« "Freedom of Expression Part Two" By Richard Sale | Main | Where Are the Heroes? by Publius Tacitus »

08 April 2017

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Jack

Is Nikki the new Samantha?

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-04-09/us-ambassador-un-regime-change-syria-now-top-priority-trump

Degringolade

Anon

I'm Intrigued

Per google maps

https://www.google.com/maps/place/35%C2%B000'29.3%22N+36%C2%B050'07.9%22E/@35.0078239,36.8342641,284m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m5!3m4!1s0x0:0x0!8m2!3d35.008142!4d36.835521

visitor

Wait a minute there regarding the South Ossetia affair.

Russia did take quite some time to prepare its counter-offensive. What was really fast was not the mobilization, but the redirection of the effort after Georgians struck Ossetia instead Abkhazia -- where Russians were expecting the battle to take place.

1) Russia had mobilized and sent elite troops: 76th air assault division, 96th airborne division, 45th intelligence regiment. Those units, based in St Petersburg and Moscow, had to be relocated all the way to the Caucasus. It required time.

How did they manage to pull it off inconspicuously, thus surprising both Georgians and NATO officials? Well,

2.a) it all took place on Russian territory;
2.b) maskirovka;
2.c) all NATO drones, satellites and AWACS were busy in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Somalia at that time;
2.d) Russia had suspended the treaty on conventional forces one year before, and was therefore no longer obliged to inform other countries on major troop movements.

And of course, Russia mobilized plenty of local military units too, that did not have to travel far.

Russia was definitely expecting Georgia to strike -- but in Abkhazia, not Ossetia. This because:

3.a) South Ossetia has zero economic or strategic relevance. Abkhazia has a harbour suitable for warships in the Black Sea; coal resources; tourism (rebirth) potential.
3.b) In early 2008, there were duels between Georgian drones and Russian airplanes -- taking place over Abkhazia.
3.c) Georgia and Russia had reconfirmed the peace-keeping agreement on South Ossetia just before the war started -- for Moscow another indication that Tbilisi did not consider that region to be a priority.

As tension rose, Moscow was preparing militarily for a show-down about Abkhazia. How do we know? Because

4) In May 2008, Moscow sent hundreds of railway military troops to repair the Soviet-era railway lines in Abkhazia. They had just completed their work by the end of July. Why would military personnel overhaul a railway system in that disputed province?

When Georgia attacked Southern Ossetia, Russians were completely ready and just waiting for the opportunity to beat an offensive against Abkhazia. They were dumbfounded for about 24 hours; afterwards, they replied in the right direction.

Relevance for the situation in Syria: at least points (2.a) and (2.c) do not apply, which makes things vastly more complicated. Furthermore, while the assumption that Idlib province will be the decisive field of confrontation is a rational one, the events in the Russo-Georgian war show that the interested parties might occasionally decide upon a course of action whose logic is rather difficult to comprehend. A relevant point especially with personalities like Erdogan, Trump, and Netanyahu.

Chris Chuba

Is Nikki Haley the new Samantha Power, more like an Edith Bunker, a Dingbat.

That's the thought that I had when she glared into the camera and accusingly said of Russia, 'rather than condemn Assad, the first thing that Russia did was deny Assad's guilt'. Uhhh... yeah Nikki, that's how it works. You give your ally the benefit of the doubt until there is actual evidence proving their guilt. Don't we do that for Israel or do we assume Israel is guilty of war crimes the second an Arab accuses them of one?

But yeah, openly contradicting Trump's policy is a sign that she answers to a higher authority. I wish she would use some her outrage by talking to the Donald about the KSA's starvation blockade of Yemen.

ISL

b:

60% did not hit the airport (a big target), and as far as I can tell from the damage report, perhaps 2 actually hit a target that makes sense to have been targeted, of the four that actually did any damage. For the 23 that reached the airport, I am guessing that they lost GPS, and continued on a ballistic trajectory with winds and gravitational anomalies causing them to not strike where targeted.

Of the 60% that did not hit on the airport, I am guessing they lost control while in a course correction, and thus were no longer even correctly aimed as well as losing GPS.

So, now, will the generals tell the President that our uber expensive missiles were rendered inoperative by Russian EW and that sending fighters creates a similar risk to the USAF? Then what happens if most of the US aircraft are unable to function and emergency land with pilots captured/dead?

I would guess a new massive arms race.

And Russia would probably respond in a range of other ways that would be highly detrimental to US FP. Perhaps share the ECM with Hezbollah? S-400 to Crimea? Or even more imaginative, such as supporting instability on our southern border.

Bill SMith

The TLAM-E have 2 back up systems if they lose GPS that would deliver them very closely their targets.

Wikipedia has an article on the TLAM's.

Likely the true number of hits is higher than the Russians claim.

Jim MacMillan

ISL -

Tomahawks do not fly a ballistic trajectory.

Old Microbiologist

It is very hard to say but generally when Lavrov or Putin speaks it means something real. They warned yesterday that any further aggression would be met with force. My prediction is a US drone will be shot down today or tomorrow. They will also start screwing with navigation and light up the threat radars. So, basically Syria is a no-fly zone now for anyone other than R+6. If the drone warning isn't taken seriously then a Turkish jet will be next as they still owe one. That is if he follows through which is ballsy even for Putin. At this point Trump looks as mad as Kim Jong Un. Over time I have noticed Putin very rarely warns and never backs down. That is something the Borg just can't understand. His ratings are back to all time highs after the US bombing so he has some wiggle room for action. Every Russian I know, including the ones that vehemently hate him, are now strongly anti-US. I am left wondering about all those Russians living in the US and where their heads are at now. But dealing with a madman is something we can't estimate and Trump looks over the top nuts now. Now I am left wondering if HRC was better or worse? It looks to me like we are getting the same result regardless.

I keep laughing at all the new sanctions being put onto Russia. I wonder what is left? The Borg doesn't get that this further forces Russia to divest from the US dollar and to set up alternate systems for international banking and trade. Many countries are piling on so this is taking on a life of its own. Russia stupidly started down the road of globalization in 1992 and lost their somewhat unique (Brazil also had it briefly until we decimated their economy and political system) complete economic independence and self-sufficiency. The actions by the US/EU et.al. have forced Russia to once again become self-sufficient or to only trade with countries facing similar problems with the US like China, India, Iran etc. Okay the elite can't get French Champagne or Roquefort cheese, or Mercedes but they have found alternatives such as Land Rovers from China etc.

There are a lot of other factors going on more or less simultaneously. We are still attempting to destroy any resistance from South America. Africa is once again a zone of contention and the ME and Central Asia are major efforts for the US. Beyond that we are messing with Moldova, Belarus, Kosovo, Macedonia, all the Balkans, Ukraine (don't forget that hot war is still ongoing and central to US plans for world domination), Armenia, Georgia, Azerbaijan, Tajikistan, Kyrgyzstan, Uzbekistan etc. Then we have minor feints in Hungary, Poland, Czech Republic, and Slovakia plus we are funding terrorist training in Bosnia. Add in the Asian gambits and we have a ton of shit happening simultaneously. They somehow expect the military to back up all this nonsense and these guys are burnt out completely. I have friends on active duty with over 15 years of combat deployments now. That takes a toll on men and equipment. I remember guys back during 'Nam with 3 combat tours being so salty and burnt out and now we have people with way more than that. Very spooky.

So, let's say Trump is wildly optimistic and buys the BS from the Pentagon that they can handle it all. We could have people fighting in earnest in Syria, Afghanistan, Iraq, Ukraine, Yemen, Somalia, South China Sea, and Korea. Remember after 15 years we haven't won in Afghanistan or Iraq. The reasons are varied but that is where we are at. So, they really think we can handle a real war against a real group of Armies? No way, no how. I am worried as a retiree that I might have to come back and fight. World War III is going to be a doozy.

TonyL

So am I. If anon were serious, the only way this could be explained is the TLAM GINS boxes were pwned by the Russian. ECM can't do this.

Yeah, Right

LeaNder, the claim was made that Trump knew that this was a false-flag even as he ordered this missile attack.

That's what Ingolf was describing as Trump's Machiavellian masterstroke.

The point I was making is that if that *were* true (and I don't know if it is) then one leak to WikiLeaks would present the public with irrefutable proof that Trump ordered this attack out of nothing more - nor less - than murderous criminal intent.

That seems risky to me; any President needs to clothe himself in some argument - however flimsy - regarding the military necessity for going BANG on an opponent.

But if Trump did know that the Syrian forces were not responsible for that CW attack then..... where's the military necessity for killing them?

None that I can see. None at all.

It seems to me that the equation is simple:
IF Trump was told that this was a false-flag
AND proof of that foreknowledge is made public
THEN Trump's arse is toast.

Ingolf disagrees, of course, but I find his arguments very unconvincing.

jld
IF Trump was told that this was a false-flag AND proof of that foreknowledge is made public THEN Trump's arse is toast.

I see no reason why it necessarily would be, could you explain how it would work out?

Serge

Little correction,the Sweden attack happened the day after. And not that it matters,but Sweden has 70 troops in Iraq training the peshmerga against IS. That's less than 20% of the number of swedes estimated to have gone to fight for IS

ISL

if their electronics went dead....

ISL

Bill Smith - that would only be true if they have power. RT released drone videos that seemed to cover much of the airfield, and satellite imagery. The US has released nothing and has not provided any claims other than the 23 at the airport. If the US missiles did more destruction, one wonders why the US is not crowing about it and releasing their famous missile cam videos.

For hardened targets, or a runway, even just 30 m is a miss, and I do not think inertial systems are that good over those distances under varying wind stresses.

Ingolf

Yeah Right,

If convincing evidence turned up that Trump knew it was a false flag and went ahead anyway, then of course he'd be in serious trouble. That's not what I was disagreeing with. As per my earlier reply to you:

"Even if many in the administration had doubts about the chemical attack, is it likely the record of internal deliberations would show an entirely cynical decision to launch the strike against the available evidence? Presumably everyone involved would want to cover themselves."

Babak Makkinejad

Thanks you are, of course right.

Chris Chuba

Women are from Venus, Men are from Mars, Neocons another galaxy
We are completely and totally mad, in the span of minutes I watched on FOX / FOX business ...

1. Gen. Jack Keane talked about how much more leverage Tillerson has to bring dictate peace in Syria because of the strikes comparing it to the bombing campaigns against Serbia.

2. Spicer extended the Red line to 'Barrel Bombs', great, given how thoroughly we investigate rebel claims Assad will be guilty of this in minutes.

3. Tillerson argue yet again that Russia knew about Assad's WMD attack. What arrogance, we choose not to investigate something and assume everyone else's guilt. Why not just pound our chest and declare, 'we are the world's hegemon, bow down and kiss our feet!' The meeting with Lavrov is going to be very interesting. I do not believe that it will go as Tillerson thinks it will.

I knew that Russia not blasting the Tomahawks out of the sky would be interpreted as weakness rather than restraint. The Neocons may be correct about 'appeasement' after all. I moved some of my 401k to cash yesterday because the market does not see the war coming and will be surprised when the Russians finally shoot back. It will be a good buying opportunity if it doesn't end up going nuclear (I think we will eventually be forced back into reality).

The comments to this entry are closed.

My Photo

February 2021

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
  1 2 3 4 5 6
7 8 9 10 11 12 13
14 15 16 17 18 19 20
21 22 23 24 25 26 27
28            
Blog powered by Typepad