lot of noise about this but it just seems like saber rattling to iran and russia and usa to get what they want.
if they do co-invade with turkey however russia will be hard pressed to stop them even with all the forces they have there. if you look at the 4 battalions of RUS https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_military_intervention_in_the_Syrian_Civil_War they couldn't do shit against the 150k from the south and presumably another 150k to the north. russia has activated their paratrooper division in south russia but having them drop at the right places and build a defense in time is running on razor thin margins IMO. the wildcard is if russia retaliates in turkey or vice versa, if that is the case you better have your faraday cages ready.
And do what exactly? Do they actually have a plan to do something or is it just symbolical "oh look world we are doing something!" but then they don't actually commit any soldiers or resources to actually do anything?
>Can barely manage a bunch of tribesman in Yemen. Who have not only turned back Saudi assaults but have crossed into Saudi territories.
>Want to jam its dick into Syria and Iraq. Both of which have direct Russian and Iran military presence.
>Have a military establishment filled to the brim with Wahhabi whose ideas of islam is not too far from IS.
How retarded is the Kingdom
>Having to project force and logistics through Shia Iraq.
They can very easily move through Jordan or Western Iraq with permission from the respective government. Or send stuff by ship to Turkey and deploy from Turkish territory into Syria.
>Russia will shut the shit down declare Syria a no fly zone
I am looking forward to the coalition declaring a no flight zone and the enevitible vatnik tears when Russia backs down.
>coalition declares no fly zone
>assad says they have no right to declare a no flight zone over his country, declares he will shoot down coalition planes
>fight erupts, US plane gets shot down by Syrian/Russian AA
>US declares war on Syria
>russia stuck between ww3 and saving an important ally
The only issue with you fucks and your dreams of world war is that you cannot declare a no fly zone without UN approval.
How the heck are you going to declare that without either US or Russian approval?
>Russia backs down
If you study history, the Russians never blinked in the Cold War. We had nuclear missiles stationed in Turkey and the Russians forced us to move them out with the Cuban missile crisis. So while it is taught as a US victory, we actually bowed down to what the Russians wanted in that bluff contest.
Putin is probably of the same vein as the Soviets from that time and they won't hesitate starting a war over the Syrians. We should be very careful about making us look even worse in the international stage should the Saudis actually start shit in Syria and all we do is sound our deep concern again like what happened in Ukraine last year.
>We had nuclear missiles stationed in Turkey and the Russians forced us to move them out with the Cuban missile crisis.
You realize that was the Russians saving face right? Yeah it was an inconvenience, but we removed the only missiles they had in the Western Hemisphere. And, you know, it's not like we couldn't still launch them from fucking Europe anyway, Vatnik
The oil pipeline intended to built through syria is essential to russia's energy future, they cannot allow it to be built and owned by someone else, Putin would face a coup d'état.
Putin has no reason to fear coup d'etat for a long time. He's literally the last of the cold warriors active in the world, people always forget he's actual KGB. And that outfit still keeps a firm grip on russia even though they try to hide it.
In a way Russia never abandoned the Soviet ideals, they just feinted in 1990, Yeltsin was the only point at which things sort of started to change and they removed him quick. Soviet Union is still a cherished memory in russia unlike in just about all of the eastern european satellite nations.
It wouldn't be outrageous to eventually see it remade at some point if Putin has a worthy successor.
American here. The missiles in Turkey were a different issue than the missiles in Western Europe due to being able to hit Moscow with a very short window from detection to hit.
And if anyone was saving face it was us. Part of the deal was that we got to remove our missiles a couple months later while pretending it was totally unrelated to Cuba.
>but we removed the only missiles they had in the Western Hemisphere. And, you know, it's not like we couldn't still launch them from fucking Europe anyway, Vatnik
>I don't understand counterforce vs. countervalue- the post
How is that the Russians saving face? We were forced to move our nukes from Turkey. And the Russians still had their own nukes capable of launching them from their own continent with ICBMs. Russia is technically right next to the US from Siberia.
Looking at it from a purely political point of view, we gave up having nukes at Turkey so they wouldn't move their nukes into Cuba.
In the history of the Cold War, the Russians never actually blinked against us. Not once.
We were the only ones to have given something up. They never gave anything up in that deal.
We did ruin them by making glasnost and perestroika sound like an awesome thing (which is coincidentally a lesson China learned and is actively trying to prevent from happening). But that's another thing altogether.
Looking at it, there does seem to be an appreciable more distance from the edge of Western Germany compared to Turkey. Even more if the nuclear weapons were based in France or the UK.
>He's literally the last of the cold warriors active in the world,
that's a good point, the rest have been out of the game for a very long time with the possible exception of kissenger.
>Hurr we lost out only missile base on that side of the world! But it's ok, because the US removed their missiles from Turkey so we have a few more minutes of warning time!
Glad you shills don;t make military policy
An oil pipeline crossing ISIS territory and passing right by Turkey or through Turkey?
Either Putin is a great long term strategist playing at a level we can barely comprehend, or you're wrong.
What? The Soviets backed down because they had a definite disadvantage in weaponry and nuclear delivery.
In 1962 the Russians had 2,000 nuclear weapons and 10-20 ICBMS.
America had 40,000 and 1,000 ICBMS and B-52s.
How is being a historian being a shill?
The Russians did not like having US nukes in Turkey, so they threaten to move nukes into Cuba. We are forced to move nukes away from Turkey so the Russians don't move any nukes into our hemisphere.
What does military policy have to do with world history? And that few more minutes of warning time is the difference between being able to hide and being vaporized shit smeared on a wall.
This isn't a matter of winning or losing, because we obviously won the Cold War, but it is not right to say that the Russians ever blinked or backed out against us. They didn't.
they are gonna puss out.
but goddamn if this is true it would be a perfect time for Iran to send a shit load of weapons and explosives to KSA to destabilize shit.
then again they arent gonna do shit while being BTFO by Houthis
The Great Middle-Eastern 30 Years War has just started.
Lavrov/Kerry press conference
GET IN HERE
This is very similar to Putin's response after the shootdown. Putin knew Syria was in the bag for him already so he saved political face with sanctions, sucked up the slap, and continued fucking up Turkish-proxies.
KSA is doing the same. Talk to save face for the fact they will lose this war.
The Soviet ships turned back as part of the deal for our nukes to move out of Turkey. If the ships just backed out on their own without the Russians getting anything back, then you can obviously say they turned back.
The problem is that they forced concessions from us.
For example, it's like if the Russians had forces in Mexico, and then we massed up our troops right at their border in the Baltics.
If we move our forces out of the Baltics just to prevent war without getting anything in return, that's backing down. But if we force Russia to move their forces out of Mexico for us moving out of the Baltics, that's called a successful political play on our part.
They were a threat when they developed the R-13 missile and a sub to match. Even in the days of the Berlin Crisis, despite having 20ish ICBMs, they had enough bombers and subs to put the hurt on us, as well as enough intermediate range rockets to glass most of Europe. In the early 60's, it was estimated only ~30 nukes would be required to entirely eliminate the civilian government in any recognizable form in a first strike scenario, as well as a huge amount of military leadership- crippling any further US war effort. Kennedy put a lot of programs into place to unfuck the US' command and control.
Jordan just came back from Moscow with a horse Putin gave him and more importantly after having given Putin a sword, pretty much announcing that their relationship is a lot closer now.
Also Jordan hasn't supported the Syrian rebels for a while now.
After KSA announcement about Syria I started paying more attention to the Yemeni war and came across those two articles:
Both mention Saudi Arabia and co fighting the "Yemeni army".
"In addition to the aforementioned attack, the Yemeni Army planted several roadside bombs in this area, destroying a Saudi armored vehicle and killing a number of Coalition soldiers."
Didnt this whole shitfest start to protect the Yemeni government from Houthi expansion? Why is the coalition fighting with Yemeni army?
webm somewhat related
Kurdish troops, with Russian special forces, capture key air base in N. Syria
DEBKAfile February 11, 2016, 3:23 PM (IDT)
DEBKAfile's sources report Thursday that forces from the Kurdish YPG militia, backed by Russian commandos, captured the Minnigh air base and an adjacent town in northern Syria from rebel groups allied with Islamic State. It marked the first time in the Syrian war that Kurdish troops had attacked the rebels in a joint operation with the Russians. The town and the base located north of the city of Aleppo, and just a few kilometers from the Turkish border, are strategically important due to their proximity to the town of A'zaz that controls the main northern route leading to the besieged city. DEBKAfile's sources added that the capture of the air base and the roads leading to it cut off the last remaining route for the rebels in Aleppo to receive ammunition, food, medicine and other supplies from the air.
john kerry has been caught "horsing around" again.
And Iraq is buddy buddy with Russia and Iran who will stall/deny the Saudis. If the Saudis do really intend to go into Syria the Turks want to play ball and invade as well because Erdogan was itching for a pretext to send troops into Syria for awhile now.
My point is for shock and awe they might want to invade from both the north and south not just from Turkey.
Possibly, I've heard on here at least that that may be part of a possible deal between Jordan and Russia. The Hashemites are in fact the legitimate rulers of Mecca and Medina and are not particularly happy about being pushed out by some upstarts from Riyadh.
>In the early 60's, it was estimated only ~30 nukes would be required to entirely eliminate the civilian government in any recognizable form in a first strike scenario, as well as a huge amount of military leadership- crippling any further US war effort. Kennedy put a lot of programs into place to unfuck the US' command and control.
Where do you come up with this stuff?
The Yemeni Republican guard are loyal to the former President of Yemen, not the "current" one that was ousted, so they allied with the houthis to btfo the Yemeni government army, al Qaeda in Yemen and the coalition.
If I remember correctly during the arab spring, Saleh, who was the dictator at the time, was forced to step down. After Saleh stepped down president Hadi was elected. Some parts of the army did not take the transition well and formed an alliance with the houthi rebels in the north. This allowed the houthi and Saleh loyalists to seize most of the country. From there SA and its coalition invade in support of Hadi, and join with the remains of the Hadi loyalist factions in Yemen, in order to fight the civil war.
So the Yemeni Army fighting the saudi's and doing most of the damage with ballistic missiles is actually the portion of the Yemeni Army which was loyal to the previous dictator Saleh. Further, the Yemeni Army fighting with SA are the Hadi loyalists.
Pretty much it is like all middle east wars where there are many different factions whose interests vary greatly and thus loyalties become fluid.
Russia should be shaking in their boots. The only way out of this predicament is if they kowtow before China and ask for help. Only China has enough power to stop America and Saudi Arabia and Israel from taking over the Middle East completely.
The other noteworthy interaction between Iraq and Russia was Russia selling military equipment like TOS-1 to Iraq unlike America who only wanted to show off to the media and did not actually want to sell.
>unlike America who only wanted to show off to the media and did not actually want to sell
Oh my, 10 rocket artillery vehicles.
Totally not a token sale to show off for the media, compared to Iraq buying another 170 Abrams and 250 ex-Swede BMP-1s :^)
Straight from the horse's mouth.
>Command and Control, by Eric Schlosser
Yeah thats one of the mistakes in an otherwsie excellent book.
No question the US NC&C was not as robust as it should have been, but to say that 30 nuclear weapons would have been sufficient is erroneous.
Saudis spend a lot of money and try to get only th very best from the West. Yet their military culture negates any advantages their spending brings.
Officers are all from rich families. Officer duty is seen as a hobby. Something to do until they are head of the family.
Lower enlisted are treated like utter shit. Russian conscripts are treated better.
They have a joke a NCO corps. Mostly idiots that stuck with the military because nothing better to do. They now take revenge for their own mistreatment, on the lower enlisted. Corrupt fuckers too.
t. former Boeing Contractor that did 6 months of a 12 month contract in Saudi Arabia.
Russia can eat a dick.
Going around bombing turks and helping assad kill all the sunnis.
Where is the bitching about Russia's imperialist aggression?
If the turks and saudis want to help protect turkmen and sunnis in their own backyard I'm all for it.
Russia and it's bitch buddy Iran can both go fuck themselves.
Can you do a thread sometime soon Oppen? I haven't seen you in forever. What's the plan with North Korea. Somebody has to stop them before they acquire an actual stockpile right?
Why get tied down in Yemen when you can just cut it off?
Seems pretty legit to me. For Saudis developing an army to protect their own backyard, they aren't doing bad.
The more the middle east manages their own shit the better.
Cool but I'm not Murrican bruh. You guys kicked a hornets nest with that one, sure you killed way more of them, but can't really mark it down as a win.
Also, I'm not rooting for shias, I just want to see more dead muslims, especially saudis
>Going around bombing turks and helping assad kill all the sunnis.
this is all talk
>send a hundred special forces
>maybe some forward observing for air strikes
>no vehicles, AA, radar
at best this is we are gonna send some guys to share intel with the rebels while backdooring everything and anything they can facilitate to ISIS and Nusra and Sham
they really think they are gonna do what Russia did for the SAA without air support with a handful of advisors, which being saudis, need advisors more in the first place to begin with for themselves
>not inaccurate, unreliable trash that was a danger to it's crews
>that, oh yeah, had to be stored aboveground in full view of commies
literally only useful as first strike weapons because they'd be wiped out by the first Soviet attack, and even then only marginally so
>we get megas
>they just go to throne
>ancient survives with
>win cause megas
Also, as I have just now noticed, I'm in the wrong thread.
The country to win in a 2 way superpower pissing contest is whoever pisses the farthest first. The aggressor by default wins when it comes to shit like Ukraine or Syria. The US doesn't want nuclear war, so they have to let the Russians do what they want. Since Ivan is usually the aggressor anyways, it puts them in a position to continue doing this shit. The only other way to go at each other is through proxies in the Middle East just like we've been doing for years and years.
And I am looking forward to lining you up against the wall and putting a bullet through your head.
You ISIS-enabling neocon and neoliberal shitheads can all eat mohammed's dick and choke on it. This fight is not our fight, and you support corrupt fuckers like Hillary and Bush who insist on dragging America into this towelhead vs towelhead bloodletting quagmire.
Saudi Arabia doesn't need our support, they need a nuke dropped on them
>In 1962 the Russians had 2,000 nuclear weapons and 10-20 ICBMS.
correction: the Soviets had 36 ICBM launchers while the US had 203. total nuclear warheads reached 3,322. All from NRDC database.
Now while the Soviet arsenal was certainly tiny compared to the American one its nonetheless sufficient in the countervalue role- you only really few major cities and important civil infrastructures nuked on both sides to inflict unbearable damage.
>What? The Soviets backed down because they had a definite disadvantage in weaponry and nuclear delivery.
A myth. The purpose of the missiles in Cuba were to give the US leadership a taste of its own medicine- see how a looming nuke strike a few minutes away with little to no warning had a way of making them reflect on their earlier actions.
>The truth is the Soviets were far outnumbered and outgunned in 1962.
>They can only kill us as a nation once over, while we can kill them couple of times as much so its all ok.
This is pretty much what you are saying. Note that ICBMs still suck in the counterforce role during this time, what with the hundred meter CEPs, so its bombers like the B-52 dropping nukes with minimal escorts then. Which is pretty much going to be eaten alive by the Soviet IADS at the time.
Egypt Troops deployed to north saudi arabia
Saudi Mil: russian provoke world war III - we are ready for ground attack !
LIL PUTIN HIDE IN MOSCOW-cow-ASS
You mean World War in a sense that a global region will fall into an international conflict like Eurofaggots in World War 1? Hopefully.
Fuck no if it becomes multicontinental like World War II
>e American one its nonetheless sufficient in the countervalue role- you only really few major cities and important civil infrastructures nuked on both sides to inflict unbearable damage.
Depends on what you call unbearable, doesn't it?
What is and is not bearable depends on whats at stake.
As for Soviet nuclear weapons, they were extremely vulnerable to a first strike, more so than the US and would have likely all been destroyed before they could get off the ground.
Beyond that, how many targets could the Soviets have really destroyed with their R-16s if they did get them off?
US ICBM's would have been effective in countervalue at the time because the basing strategy for the R-16s during this was extremely soft.
As for the IADS, The NVA averaged about 2%-5% shootdowns for each SA-2 fired.
Even if you quadruple the effectiveness of the Soviet SAM crews, that's still a lot of bombers getting through.
The Soviets were aware of their poor position in a nuclear war, and that's why they were willing to accept the back door Jupiter missile deal.
They were desperate to find themselves a way out, and this was Khrushchev's attempt to save himself and placate the communists in his party that were getting increasingly anxious over his reforms.
The Jupiter missiles themselves were at the end of their useful lives and their role was being taken by the USNs growing SSBN fleet.
The Lafayette Class boats were in service, the James Madison class was building, and the following Benjamin Franklin class were about to be laid down.
The Soviets backed down, pure and simple.
>supporting the Saudis
The only reason the US buddied up with them and has protected them is for their oil. The West is sucking the Saudis dry and the US has barely even tapped into or even found all of it's oil. Once the Gulf goes dry the US is going to be the next oil kingdom.
The US already hit it's peak conventional extraction decades ago in the 70's. The oilfields of Texas, Pennsylvania, and California are way past their prime. What the US has is the best technology for extracting unconventional oil and the largest deposits of that.
The US isn't protecting Saudi Arabia to protect it's oil source, since it sources most of it's oil from the Americas. Europe however is completely fucked if Saudi oil flow stops.
I don't say that I love Saudis. Although, they are US allies.
But Putin... Corruption, violation of the sovereignty of other countries, political assassinations, and... just a thousands of reasons. He want to destabilize Europe and the US. And his brutal actions in Syria is just a part of the this plan. He's the enemy of the US and Europe.
Most of the coastline is banned to drilling
Fracking is nowhere near its peak yet
Are you an idiot? Who taught you this dogshit? You think the saudis are fucking US ALLIES?
You know all the 9/11 attackers were saudis, right?
All Putin wants to be is an "ally" just like Saudi arabia, retard.
It is the USA who is responsible for the marxists running europe, and the current refugee "crisis".
> Thats bullshit
> Most of the coastline is banned to drilling
> Fracking is nowhere near its peak yet
Shale oil is what's fueling the US boom, not fracking, not offshore oil.
The US is basically out of conventional oil that you get from just digging a well. Shale oil doesn't involve fracking whatsoever, because it's processed by digging up the oil-containing rocks, treating them to get the oil out, then putting the rocks back in the ground elsewhere.
> All Putin wants to be is an "ally" just like Saudi Arabia, retard.
So an idiot and a Putin shill, how unsurprising.
This happens already when the monkey model Abrams get rekt buy ISIS. Then we get the vatniks and burgers trying to out shit post each other.
>Blow out panels
>Arabs can't into armor doctrine
>Burger fats so mad xaxaxaxaxa
>New bait picture
Just replace Abrams with Leclerc.
Most ISIS/Tank/bait threads on /k/ now.
>You think the saudis are fucking US ALLIES?
The Saudi Government is a US ally.
>All Putin wants to be is an "ally" just like Saudi arabia, retard.
What he wants destruction of NATO and the removal of the United States as a guarantor of European security.
>hurr putin wants to take over the world
Only an idiot could actually believe this
Putin wants the US government to stop behaving like women.
Also: This tight oil literally is fracking...
And offshore drilling is heavily limited, if oil was more expensive it could be allowed
I'm not saying it's retarded for Pution to think that, I'm saying it's not true. Pretty sophomoric view of international relations 2bh.
While true, his actions in Ukraine and the ME haven't been towards destabilizing NATO power, they have been towards consolidating the Russian strategic position against it. He'd be a fool to want NATO dead- they provide for a stable markets for Russian goods and heavy industry, as well as a unifying force for Russia and it's allies. As long as he can be sure that NATO cannot easily take action, they are useful.
Putin has three main strategic goals.
1) Expand Russian sphere of influence. We see this in Putin's statements regarding his desire to protect Russian speakers outside Russia.
2) The Collapse of NATO. Putin sees NATO as the main threat to Russian national interests in Eastern Europe. The expansion of NATO is a constant aggravation considering that, from the Russian perspective, NATO was not supposed to expand into Eastern Europe after the Cold War.
3) The disgrace of the US as a guarantor of security. This is a reflection of Putin's personality. He wants revenge against the US for the destruction of the Soviet Union.
>I'm saying it's not true.
Well you are incorrect.
>Pretty sophomoric view of international relations 2bh.
Personality of policy makers is reflected in the policy they make.
You are welcome to your opinion, however.
> He'd be a fool to want NATO dead- they provide for a stable markets for Russian goods and heavy industry,
You are confusing NATO for the EU.
That he blames NATO for the collapse of the Soviet Union. He said
"B ocнoвe pacпaдa CCCP лeжaли внyтpeнниe пpичины. Hecocтoятeльнocть пoлитичecкoй и экoнoмичecкoй cиcтeмы бывшeгo Coвeтcкoгo Coюзa лeжaли в ocнoвe paзвaлa гocyдapcтвa. Ктo этoмy cпocoбcтвoвaл – этo дpyгoй вoпpoc. He дyмaю, чтo нaши гeoпoлитичecкиe пpoтивники cтoяли в cтopoнe". This is not sound like "he blames NATO for the collapse of the Soviet Union"
Putin's a smart guy- was a KGB intel type, and managed to bring the Russian political system under his control. You don't get there by being dumb. So why do we assume he abandons all reason and logic once he's in office?
>You are confusing NATO for the EU.
>implying the EU would be a stable market at all without the military power of NATO or their control of trade lanes
I don't see what the big fuss is over. From the sound of things, Saudis aren't going to full blown war, just some special forces to help train local rebels to fight isis. http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2016/02/syria-russian-pm-warns-world-war-troops-160212074839609.html
>You don't get there by being dumb. So why do we assume he abandons all reason and logic once he's in office?
I think its perfectly reasonable and logical from his point of view.
From his perspective:
Nato has broken every promise it made about non-expansion
It's existence directly conflicts with Russia's desire to secure its periphery and maintain its sphere of influence.
You claim that the collapse of NATO would have a negative effect on Russian economy, yet from Putin's perspective, none of that matters if Russia can not ensure its own security.
Easier to attack the source than the content?
>taking the member of the Russian Opposition Council's word on what Putin believes
yeah, and let me ask Hilary Clinton her opinion on George W Bush's motivations, we'll sure get an accurate unbiased answer
The only article I can find with his name appended is an interview wherein he compares Putin to Hitler, then claims he threatens the West with nuclear weapons. The source is bad to begin with, and the content is no better.
You may be mistaking his rhetoric (which is issued for internal consumption among young to middle-aged russians) with his personal beliefs.
I'm not saying he doesn't dislike NATO, but he most likely has much less personal feelings about it compared to simple vatnik.
It will be plain wrong to say that Putin was ever unprofessional about his international relations.
Is this not Andrei Piontkovsky making a fool of himself?
Thank you for that.
This picture describes 99.99% of posts on /k/. I admittedly am very much to blame.
>Who do you think he blames then?
Dirty commies, obv. West forgot, that Putin is a guy, who keeps communists down. And when West high-ranges want remove Putin from power, they do not understand, that communists will come on his place. And that communists really want to see West in ruins. They are not like cold-war era fluffy political correct commies.
>The Institute of Modern Russia (IMR) is a public policy think-tank that strives to establish an intellectual framework for building a democratic Russia governed by rule of law. <...> Founded in 2010, IMR is located in New York City and is an affiliate of the Open Russia movement.
Pffff. That's like search for the truth about USA in "Pravda" newspaper.
When the think tank you cite is led by the son of the dude who owned the second largest oil exporting company that declared it as 'earth liquid' at customs to avoid paying taxes, you don't even need to read their bullshit articles.
Wanting revenge against an enemy has driven many events.
No. I think he has well thought out positions. I don't agree with all of them but he is insightful.
>Dirty commies, obv.
You think that Putin blames the communists for the destruction of the Soviet Union?
>That's like search for the truth about USA in "Pravda" newspaper.
You have a biased view of the world.
Do you think America is not doing the same?
Brutal actions in Syria? Assad asked for help. Russia then helped.
America invaded Iraq on made up pretenses and left it in shambles ready to be conquered by ISIS.
Who is more brutal? The one who kills the terrorists or the ones that enabled them?
Yes, because it's easier to talk about the source when you can't discuss the contents.
in this case personal opinions and national interest align
>We are not allies.
Both sides would differ on that.
>Why would he want that?
To secure Russia and its sphere of influence from western expansion, which is driven by NATO.
>His ass would be out of office if that happened. He needs an enemy.
I read a lot of news.
>You think that Putin blames the communists for the destruction of the Soviet Union?
"Упpaвлять тeчeниeм мыcли – этo пpaвильнo, нyжнo тoлькo, чтoбы этa мыcль пpивeлa к пpaвильным peзyльтaтaм, a нe кaк y Bлaдимиpa Ильичa. A тo в кoнeчнoм итoгe этa мыcль пpивeлa к paзвaлy Coвeтcкoгo Coюзa, вoт к чeмy. Taм мнoгo былo мыcлeй тaких: aвтoнoмизaция и тaк дaлee. Зaлoжили aтoмнyю бoмбy пoд здaниe, кoтopoe нaзывaeтcя Poccиeй, oнa и pвaнyлa пoтoм. И миpoвaя peвoлюция нaм нe нyжнa былa. Boт тaкaя мыcль тaм"
>in this case personal opinions and national interest align
then what does this even mean then? That he will place his personal tastes above interests of the country (or, his clique, his compact of trusted individuals, or whatever)? He never gave an indication that he might.
It's just speculation then, not bearing any predictive value one way or another.
Putin is anti-nato because Nato does a lot of fucking around in georgia, ukraine, etc
Thats not to say he wants to "destroy nato"
But that he would like the US to not be run by retarded women
Yes really. Putin before Crimea had a 55% approval rating.
Having NATO as an enemy is what keeps Putin and UR in office.
There's no security treaty between America and SA.
Of course Putin dislikes the threat of NATO forces and would prefer to expand Russian influence, but there's a need for NATO as well. This guy is concerned with his popularity and having an enemy is very very important. Agree to disagree here.
>mfw ruskies live in such a shithole they actually think the US "is just as bad!"
Get fucked commie. By any measure you use to criticize american policies since ww2, russia is a lot worse. Don't take my word for it, just ask the rest of the world if given the choice, would they rather be under the influence of the US or Russia? Ever wonder why only countries like Venezuela, Cuba, Iran, are buddies with Rusland?
>then what does this even mean then?
That it would be good for Russia if there was no NATO, and that Putin would be happy if there was no NATO.
So, what Putin personally would like to see happen and what would be good for Russia are the same thing.
>That he will place his personal tastes above interests of the country
The loss of NATO would be his triumph. By the time opposition was able to recover enough to successfully oust him, he would be retired anyway.
>Putin before Crimea had a 55% approval rating.
In some paid shill's wet dream maybe. 2012 effectively proved there is no viable opposition to the current regime, only alternate options are either traitors or retards.
Well, the US fully backed Iraq in their war against Iran in the 80's, and single handedly created the Taliban to fight against the USSR in Afghanistan...
>single handedly created the Taliban
The Taliban existed even back during British India. If you read Churchill's book "The River War", you'll note that some of the most fanatical warriors that they faced were Taliban. They derived support from the Ottoman empire.
The modern Taliban derive their support from Pakistan's ISI, but are essentially the same as the group from a hundred years earlier (fanatical students of islam).
The US supported other mujaheddin groups of varying quality. Iran supported several groups as well, in opposition to the Pakistani and US support.
Iraq was more heavily supported by the USSR and France in the 80s. That's a major reason why France opposed OIF- Total had large oil deals waiting to be restarted when the sanctions were lifted. This is also why the USSR and France mainly equipped the Iraqi army, rather than with US equipment.
US support was more limited, and far lower in value. The real emphasis of the US was to contain Iran post revolution, but letting Iraq enlarge itself was not in the cards.
>US sold equipment for chemical weapon facilities.
Not true. The closest that the US came was making research grade bacteria and virii to universities, if you want to look at actual manufacturing equipment, you'd have to look at France, the now defunct DDR and to a far lesser extent, Britain, and even then, all those countries provided equipment that was dual use.
>As part of Project 922, German firms such as Karl Kolb helped build Iraqi chemical weapons facilities such as laboratories, bunkers, an administrative building, and first production buildings in the early 1980s under the cover of a pesticide plant. Other German firms sent 1,027 tons of precursors of mustard gas, sarin, tabun, and tear gasses in all. This work allowed Iraq to produce 150 tons of mustard agent and 60 tons of Tabun in 1983 and 1984 respectively, continuing throughout the decade. All told, 52% of Iraq's international chemical weapon equipment was of German origin.
One of the contributions was a £14m chlorine plant known as "Falluja 2", built by Uhde Ltd, a UK subsidiary of a German company; the plant was given financial guarantees by the UK's Export Credits Guarantee Department despite official UK recognition of a "strong possibility" the plant would be used to make mustard gas.
Sure is European.
Wait until you find out that it was the French who built Israel's nuclear weapons capability
According to the Stockholm International Peace Institute, the Soviet Union, France, and China together accounted for over 90% of the value of Iraq's arms imports between 1980 and 1988.
The US supplied "dual use" equipment (like pesticides), and far less of it than other nations. They also started supplying it only later in the war. Meanwhile, one quarter of all Iraqi military weapons were supplied by France.
This does not excuse the US, but within the context of containing Iran, and further within the context of establishing who was the main supporter of Iraq, it is informative.
You think Putin thought NATO would disband? Or that he could ever get it to disband?
It expanded in 2004 when Russia was weaker and had made 0 aggressive moves yet. Putin knew and knows NATO is here to stay.
There's a reason Putin made the choice to take Crimea. He knew damn well the consequences. It was either lose all of Ukraine to the EU and NATO, or permanently cockblock them and create a boogeyman to boost his ratings.
He had a 55% approval rating. UR was even lower.
Crimea, Ukraine, and sanctions made Russians see themselves as the persecuted and this played right into Putin's hands.
>russia provokes WW3
4chan tracks IP's. There's been a grand total of 30k posts from China ISP's since 2010 (when they started tracking).
There are very very very few mainlanders on 4chan, let alone /k/. The ones I met are pacifist as fuck and normie. They don't even understand the military.
>You think Putin thought NATO would disband?
>Or that he could ever get it to disband?
He was under the impression that Nato would not expand into former Soviet republics.
I'm what a lot on /k/ would call pro-Russian or a 50 cent (I'm the guy who posts the J-20 threads).
And I must say that it's not like Russia dindu nuffin and is a good boy. These nations allow NATO in for a reason.
Still, NATO is stupid as fuck for allowing shitholes run by dictators in or places that don't even spend the bare minimum.
>Russia threatens every other former Warsaw Pact country throughout the 90s and early 2000's
>These countries then beg for NATO membership
>Russian say that NATO is being aggressive
>replace NATO logo with US flag
>more or less
>about half are inland
>us invades and destabalize a dozen countries since soviet union dissolved
>nato say russia wants war
>hey, give us a base in your country or we'll have wall street rape your economy
>... o- ok!
You are called a 50 cent because the format of your threads, not the fact that you post information about Chinese equipment.
Which is appreciated by the way, don't let the stronk stop you.
>>replace NATO logo with US flag
I know that international relations are a tricky subject, but there is a lot more to it than just that. None of those nations are signatory members to NATO, and the presence of US forces in their countries does not make them into NATO bases.
>most of the inland ones are near a coast, which makes sense because that's where all the humans live
>most of the ones that aren't near a coast are a result of the 15 year long US campaign in Afghanistan
>>us invades and destabalize a dozen countries since soviet union dissolved
>nato say russia wants war
The Russian Federation has been in as many wars as the USA has during the time the RF has existed.
how the fuck does a base in northern khazakstan or caucasus fight the talibans? most of the inland bases arent even near afghanistan...
yeah but they didnt stay for over a decade and end up creating multiple terrorist organizations and spread the destablization to neighbouring countries.
>how the fuck does a base in northern khazakstan or caucasus fight the talibans? most of the inland bases arent even near afghanistan...
>I don't know what logistics is
Where does it show the users of 4chan by nation?
The map at the bottom is users of neet.tv by nation. Not 4chan.
How could it?
Proxies link you to a different ISP.
The Chinese are most definitely not on /int/.
When we have Chinese hate threads it's pretty much only diaspora and HK that defend them.
China is effectively banned from 4chan. They got rangebanned for 2003-2010. Then google got banned in 2010. Then captcha came out and effectively all Chinese (the few) left. Now a 4chan pass enables them to post again.
At least 99% of the posts accused of being Chinese or 50 cent on /k/ are not Chinese posters.
again, why does a base in northern khazakstan, close to the russian border, need logistics to fight the talibans, in afghanistan?
where does those transports come from if they need to go through the khazak base?
>1) Expand Russian sphere of influence. We see this in Putin's statements regarding his desire to protect Russian speakers outside Russia.
>2) The Collapse of NATO. Putin sees NATO as the main threat to Russian national interests in Eastern Europe.
>3) The disgrace of the US as a guarantor of security. This is a reflection of Putin's personality. He wants revenge against the US for the destruction of the Soviet Union.
Wrong again. I like you Oppe, but you should stick to nukes because the shit you are saying is retarded. You want to know real reason behind his actions? Go read about russian opposition and their info on Putin and you will see that this whole thing is a big show to kepp Russians in check.
>yeah but they didnt stay for over a decade and end up creating multiple terrorist organizations and spread the destablization to neighbouring countries
Right, that happened in the 80's in the same countries.
Could I have some proofs of Russia threatening Czech Republic in 1999?
China has a huge ass firewall on proxy ISP's. There own ISP's are literally banned from allowing proxies.
I'm not saying it doesn't happen, but who would take the time out of their day to buy an illegal proxy, go to english speaking /k/, and shill for fucking China?
It is accurate.
Here's another source.
>I'm not saying it doesn't happen, but who would take the time out of their day to buy an illegal proxy, go to english speaking /k/, and shill for fucking China?
If it is government sanctioned, they don't have to worry about firewalls or anything illegal.
Why the fuck would they care to shill on /k/ on the site known as the asshole of the internet where trolls troll trolls?
Most Chinese don't even know english. Even fewer can write it.
If you think there are more than a couple Chinese mainland posters on /k/, you're deluded.
I'm done here.
The enlargment of NATO.
The first Soviet "republic" was in 2004.
But the first Warsaw pact member (AKA Russian sphere of influence) was in 1999.
We can play semantics about "Republic" but above you talked a bunch about Putin wanting to expand and protect the Russian sphere of influence.
>The first Soviet "republic" was in 2004.
Yes. Thats what I said.
>But the first Warsaw pact member (AKA Russian sphere of influence) was in 1999.
The year before Putin was elected
>We can play semantics about "Republic" but above you talked a bunch about Putin wanting to expand and protect the Russian sphere of influence.
I don't think it's semantics. The year before he was elected president was the first former WARPAC member.
I guess you think that he didn't care about anything that happened in the 12 months before his election?
That he didn't see it as a betrayal of a perceived promise?
I'm not sure what your point is right now.
>We did ruin them by making glasnost and perestroika sound like an awesome thing (which is coincidentally a lesson China learned and is actively trying to prevent from happening). But that's another thing altogether
Yeah no, they lost because communism is shit at innovation and production. Based Reagan cucked the USSR by bribing the Saudis to overproduce oil so the USSR would go bankrupt, causing people who were already dissatisfied to overthrow their government. Gorbachev was only a result of this. The reason the CCP wasn't overthrown waa because things were actually improving (mostly because they stopped going JUST for decades copied Korea/Taiwan/Japan's model) and the revolt thus didnt have as much support.
Perestroyka and Gladnost were actually good things.
They came at an awful time.
The 1970's were when the Soviet Union was at it's peak, extreme oil prices meant the Soviets had the money to power through reforms and diversify their economy. Instead they viewed a one time windfall as proof of their success and squandered it on the typical soviet fashion.
Glastnost and Perestroyka could have been pushed through when the Soviet Union was stronger, but not in a bad decade right after their best, when the population still remembered the good times and blamed the bad times on the polices enacted in response to the bad times.
My point was the he was under that impression because of the three nations that were formely in Russian sphere of influence joining NATO.
The Warsaw pact members were "independent" in theory but were effectively controlled by the Russians. Therefore the fact NATO expanded into them before he came to office and in 2004 before Russia had even had any foreign operations, must have indicated that NATO would not stop there. The Baltics only barely were not admitted in 1999. They were crying out to join but were rejected because of the mandatory association phase.
So either you think Putin is an idiot, or you are likely wrong. I remember clearly expecting NATO to expand right up to Russia in the late 90's.
Conversely, the CCP was able to power through reforms because the 1950's through 70's were fucking awful times for China. Mao's idiocy caused famine and constant upheaval. Repealing those policies made life for everyone better almost instantly, and gave Deng Xiaoping basically unlimited political support to force through any kind of reform he wanted. Furthermore, he symbolically crucified mao's wife and other high party officials and pinned China's old troubles on them, removing his opposition and giving himself even more popular support.
The most important thing about leading a country is raising the standard of living for the general population. If the people are well fed and happy, they will let you do whatever you want. If the people are hungry and displeased with their living conditions, no amount of good intentions and eventual progress will be enough to keep you in power.
>Therefore the fact NATO expanded into them before he came to office and in 2004 before Russia had even had any foreign operations,
He was limited early on in what he could do for a variety of reasons.
>must have indicated that NATO would not stop there.
But he could only work with what he had, and in the early 2000s he did not have much to work with. Russias economy and military were in poor condition.
>So either you think Putin is an idiot, or you are likely wrong
No, I think that as soon as he had opportunities to push back against NATO expansion, he did.
Those in central Asian were temporary and are now closed, they were mostly used for Afghanistan. The ones in NATO and East Asia are there with the consent of their democratically elected governents. The rest are just along major sealanes. Nice shill post.
>The most important thing about leading a country is raising the standard of living for the general population. If the people are well fed and happy, they will let you do whatever you want
Though I generally agree with your post I have to say that people are motivated by more than just economics. Plenty of revolts have started over religion, ideology and demands for more political influence. The Americans revolted largely because they saw British influence as an attack on their rights, French absolitism was overthrown when Louis refused to give the third estate proper representation and students started protesting in tiananmen square because of massive corruption (which still persists because china's political system prevents checks on power) and a lack of rights.
I would say low QOL revolutions and revolts are the rule, and ideological/religion/rights/whatever revolutions are the exception.
In the case of the French, the economy under Louis XVI was absolute garbage due to overspending on the American Revolition. One of the reasons that the people wanted to have representation was that they disapproved of how Louis was handing the economy. While not quite starving, the French peasantry did not eat well.
As for Tiananmen square, I'd say that's a good example that supports the statement "the leader can do whatever as long as the people eat well". If you notice, the protest didn't work, there was no revolution or rebellion because those that protested was in the extreme minority. The other billion Chinese were perfectly content with the rapidly growing economy and improved standard of life, and saw no need to endanger that for more political representation. The protesters were by and large students; young people with few obligations and not as heavily affected by the economy, doubly so that tuition and room/board were free for Chinese college students at the time.
You should read "An Economic Interpretation of the U.S. Constitution" by Charles Beard. Its main argument is that the individuals who led the American Revolution had economic grievances against Great Britain as well as the political/ideological ones and that these economic grievances were their incentive to lead the rebellion.
As far as what these economic grievances were, they would be both the whole policy of mercantilism as well as Britain's approach to central banking, in which the national economy of the United States was purposely stunted by keeping very little actual currency in circulation. How does one obtain a loan to expand his business when there are barely any banks due to barely any money practically forcing a system of barter outside of a handful of nascent cities, for example?
>sauds gon' get BTFO'd
can't in good concience fund ISIS too?
one day we'll stop being allied with the biggest problems.
>practically forcing a system of barter outside of a handful of nascent cities
we call money bucks since back in the colonial era people way out in the sticks traded with buckskins a lot.