Lots has been happening since my last post. Russia is supposed to have deployed the S-300 in Syria on 20 October, but nothing in the news. Back in September, some Israelis wrote that Israel's US jets can easily evade and destroy the S-300 and S-400, and it's only a matter of time before all the S-300s and S-400s in Syria are destroyed by the Israeli Air Force. Those S-300s are supposed to be operational now, but no word from Russia about them, no S-300s shot at any Israeli jets, and no Israeli bombing raids on Syria in the news. Of course, the news isn't all that reliable, lots of Israeli bombing raids on Syria never made the news, because they're so common. But are Israeli bombing raids on Syria still as common as they were? No news I can find.
In Istanbul, Jamal Khashoggi was murdered in the Saudi Consulate. For more than 2 weeks, Saudi said he was only there for a few minutes, left, and no one knew where he was. Turkey said, officially, 'Investigation in progress. No comment.' But rumours by anonymous person or persons unknown said Turkey had tapes of Jamal's brutal murder on the orders of MbS. Jamal was sent by another prince to promote Saudi Arabia to the Western media, and he did a very good job of it, wining and dining and flattering all the top journalists so every newspaper said what a great person (and journalist) Jamal was. And all the Western media are furious that he was killed on orders of MbS.
Before, Saudi was run by a consensus of all the leaders in the Alsaud family and the senior muftis. Somehow, MbS got complete, dictatorial control of everything. He developed a dislike for Jamal and ordered his murder in such a way that he could deny it, but it would be obvious that he'd done it as a message to anyone else who was thinking of possibly saying something without MbS's permission. MbS had a man who resembled Jamal leaving the Consulate, but Turkey showed tapes of Jamal entering and said he never left (they recently showed the video of the agent leaving, looking much like Jamal). MbS didn't offer Turkey enough baksheesh, or maybe he wants to show he's strong enough the Turks can't touch him. Turkey and the Western media want the Western governments to force Saudi to get a new and improved Crown Prince and get rid of MbS, but it's not clear if Western governments agree. Trump keeps waffling, as do May, Macron, and Merkel.
In yet more news, the US has announced it's abrogating some nuclear test ban treaties since Russia was cheating (no proof Russia was cheating, all evidence classified TS/SCI/NOFORN/BBR). Theories abound: China isn't part of the treaty, so the US wants a new and improved treaty that limits the Chinese nuclear force. There's also the fact that, when Reagan started an arms race with the USSR back in the '80s, the result was bankruptcy and collapse for the USSR in '89, and Russia is much poorer and weaker than the USSR, so an arms race that forces Russia into bankruptcy and complete collapse should be easy. Or so the US seems to think.
Someone wrote that Trump should learn from Truman. Probably. In '45, Truman knew Japan was defeated and had nothing to throw at the US, so he ordered the US military to drop every nuke they had on Japan (they only had 2 in August '45). In '49, the USSR developed a nuke. In '51, MacArthur wanted to nuke China, but Truman figured the USSR was a close ally of China and would provide them with an umbrella, so he fired MacArthur (as well he should have done). Now the 'experts' are saying the lesson Trump should learn is the one from '45, not the one from '51, while Russia and China are as weak as Japan was in '45, before they get as strong as the USSR was.
Concerned Scientists say the Doomsday Clock is 2 minutes before midnight. Pollyannas, those Concerned Scientists.
Monday, October 22, 2018
Sunday, October 7, 2018
Some serieous competitive marketing
Russia is a nuclear power that never wants to use MAD, so Russia backed down and said it would not challenge Turkey over Idlib. Shortly thereafter, the Israeli Air Force shot missiles at Syria from behind a Russian plane, the Syrians tried to shoot down the incoming missiles, and shot down the Russia plane. Israel was supposed to give Russia warning, but wanted to make sure the Iranians didn't have time to get out of the way of their missiles, and knew there was a good chance the Russian plane would get shot down, thereby causing the Russians to order the Syrians not to shoot at Israeli missiles. Didn't quite work.
Israel has been bombing Syria with complete impunity for many years, hundreds of bombing raids every year, and only one Israeli jet shot down (and the pilot bailed out unharmed). Syria only had Soviet air defences, by agreement between Russia and Israel. Russia thinks Israel violated the agreement, and delivered some of Russia's 2nd best SAMs. The US responded by upgrading the Israeli air force with planes that are sold to US customers as being able to evade the best Russian SAMs.
So it's competitive marketing. If Syria can shoot down the Israeli planes, Russian SAMs will sell like hotcakes, and US planes won't sell so well. If Syria cannot shoot down the Israeli planes, Russia will find it much harder to sell its SAMs, and countries will buy lots of US planes.
The Russian SAMs will be operational October 20. It's not clear how soon after that we'll see whether US or Russian weapons are better.
Israel has been bombing Syria with complete impunity for many years, hundreds of bombing raids every year, and only one Israeli jet shot down (and the pilot bailed out unharmed). Syria only had Soviet air defences, by agreement between Russia and Israel. Russia thinks Israel violated the agreement, and delivered some of Russia's 2nd best SAMs. The US responded by upgrading the Israeli air force with planes that are sold to US customers as being able to evade the best Russian SAMs.
So it's competitive marketing. If Syria can shoot down the Israeli planes, Russian SAMs will sell like hotcakes, and US planes won't sell so well. If Syria cannot shoot down the Israeli planes, Russia will find it much harder to sell its SAMs, and countries will buy lots of US planes.
The Russian SAMs will be operational October 20. It's not clear how soon after that we'll see whether US or Russian weapons are better.
Wednesday, October 3, 2018
What's next in Syria???
Russia said they would support the Syrian Arab Army to liberate Idlib from the terrorists. However, when Turkey said the full might of the Turkish armed forces would defend the peaceful pro-democracy forces fighting the evil Syrian regime (not to mention getting rid of all the Kurds in the northern 5th or so of Syria) Russia backed down and said Idlib would return to its status as an Ottoman colony. Russia's logistics fighting Turkey are not good. Russia has two of the greatest defensive generals the world has ever seen: General January and General February, but they only defend Mother Russia, not the Russian armed forces fighting in Syria.
Then something happened. The Israeli version is that the Syrians, seeing the Israelis professionally destroying a legitimate target, fired S-200 anti-missiles in all directions. Meanwhile, the Russians had not activated their IFF device, even though they were given ample warning from Israel that a legitimate target would be destroyed. The result was that the Syrians destroyed a Russian plane, and Israel had nothing to do with it. The Russians lied that Israeli planes were shooting their missiles from behind the Russian plane, and that the S-200 had no IFF, so the Syrian attempt to shoot down the missiles destroyed the Russian plane and it was Israel's fault. Israel says all their fighters were in International airspace or flying over Israeli territory, and the Russian map showing the Israeli planes behind the Russian plane was completely fake.
Russia said it would therefore deliver some S-300 missiles sold to Syria many years ago. Israel and the US said this would be a grave violation of International Law, and if anyone--Russians or Syrians--shot down an Israeli plane, there would be severe consequences. I wasn't sure if the S-300s would actually be delivered, but the Russians showed them being unloaded in Syria. They will be operational on 20 Oct, and Russia says any Israeli plane that attempts to bomb Syria after that date will be shot down. The US says its intelligence shows no S-300s were actually delivered, but if they are, it could mean the total destruction of Russia.
And here we are.
Probably, the Russian video is not the Photoshop the US claims that it is, so one must believe that Syria will have the S-300 operational on 20 Oct, as promised. However, the Israeli Air Force is one of the most advanced in the world. Maybe they have ECM that can neutralise the S-300 just as they have neutralised the S-200. We won't know until sometime on or after 20 Oct. If Israel manages another of its bombing raids without losing a single plane, we'll know the S-300 is not as advanced as advertised. If an Israeli jet gets shot down, we'll have to see what, if anything the US does. The US cat has gobbled up mouse after mouse after mouse, but now it seems to be looking at what it thinks is just another mouse, but is actually a bear.
Then something happened. The Israeli version is that the Syrians, seeing the Israelis professionally destroying a legitimate target, fired S-200 anti-missiles in all directions. Meanwhile, the Russians had not activated their IFF device, even though they were given ample warning from Israel that a legitimate target would be destroyed. The result was that the Syrians destroyed a Russian plane, and Israel had nothing to do with it. The Russians lied that Israeli planes were shooting their missiles from behind the Russian plane, and that the S-200 had no IFF, so the Syrian attempt to shoot down the missiles destroyed the Russian plane and it was Israel's fault. Israel says all their fighters were in International airspace or flying over Israeli territory, and the Russian map showing the Israeli planes behind the Russian plane was completely fake.
Russia said it would therefore deliver some S-300 missiles sold to Syria many years ago. Israel and the US said this would be a grave violation of International Law, and if anyone--Russians or Syrians--shot down an Israeli plane, there would be severe consequences. I wasn't sure if the S-300s would actually be delivered, but the Russians showed them being unloaded in Syria. They will be operational on 20 Oct, and Russia says any Israeli plane that attempts to bomb Syria after that date will be shot down. The US says its intelligence shows no S-300s were actually delivered, but if they are, it could mean the total destruction of Russia.
And here we are.
Probably, the Russian video is not the Photoshop the US claims that it is, so one must believe that Syria will have the S-300 operational on 20 Oct, as promised. However, the Israeli Air Force is one of the most advanced in the world. Maybe they have ECM that can neutralise the S-300 just as they have neutralised the S-200. We won't know until sometime on or after 20 Oct. If Israel manages another of its bombing raids without losing a single plane, we'll know the S-300 is not as advanced as advertised. If an Israeli jet gets shot down, we'll have to see what, if anything the US does. The US cat has gobbled up mouse after mouse after mouse, but now it seems to be looking at what it thinks is just another mouse, but is actually a bear.
Saturday, September 29, 2018
US Supreme Court: Partisanship in the extreme
Back in 1793, the Founding Fathers of the US figured 26 Senators had more resources (all were white, landed gentry, plantation owners from the South and industrialists from the North) than the president, just one man, and they could more thoroughly vet his nominees for high Federal positions, checking qualifications and skeletons in their closets. The Senate followed Roberts' Rules, so any Senator could delay any bill (or confirmation) for as long as he could keep talking, and 2/3 of the Senate was needed to vote for cloture, so, if more than 1/3 of all the Senators vehemently objected to a nominee, they could prevent confirmation, hence, all nominees had to be acceptable to more than 2/3. When one or more Senators delayed a bill by taking the floor and keeping it, so the bill could not come up to a vote without cloture, that acquired the name 'filibuster'.
Presidents always nominated men their assistants had assured them were very well qualified and had no past history that would be vehemently opposed. The Senate usually spent a few weeks checking that the president hadn't missed any scandal or lies on the nominee's CV, then generally confirmed him.
Then a very well qualified candidate with no scandals in his past was Borked by the Democrats, and that started the ball rolling down the snow-covered mountain. When Obama was elected, the Republicans tried to block every bill and appointment. The first two years, Obama had a filibuster-proof majority of 60, and got the ACA and 2 Supreme Court appointments: 2 Democrats replacing 2 Democrats, so the court remained 4 - 4 -1 (the 1 being Kennedy, a nominal Republican, but one who would join either the Democrats or the Republicans unpredictably). In 2010, the Democrats lost their filibuster-proof majority, and the Republicans began blocking all laws and appointments, with a few exceptions (they eventually agreed to keep the government running, after letting it 'shut down' once).
In response, the Democrats abolished the filibuster for all appointments except the Supreme Court, and managed to fill many of Obama's appointments until 2015, when the Republicans had a majority in the Senate. When a Republican justice on the Supreme Court died, the Republicans said they would never confirm anyone nominated by Obama, so his nominee, Garland, was never confirmed.
After Trump took office, he nominated a Republican justice to fill the place of the deceased Republican justice the Senate refused to let Obama replace. The Republicans abolished the last filibuster, that for Supreme Court justices, and quickly confirmed Trump's nominee.
Then Kennedy announced his retirement, and Trump appointed Kavanaugh, giving the Republicans a reliable 5 - 4 majority they had not had, and the Democrats went crazy. A minority without a filibuster, they began trying everything they could think of to block the confirmation. Nothing worked. On 13 Sept 2018, the Judiciary Committee, who first check the nominee, voted 11 - 10 to confirm as quickly as possible. The Democrats used their right to demand a one week delay, so the Committee was ready to vote to recommend confirmation on 20 Sept 2018, again, 11 - 10, after which the Senate was expected to vote the next day or the next week 51 - 49 to confirm.
Then the Democrats released a letter Prof Ford had sent months before that said the nominee had sexually abused her! That 11 - 10 vote to recommend confirmation became 12 - 9 to say no recommendation was possible before an investigation into Prof Ford's charges. The chair of the Judiciary committee wanted the investigation to take place on Monday, 24 Sept, but Prof Ford objected. The Democrat's goal (and Prof Ford is a Democrat) is to delay the confirmation vote until January, when the Democrats might have a majority in the Senate. The Committee gave her until 27 September, when she appeared and tearfully recounted the abuse. She had no idea of the day, date, time, or year, only early to mid '80s, most likely 1982, but not absolutely certain. Then the nominee Kavanaugh defended himself, showing that he kept detailed calendars of when and where he was since the '70s. No meeting with a young Prof Ford. But there are blank spaces on his calendars, and he needs an alibi for every hour of every day from 1980 until 1986, since Ford has absolutely no idea when the abuse happened, but she is sure that it must have been when Kavanaugh has no alibi.
Every Democrat 'knows' Prof Ford is telling the truth and Kavanaugh is lying. Most Republicans 'know' Ford is lying and Judge Kavanaugh is telling the truth. Every Democrat 'knows' that, even if there's no proof, one cannot appoint someone to the US Supreme Court with an allegation of sexual abuse hanging over him. Most Republicans 'know' that, if there's no proof, one cannot deny someone an appointment to the US Supreme Court based on an unproven allegation.
The Republicans had a 51 - 49 majority to confirm. On 28 September, the Judiciary Committee voted 11 - 10 to recommend confirmation as quickly as possible, but Senator Flake, who was one of the 11, said he did not want to vote to confirm before an FBI investigation (even though he voted to recommend confirmation as quickly as possible).
So now no one knows what will happen if the Senate majority leader calls for a vote. Do the Republicans still have 51 votes? They only need 50 to confirm. Do they even have 50? No one knows.
The Democrats have played a very weak hand brilliantly. Kavanaugh would be a confirmed member of the Supreme Court by now had it not been for Ford's unprovable accusation, to which two more Democrat women quickly joined with more allegations of sexual abuse (but the Judiciary Committee only agreed to hear Ford). The Democrats desperately want an investigation that drags out until January. The Republican leadership desperately want to confirm before January, but may or may not have the votes, and if they have a vote and confirmation is rejected, they can't have an investigation and a re-vote, one shot is all Kavanaugh gets. And time is running out to get a justice confirmed before January.
Presidents always nominated men their assistants had assured them were very well qualified and had no past history that would be vehemently opposed. The Senate usually spent a few weeks checking that the president hadn't missed any scandal or lies on the nominee's CV, then generally confirmed him.
Then a very well qualified candidate with no scandals in his past was Borked by the Democrats, and that started the ball rolling down the snow-covered mountain. When Obama was elected, the Republicans tried to block every bill and appointment. The first two years, Obama had a filibuster-proof majority of 60, and got the ACA and 2 Supreme Court appointments: 2 Democrats replacing 2 Democrats, so the court remained 4 - 4 -1 (the 1 being Kennedy, a nominal Republican, but one who would join either the Democrats or the Republicans unpredictably). In 2010, the Democrats lost their filibuster-proof majority, and the Republicans began blocking all laws and appointments, with a few exceptions (they eventually agreed to keep the government running, after letting it 'shut down' once).
In response, the Democrats abolished the filibuster for all appointments except the Supreme Court, and managed to fill many of Obama's appointments until 2015, when the Republicans had a majority in the Senate. When a Republican justice on the Supreme Court died, the Republicans said they would never confirm anyone nominated by Obama, so his nominee, Garland, was never confirmed.
After Trump took office, he nominated a Republican justice to fill the place of the deceased Republican justice the Senate refused to let Obama replace. The Republicans abolished the last filibuster, that for Supreme Court justices, and quickly confirmed Trump's nominee.
Then Kennedy announced his retirement, and Trump appointed Kavanaugh, giving the Republicans a reliable 5 - 4 majority they had not had, and the Democrats went crazy. A minority without a filibuster, they began trying everything they could think of to block the confirmation. Nothing worked. On 13 Sept 2018, the Judiciary Committee, who first check the nominee, voted 11 - 10 to confirm as quickly as possible. The Democrats used their right to demand a one week delay, so the Committee was ready to vote to recommend confirmation on 20 Sept 2018, again, 11 - 10, after which the Senate was expected to vote the next day or the next week 51 - 49 to confirm.
Then the Democrats released a letter Prof Ford had sent months before that said the nominee had sexually abused her! That 11 - 10 vote to recommend confirmation became 12 - 9 to say no recommendation was possible before an investigation into Prof Ford's charges. The chair of the Judiciary committee wanted the investigation to take place on Monday, 24 Sept, but Prof Ford objected. The Democrat's goal (and Prof Ford is a Democrat) is to delay the confirmation vote until January, when the Democrats might have a majority in the Senate. The Committee gave her until 27 September, when she appeared and tearfully recounted the abuse. She had no idea of the day, date, time, or year, only early to mid '80s, most likely 1982, but not absolutely certain. Then the nominee Kavanaugh defended himself, showing that he kept detailed calendars of when and where he was since the '70s. No meeting with a young Prof Ford. But there are blank spaces on his calendars, and he needs an alibi for every hour of every day from 1980 until 1986, since Ford has absolutely no idea when the abuse happened, but she is sure that it must have been when Kavanaugh has no alibi.
Every Democrat 'knows' Prof Ford is telling the truth and Kavanaugh is lying. Most Republicans 'know' Ford is lying and Judge Kavanaugh is telling the truth. Every Democrat 'knows' that, even if there's no proof, one cannot appoint someone to the US Supreme Court with an allegation of sexual abuse hanging over him. Most Republicans 'know' that, if there's no proof, one cannot deny someone an appointment to the US Supreme Court based on an unproven allegation.
The Republicans had a 51 - 49 majority to confirm. On 28 September, the Judiciary Committee voted 11 - 10 to recommend confirmation as quickly as possible, but Senator Flake, who was one of the 11, said he did not want to vote to confirm before an FBI investigation (even though he voted to recommend confirmation as quickly as possible).
So now no one knows what will happen if the Senate majority leader calls for a vote. Do the Republicans still have 51 votes? They only need 50 to confirm. Do they even have 50? No one knows.
The Democrats have played a very weak hand brilliantly. Kavanaugh would be a confirmed member of the Supreme Court by now had it not been for Ford's unprovable accusation, to which two more Democrat women quickly joined with more allegations of sexual abuse (but the Judiciary Committee only agreed to hear Ford). The Democrats desperately want an investigation that drags out until January. The Republican leadership desperately want to confirm before January, but may or may not have the votes, and if they have a vote and confirmation is rejected, they can't have an investigation and a re-vote, one shot is all Kavanaugh gets. And time is running out to get a justice confirmed before January.
Wednesday, September 26, 2018
Russia's Next Move???
Putin claims that Russia supported Israel in the UN Security Council, helping Israel; however, the Israeli Air Force hid in the shadow of a Russian plane and fired missiles at Syria. Syrian forces saw the missiles coming and launched S-200 anti-missiles that hit the Russian plane, killing all 15 on board. Israel says it was entirely the fault of the incompetent Syrians. Putin says it was a tragic accident. The Russian propaganda channel says it was all Israel's fault: it was a deliberate move to use the Russian plane to shield the Israeli planes from the missiles, and maybe the destruction of the Russian plane was seen as an added bonus.
Years ago, Russia sold a few S-300 SAMs to Syria, but never delivered any of them after Israel and the US said, 'NO!'. Russia says the S-200 has no IFF (Identify Friend or Foe) that would have prevented it from hitting a Russian plane, but the S-300 does have, so it cannot hit a Russian plane, even if the Syrians shoot in the direction of a Russian plane by mistake. And Russia says it will deliver 3 S-300 systems to Syria next week. Israel and the United States say this will be an act of war by Russia that will be very harshly dealt with if a single Israeli plane gets shot down and the pilot killed. So will Russia deliver the 3 S-300 missiles? Not clear, after Russia meekly agreed that Northern Syria is the property of the Ottoman Empire, and Eastern Syria (with all Syria's petroleum products) is a US neo-colony.
Israel bombs Syria hundreds of times every year. The S-200s took down a single Israeli aeroplane (the pilot ejected safely), but, for the most part, Syria does not dare to even shoot at an Israeli plane. Back in '13, when Obama would have forced regime change in Syria had the UK Parliament not voted 'NO!' the US establishment press reported that Syria has one of the world's best air defences, so Obama's victory would have been heralded as military genius. But this 'best air defence' has only been used once against one Israel plane, because Israel has threatened that, if Syria shoots down one Israeli plane, Israel will carpet bomb Damascus, and the S-200s can't stop the entire Israeli Air Force from destroying Damascus (they might take out a plane or two, but most would complete their missions).
If the 3 S-300s are delivered, will they make a difference? Will they survive an Israeli strike? Will they even be delivered, or is the threat of delivery a tiny bargaining chip Russia is trying to use?
We'll have a pretty good idea by one week from next Monday, since that's when Russia promised delivery, so it must either deliver by Monday week or renege.
Back in '15, when Russia moved more troops into Syria to defend Russia's only Mediterranean base, the pundits said Russia had nothing. If Obama ordered Putin to step down, Putin had no choice but to meekly comply. The US could easily transform Syria from an impoverished, brutal dictatorship into a peaceful and prosperous democracy (as it had done for Iraq and Libya) and return those military bases on which Russia was squatting to their rightful owners: NATO. But Obama left finishing the job he'd started in Syria for St Hillary, whose supporters said she'd get rid of the evil Syrian dictator and put in a good democratic leader from the peaceful, pro-democracy activists in Syria (i.e., al-Qaeda and the ISL, but her supporters refuse to admit that), and do the same for Russia.
But St Hillary lost (and every Clintonbot knows Trump tweeted Putin passwords to pilfer the election, since St Hillary would have had more than 175% of the vote in any honest election), and Candidate Trump said he wanted peace with Syria and Russia. President Trump announced to the UN Security Council that he intends to liberate Iran. His cabinet say regime change in Iran is necessary, but he must not forget Syria and Russia. Does Russia have anything? Will Putin be gone and replaced with a 'good democrat' like Yeltsin who will dismantle the Russian military Putin started to rebuild?
Or will Russia stick to its promise and actually deliver those 3 S-300 systems it sold to Syria more than 5 years ago? We will know in less than a fortnight!
And then, we're promised, the Israeli bombing raids on Israel will finally stop.
Years ago, Russia sold a few S-300 SAMs to Syria, but never delivered any of them after Israel and the US said, 'NO!'. Russia says the S-200 has no IFF (Identify Friend or Foe) that would have prevented it from hitting a Russian plane, but the S-300 does have, so it cannot hit a Russian plane, even if the Syrians shoot in the direction of a Russian plane by mistake. And Russia says it will deliver 3 S-300 systems to Syria next week. Israel and the United States say this will be an act of war by Russia that will be very harshly dealt with if a single Israeli plane gets shot down and the pilot killed. So will Russia deliver the 3 S-300 missiles? Not clear, after Russia meekly agreed that Northern Syria is the property of the Ottoman Empire, and Eastern Syria (with all Syria's petroleum products) is a US neo-colony.
Israel bombs Syria hundreds of times every year. The S-200s took down a single Israeli aeroplane (the pilot ejected safely), but, for the most part, Syria does not dare to even shoot at an Israeli plane. Back in '13, when Obama would have forced regime change in Syria had the UK Parliament not voted 'NO!' the US establishment press reported that Syria has one of the world's best air defences, so Obama's victory would have been heralded as military genius. But this 'best air defence' has only been used once against one Israel plane, because Israel has threatened that, if Syria shoots down one Israeli plane, Israel will carpet bomb Damascus, and the S-200s can't stop the entire Israeli Air Force from destroying Damascus (they might take out a plane or two, but most would complete their missions).
If the 3 S-300s are delivered, will they make a difference? Will they survive an Israeli strike? Will they even be delivered, or is the threat of delivery a tiny bargaining chip Russia is trying to use?
We'll have a pretty good idea by one week from next Monday, since that's when Russia promised delivery, so it must either deliver by Monday week or renege.
Back in '15, when Russia moved more troops into Syria to defend Russia's only Mediterranean base, the pundits said Russia had nothing. If Obama ordered Putin to step down, Putin had no choice but to meekly comply. The US could easily transform Syria from an impoverished, brutal dictatorship into a peaceful and prosperous democracy (as it had done for Iraq and Libya) and return those military bases on which Russia was squatting to their rightful owners: NATO. But Obama left finishing the job he'd started in Syria for St Hillary, whose supporters said she'd get rid of the evil Syrian dictator and put in a good democratic leader from the peaceful, pro-democracy activists in Syria (i.e., al-Qaeda and the ISL, but her supporters refuse to admit that), and do the same for Russia.
But St Hillary lost (and every Clintonbot knows Trump tweeted Putin passwords to pilfer the election, since St Hillary would have had more than 175% of the vote in any honest election), and Candidate Trump said he wanted peace with Syria and Russia. President Trump announced to the UN Security Council that he intends to liberate Iran. His cabinet say regime change in Iran is necessary, but he must not forget Syria and Russia. Does Russia have anything? Will Putin be gone and replaced with a 'good democrat' like Yeltsin who will dismantle the Russian military Putin started to rebuild?
Or will Russia stick to its promise and actually deliver those 3 S-300 systems it sold to Syria more than 5 years ago? We will know in less than a fortnight!
And then, we're promised, the Israeli bombing raids on Israel will finally stop.
Tuesday, September 18, 2018
Syria loses Idlib to the Ottoman Empire
I read many Obamabots and Clintonbots (including the New York Times) say that Russia is not the USSR, but is a very minor power, on the level of Panamá, that all Russia's weapons are just Photoshop. A Frenchman and an Austrian figured that was true, and the Frenchman tried to force regime change in Russia, and the Austrian tried to force regime change in the USSR. Now, however, Turkey sent its army into Idlib, and said it would fight against any attempt to reattach Idlib to Syria. The rest of NATO said they'd support Turkey if Russia tried to take Idlib. After a couple of days (one in Tehran and one in Sochi) Putin agreed: Turkey can keep Idlib.
Then Israel sent four aircraft behind a Russian aircraft, and began firing missiles at Syria. Syria shot back, and shot down the Russian plane. Israel says it was obviously the fault of the incompetent Syrians. Putin says he'll do nothing about it (the Russian propaganda channel keeps saying it was obviously Israel's fault, but Putin has not said that, and that's not the official Russian position).
Is Russia just a paper tiger? Is it quite unable to stand up to the US, knows it, and will always back down? If so, WWIII is off the table, and the US will keep expanding its influence, and will continue killing anyone who objects to US hegemony. After all, the US is the Greatest Force for Good in the World (just read US history books), so US hegemony over the entire world is all for the best.
(Of course, there's a nation with a bigger GDP than the US, a stronger military than the US, and they've made Venezuela part of their Belt and Road, so they're vehemently opposed to regime change, which the US is threatening, so even if Russia will always back down, there's a much bigger player than Russia that might not. At least Venezuela must hope so.)
Then Israel sent four aircraft behind a Russian aircraft, and began firing missiles at Syria. Syria shot back, and shot down the Russian plane. Israel says it was obviously the fault of the incompetent Syrians. Putin says he'll do nothing about it (the Russian propaganda channel keeps saying it was obviously Israel's fault, but Putin has not said that, and that's not the official Russian position).
Is Russia just a paper tiger? Is it quite unable to stand up to the US, knows it, and will always back down? If so, WWIII is off the table, and the US will keep expanding its influence, and will continue killing anyone who objects to US hegemony. After all, the US is the Greatest Force for Good in the World (just read US history books), so US hegemony over the entire world is all for the best.
(Of course, there's a nation with a bigger GDP than the US, a stronger military than the US, and they've made Venezuela part of their Belt and Road, so they're vehemently opposed to regime change, which the US is threatening, so even if Russia will always back down, there's a much bigger player than Russia that might not. At least Venezuela must hope so.)
Wednesday, September 12, 2018
What's really happening in Syria???
The western establishment media (who are seldom foolish enough to actually go into Syria) say the Russians have started a massive bombing campaign, bombing schools and hospitals in Idlib and killing lots of children, while the Syrian Arab Army is massing all around Idlib for a brutal assault. They get this information from tweets sent out by al-Qaeda (under whatever name they're using now). One western reporter, Robert Fisk, who was foolish enough to go to Syria and drive the ring road around Idlib said he heard no bombing, so, while Russia admits it's bombing places sending missiles and drones to bomb Russian bases, the bombing must be very sporadic, or he'd have seen and heard it. The 'Syrian Arab Army' massing around Idlib' he did not see, just a few Syrian soldiers exchanging small arms fire with the peaceful, pro-democracy protesters (and some of their sniper fire came near him). Of course, during this month (which lasts until about 8 October), war is prohibited by Islam, so the Syrian assault to liberate Idlib might be planned for then.
The Russians say they have evidence that NATO (US/UK/France/Turkey) are planning to force regime change in Syria in the very near future. Their intelligence said that a US film crew went into Idlib and filmed a 'chemical attack' by the evil Syrian and Russian regimes, and this was done so the US/UK/France can say they have no choice but to force regime change since the evil Syrians and Russians are using chemical weapons. The film is now being edited, and will be sent to the UN and the OPCW, while out-takes will be posted on social media, whereupon the US/UK/France are already getting ready to start a Libyan-style regime change in Syria. Only it's not 2011 (a fact of which NATO do not seem to be aware, perhaps their calendars stopped because they forgot to wind them?). In 2011, Putin felt that Russia could not stand up to NATO, and Russia did not veto the UN resolution to attack Libya (the resolution did not mention regime change, but even if it had been explicit, Russia and China considered themselves too weak to challenge NATO for Libya). In 2018, Putin says Russia absolutely will not allow NATO to force regime change in Syria. Is Putin bluffing? NATO says he is, they say Yeltsin dismantled the Soviet military, and all Putin's 'weapons' are just Photoshop. When NATO starts bombing, Putin has no choice but to withdraw whatever is left of the Russian military and let NATO remove the evil Syrian regime, put a member of the peaceful, pro-democracy al-Qaeda in charge, and NATO will return to those NATO bases on which the USSR and then Russia have been squatting since the days of the current Syrian president's father. All the NATO 'experts' that I've read say Russia will be about as difficult an opponent as Grenada or Panamá were. Somehow, I don't have quite as much confidence in the NATO 'experts' as they have in themselves. Likewise, I have no idea if Russian intelligence is any good.
We'll all know very soon if Russian intelligence is right. If they're wrong about the NATO regime change in Syria being imminent, it might be awhile before we're sure they were wrong.
And if Russian Intelligence is correct, no one has a clue what will happen. I guess we'll find out.
The Russians say they have evidence that NATO (US/UK/France/Turkey) are planning to force regime change in Syria in the very near future. Their intelligence said that a US film crew went into Idlib and filmed a 'chemical attack' by the evil Syrian and Russian regimes, and this was done so the US/UK/France can say they have no choice but to force regime change since the evil Syrians and Russians are using chemical weapons. The film is now being edited, and will be sent to the UN and the OPCW, while out-takes will be posted on social media, whereupon the US/UK/France are already getting ready to start a Libyan-style regime change in Syria. Only it's not 2011 (a fact of which NATO do not seem to be aware, perhaps their calendars stopped because they forgot to wind them?). In 2011, Putin felt that Russia could not stand up to NATO, and Russia did not veto the UN resolution to attack Libya (the resolution did not mention regime change, but even if it had been explicit, Russia and China considered themselves too weak to challenge NATO for Libya). In 2018, Putin says Russia absolutely will not allow NATO to force regime change in Syria. Is Putin bluffing? NATO says he is, they say Yeltsin dismantled the Soviet military, and all Putin's 'weapons' are just Photoshop. When NATO starts bombing, Putin has no choice but to withdraw whatever is left of the Russian military and let NATO remove the evil Syrian regime, put a member of the peaceful, pro-democracy al-Qaeda in charge, and NATO will return to those NATO bases on which the USSR and then Russia have been squatting since the days of the current Syrian president's father. All the NATO 'experts' that I've read say Russia will be about as difficult an opponent as Grenada or Panamá were. Somehow, I don't have quite as much confidence in the NATO 'experts' as they have in themselves. Likewise, I have no idea if Russian intelligence is any good.
We'll all know very soon if Russian intelligence is right. If they're wrong about the NATO regime change in Syria being imminent, it might be awhile before we're sure they were wrong.
And if Russian Intelligence is correct, no one has a clue what will happen. I guess we'll find out.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)