That’s more about re-aligning with Russia, the regime in Saudi is careering towards bankruptcy, the sofa men might might actually have to work for a living now they can’t pay the foreign workers who do all the real work there.
Wrong once again,** just because you insist on repeating something multiple times does not make it true**,
Once again the whole “Syria is a mess because pipelines” makes no economical or geographical or geopolitical sense,
just look at a map pipelines DO NOT HAVE to go thru Syria.
Iran can build pipeline directly to Turkey which they already border, now that sanctions are being lifted and their billions abroad unfrozen, due to the nuclear agreement (tho’ granted things dont look rosy for Iran with Trump in waiting) no need to build thru’ Syria. Iran also has option of building north into friendly Azerbaijan which already has pipelines into Turkey via Georgia and is building more right now. Another option is to connect to Turkmenistan hence profiting from transport of Turkmen gas and be eventually connected to a network which China is extended eastwards both thru the Stans and all the way to Pakistani Indian ocean coast.
Iraq can build directly to Turkey too by going thru’ the stable Kurdistan region, already plenty of oil flows in that direction, if anything it can benefit both Iraq and Iraqi Kurdistan
Gulf states and Saudi can connect via friendly Iraq to Turkey, or alternatively go via Egypt or Israel (both of whom be happy for cheaper energy prices) plus underwater pipeline. If anyone has the money its Saudi, hell the Russians already build longer underwater pipelines so its possible.
And of course lets not forget that pipelines and peace in the middle east is the last thing that Putin wants hence why his bizarre involvement in Syria starts to make sense. If the middle east burns then Russia is back in business. Speaking of pipelines one of Russia’s annexed regions in Georgia has borders that seem to move overnight ever closer to the Baku<>Turkey pipeline, there’s a thought for you…
“Syria is a mess because pipelines” is downright silly for a multitude of reason, lets not forget that the place started of with peaceful protests which were brutally suppressed, and only after that did Qatar, Saudi, Iran got involved, with US and Russia following later with whole place turning into a clusterfuck. Pipelines is the last of anyones concerns about now.
This is World War III. The capture of Aleppo is seen as a strategic objective to bringing the Syrian war to a close, the “rebels” made a determined push to take the city this year and failed, the Russians took out their logistics support and the Turks withdrew to concentrate on Al Bab. Almost immediately when the “rebels” lost Aleppo, the Western press was immediately filled with unattributed stories of mass killings. The Syrian government logically want to bring the military operations in Aleppo to a close ASAP and the sooner they do, people stop getting hurt and killed and can get on with the task of rebuilding their lives so drawing this out is not in the interest of the residents of Aleppo and neither is it in the interests of the Russians, however, if they can be kept tied up there for as long as possible it gives the “rebels” time to regroup and try again, if they have the fight left . . . The UN intervention should be seen in this light.
Current #StandWithAleppo propaganda campaign was launched by “strategic affairs consultant” Becky Carroll
Not its not. You, I and everyone else on this planet will notice world war 3 (shortly before dying horrible deaths) as that will be the last war fought for quite some time.
I can not believe you even attempted to justify blocking access to UN observers, what are you and the Russians worried about that even more human rights abuses and war crimes come to be highlighted? Worried that once UN gets involved it can be followed by peacekeepers from all around the world (including Ireland) and the war will have to be resolved?
Its Cold War 2. As for WW3 you have not a clue what you are talking about. You remind me of the idiots back in the 1930’s that claimed that one hour after the next war was declared all major cities would be flattened, their inhabitants reduces to cavemen, by waves of thousands of bombers.
Did not happen.
Eventually years later the cities were slowly destroyed and millions were killed in air raids but the war that actually unfolded bore little relationship to that predicted by the armageddonist before hand. It will be no different next time around.
We very nearly had a full blown hot war. It was very very close run thing. It would have been nothing like Threads or The Day After or Weltkrieg. It would have been a much much messier version of the Ukraine, with a tactical nuke detonation or two. If by accident it did go strategic exchange then given the exceptionally high failure rate of both delivery vehicles and payloads the probability of a partial or full detonation over Ireland is small but non trivial. Still small casualties. The real fun would start as Irelands complete and total unpreparedness regarding both civil defense and in fact any defense was laid bare. You would be more likely to slowly starve to death in Ireland after a full exchange than die of radiation or blast injuries. Ireland is by far the most unprepared country in Europe for any major crisis.
For the major players like UK, Russia and the US a strategic exchange would compress the losses of WW2 into a few days in the case of the UK, or in the case of the US and Russia , both their Civil Wars into a few days. The vast majority of the inhabitants of all players will survive any strategic exchange to help decide how to rearrange the very extensive post war rubble. Just like they did after the Civil Wars. Very nasty in both cases.
As for the UN. It only gets involved in small wars that have no strategic value. Mere ineffectual policemen. Syria is a full on proxy war by all the major players so UN has zero role. A bit like talking about sending traffic wardens to control an armed riot / turf war between competing crime gangs.
Russia/Iran have won the war in Syria. Syria was a Russian client state during the first Cold War. Time to recognize reality and leave it to the Russians. It might save a few hundred thousand more causalities.
Is there any topic you won’t spoof on, and throw around random insults about “idiots”?
Let’s read the rest of this…
OK, so what did happen?
Well to begin, I’m not even sure who the “idiots” you are referring to are, since you don’t bother to identify the strawmen you’re so happily squaring off against. You do seem to identify them as individuals who in the 1930s attempted to identify what would happen in a future war, which in fact took place in the 1940s.
Now, although I know you successfully predicted the 2004 P&L accounts for Amazon in 1989, to such a degree of accuracy they were in 2005 submitted to the SEC rather than the accounts slowly being prepared by the idiots in Amazon’s accounts department, mostly the track record of prediction is rather poor as it’s a difficult thing to do.
But I don’t see this prediction being so bad:
Cities were destroyed
People were in some cases reduced to pretty “caveman-like” foraging and subsistence when their urban environments were destroyed or they were displaced
This happened in the next major war
What was wrong was the pace and totality of the destruction. However, by the end of the war we had demonstration of a technical leap that would make one-sortie destruction of an entire city possible, and also the advanced development of technologies (jet engines and rocketry) that would accelerate our ability to deliver destructive payloads to other lands.
Even if your first point was sensible, this would still be a logical non-sequitur. And you’ve also left out who it is you’re actually attacking for this “mistake”. The previous poster? Some academic types? Journalists? Colonel Sanders?
It makes the most interesting reading, in a Möbius strip way, to imagine you’re attacking yourself.
How big of a theatre are you talking about? If it’s really “like Ukraine” then I wouldn’t call it a world war. If it involves huge theatres of operations: Europe, Americas, Asia, etc., then I agree tactical nukes would have found application, but unless it bedded into stale-mate very quickly I don’t think a strategic escalation by either side would have been unlikely (probably most likely by the side feeling they were being pushed back on their heels and trying to arrest the slide).
What are you basing this on? Official doctrine did incorporate ideas of steady escalation, but there were respectable critics of that thinking who doubted the ability of both sides to sustain that approach and maintain decision making and chain of command. There would be serious risk of a major escalation in that setting.
It would be good to give a reference for your failure rate claim. However, the overkill was substantial at the peak of the cold war, so there would be significant nuclear explosions and damage.
Also, Ireland’s risk wouldn’t be only from a stray bomb/missile. Ireland was on targeting lists, because of housing assets that could be used to the benefit of belligerents (in particular air-strips, but fuel reserves, ports and food would all have been relevant). Shannon and Bantry mentioned in this discussion as Soviet targets: politicalworld.org/archive/i … 10693.html
(you’re not by any chance the jmcc in that thread?)
Sort of like in Threads you mean?
wow, such unqualified claim!
what units do you measure that in?
I suspect you’ve missed a point in the original comment here
You could, but that would be stupid because we’re unlikely to face a threat that we could overcome with a standing army, navy or air force. Unless of course you could suggest one? Maybe give a bit of a cost/benefit analysis?