Trump is a dangerous moron

Discussion of current events
User avatar
Sertorio
Posts: 1551
Joined: Fri Dec 16, 2016 3:12 am

Trump is a dangerous moron

Post by Sertorio » Mon Apr 09, 2018 10:49 am

I must say I am starting to get a bit nervous. Will Trump be so foolish as to attack Syria on account of an imaginary chemical attack? If he does, Putin will have no alternative but sinking one of the US cruise launching frigates. And Trump will feel forced to attack ALL Russian ships in the Mediterranean, as well as Russian bases in Syria.

Since (I hope!) neither country will attack the other's territory, it will be a race to see who destroys more of the other's military assets abroad. Here, the US has a lot more at stake than Russia, so the end result may be a lot worse for the US. Suppose Russia sinks all US aircraft carriers presently at sea and destroys US bases in the ME. Will Trump be tempted to attack Russia proper?... I'm betting he won't, but I wish I was more sure of that...

User avatar
cassowary
Posts: 2049
Joined: Thu Dec 15, 2016 11:30 pm

Re: Trump is a dangerous moron

Post by cassowary » Mon Apr 09, 2018 2:54 pm

Nothing serious will happen.

User avatar
Alexis
Posts: 183
Joined: Mon Dec 19, 2016 2:46 pm

US-Russian war on Syria would be limited

Post by Alexis » Mon Apr 09, 2018 11:53 pm

Sertorio wrote:
Mon Apr 09, 2018 10:49 am
I must say I am starting to get a bit nervous. Will Trump be so foolish as to attack Syria on account of an imaginary chemical attack? If he does, Putin will have no alternative but sinking one of the US cruise launching frigates. And Trump will feel forced to attack ALL Russian ships in the Mediterranean, as well as Russian bases in Syria.

Since (I hope!) neither country will attack the other's territory, it will be a race to see who destroys more of the other's military assets abroad. Here, the US has a lot more at stake than Russia, so the end result may be a lot worse for the US. Suppose Russia sinks all US aircraft carriers presently at sea and destroys US bases in the ME. Will Trump be tempted to attack Russia proper?... I'm betting he won't, but I wish I was more sure of that...
US cruise missile attacks against Syria have already taken place. Washington took pain to make sure that zero Russian serviceman would stand in harm's way, for fear of the risk of escalation. Moreover, the attack was of symbolic scale.

Most probably, there will be a new similar attack - with small participation by France as a bonus. No serious consequence will ensue. That won't change the Syrian government winning, and the civil war drawing to a close.

If the US chose to refuse their defeat and Syrian victory, they could knock the table over by defeating the Russian expeditionary corps in Syria, paving the way for an extended air campaign against Syria, prolongation of the war and new chance for Islamist-Jihadist forces. That would be extraordinarily stupid to be sure - I mean, 9/11 was 17 years ago yes, but still...

In that case, however:
1. The US would defeat Russia in Syria quite easily, the Russian expeditionary corps there is relatively small and US losses would be limited
2. There would be no chance of nuclear escalation, Syria is way too small a stake
3. Russia would definitely exert reprisal, definitely in another place. The objective would be to ensure America pays a serious price, so that nobody is tempted to make war on a Russian expeditionary corps again anytime soon. However, Russian forces are not so big, and the reprisal would be limited in scale. Possibilities may include:
- Neutralization of a US naval force including destruction of its aircraft carrier. Russia would need to concentrate its resources to manage that, but they would probably succeed
- Invasion of the South-Eastern half of Ukraine which would become a new separated State protected by Russia, like Northern Cyprus was invaded by Turkey in 1974 or Kosovo by NATO in 1999
- Withdrawal from NPT and sale of fully operational nuclear missiles to Iran
4. After the Russian reprisal, things would probably quiet down, because everybody would know escalation is not an option

User avatar
Sertorio
Posts: 1551
Joined: Fri Dec 16, 2016 3:12 am

Re: US-Russian war on Syria would be limited

Post by Sertorio » Tue Apr 10, 2018 3:42 am

Alexis wrote:
Mon Apr 09, 2018 11:53 pm
Sertorio wrote:
Mon Apr 09, 2018 10:49 am
I must say I am starting to get a bit nervous. Will Trump be so foolish as to attack Syria on account of an imaginary chemical attack? If he does, Putin will have no alternative but sinking one of the US cruise launching frigates. And Trump will feel forced to attack ALL Russian ships in the Mediterranean, as well as Russian bases in Syria.

Since (I hope!) neither country will attack the other's territory, it will be a race to see who destroys more of the other's military assets abroad. Here, the US has a lot more at stake than Russia, so the end result may be a lot worse for the US. Suppose Russia sinks all US aircraft carriers presently at sea and destroys US bases in the ME. Will Trump be tempted to attack Russia proper?... I'm betting he won't, but I wish I was more sure of that...
US cruise missile attacks against Syria have already taken place. Washington took pain to make sure that zero Russian serviceman would stand in harm's way, for fear of the risk of escalation. Moreover, the attack was of symbolic scale.

Most probably, there will be a new similar attack - with small participation by France as a bonus. No serious consequence will ensue. That won't change the Syrian government winning, and the civil war drawing to a close.

If the US chose to refuse their defeat and Syrian victory, they could knock the table over by defeating the Russian expeditionary corps in Syria, paving the way for an extended air campaign against Syria, prolongation of the war and new chance for Islamist-Jihadist forces. That would be extraordinarily stupid to be sure - I mean, 9/11 was 17 years ago yes, but still...

In that case, however:
1. The US would defeat Russia in Syria quite easily, the Russian expeditionary corps there is relatively small and US losses would be limited
2. There would be no chance of nuclear escalation, Syria is way too small a stake
3. Russia would definitely exert reprisal, definitely in another place. The objective would be to ensure America pays a serious price, so that nobody is tempted to make war on a Russian expeditionary corps again anytime soon. However, Russian forces are not so big, and the reprisal would be limited in scale. Possibilities may include:
- Neutralization of a US naval force including destruction of its aircraft carrier. Russia would need to concentrate its resources to manage that, but they would probably succeed
- Invasion of the South-Eastern half of Ukraine which would become a new separated State protected by Russia, like Northern Cyprus was invaded by Turkey in 1974 or Kosovo by NATO in 1999
- Withdrawal from NPT and sale of fully operational nuclear missiles to Iran
4. After the Russian reprisal, things would probably quiet down, because everybody would know escalation is not an option
I might agree with most of what you said. Except...

1. The US seems truly frightened. Because it cannot afford being pushed out of the ME, but mainly because the dollar may be about to crash.

2. Russia is the reason why the US will be kicked out of the ME (Israel and Saudi excluded). An alliance of Iran, Iraq, Syria, Russia and (maybe) Turkey would squeeze the US out and would control enough oil to make the petrodollar something of the past. Which would crash the dollar. So Russia must get a serious beating and be expelled from Syria. Whatever the cost, short of a nuclear war.

3. The US cannot quickly mobilize enough soldiers for a ground war in Syria, and its assets in the region are vulnerable to a Russia attack. Russia could sink most of US ships on the Mediterranean, and destroy most of US bases in the ME, making it impossible for the US to control Syria. At most it could destroy some/most of the Russian air and naval assets in the region. Russia could also accept an Iranian offer of an air base in Iran. If a ground war in Syria would be difficult for the US, a ground war in Iran would be impossible. The fact is that supply lines to the ME are far too long for the US, but rather short for Russia, especially with the help of Iran and/or Turkey.

Let's hope Trump - and his handlers - are not that stupid...

User avatar
Alexis
Posts: 183
Joined: Mon Dec 19, 2016 2:46 pm

Re: US-Russian war on Syria would be limited

Post by Alexis » Tue Apr 10, 2018 4:19 am

Sertorio wrote:
Tue Apr 10, 2018 3:42 am
1. The US seems truly frightened. Because it cannot afford being pushed out of the ME, but mainly because the dollar may be about to crash.
But the US are in no danger of being pushed out of the Middle-East :) !

They are the guarantor of Saudi, Qatari, Kuwaiti, Emirati, Bahreini and Omani security, which include the majority of Gulf oil production and reserve, and are the basis of petrodollar indeed. They also are guarantee to Israeli security.

Nobody is going to push them out of these positions. If the US were to abstain from attacking in Syria (or maybe in Iran one day etc.) they would disappoint their Saudi and Israeli clients, they would definitely get some bad press, but that would be all: None of these Arab Gulf countries, nor Israel, has any other option than America.

The idea that US position in the ME would be seriously threatened by a loyalist victory in the Syrian civil war is from Saudi or Israeli propaganda playbook. It is a self-serving illusion served by these two countries.

If US politicians and mediacrats were not so fond of Saudi money and so enamored of Israel, they would manage those countries like the client States that they are in fact.

Beggars are not (should not be) choosers.

An alliance of Iran, Iraq, Syria, Russia and (maybe) Turkey would squeeze the US out and would control enough oil to make the petrodollar something of the past.
Iran, Iraq and Syria between them control but a minority of ME oil reserves and production. Turkey has no oil reserve. Russia is a serious actor of the oil market, but can you picture Iran and Iraq selling their oil in ruble :) ?

Russia could sink most of US ships on the Mediterranean, and destroy most of US bases in the ME, making it impossible for the US to control Syria.
There is a saying that Russian military power is historically misunderstood. It is generally either underestimated, or overestimated. The Russian military was underestimated ten years ago. Now we are in a phase of overstating Russian military capabilities.

Russia does not have the capabilities to inflict such destruction on US naval and air forces or ME bases. It would probably succeed in destroying one US aircraft carrier naval group - incidentally a real feat. Destroying all of that would need a military with size comparable to the former Soviet Union's, but modern as only the better current Russian forces are. Russia is very far from having such power.

If a ground war in Syria would be difficult for the US, a ground war in Iran would be impossible.
Quite true, but who says such a thing would be necessary?

The US do not need to control Syria, much less Iran, so as to consolidate their global imperium and ensure its survival. They do need control of most of Gulf's oil resources, but they already have that even without Iran and Syria and Iraq.

User avatar
Sertorio
Posts: 1551
Joined: Fri Dec 16, 2016 3:12 am

Re: Trump is a dangerous moron

Post by Sertorio » Tue Apr 10, 2018 10:08 am

In September 1939, some German soldiers dressed in Polish uniforms broke through the border with Germany, offering Hitler the excuse he needed to invade Poland and thus start WWII.

It seems the US is willing to use a similar trick, by accusing Syria of a non-existent attack with chemical weapons, in order to justify a war with Russia. But the US should remember how the nazi started war ended, and who forced a German surrender by occupying Berlin and destroyng most of Germany.

User avatar
SteveFoerster
Posts: 1389
Joined: Thu Dec 15, 2016 7:17 pm
Location: Northern Virginia, USA and Dominica, West Indies
Contact:

Re: Trump is a dangerous moron

Post by SteveFoerster » Tue Apr 10, 2018 11:25 am

Sertorio wrote:
Tue Apr 10, 2018 10:08 am
In September 1939, some German soldiers dressed in Polish uniforms broke through the border with Germany, offering Hitler the excuse he needed to invade Poland and thus start WWII.

It seems the US is willing to use a similar trick, by accusing Syria of a non-existent attack with chemical weapons, in order to justify a war with Russia. But the US should remember how the nazi started war ended, and who forced a German surrender by occupying Berlin and destroyng most of Germany.
A more recent example were all the Russian Spetsnaz in fatigues with no insignia who were fighting the "civil war" in Eastern Ukraine.
Writer, technologist, educator, gadfly.
President of New World University: http://newworld.ac

User avatar
Sertorio
Posts: 1551
Joined: Fri Dec 16, 2016 3:12 am

Re: Trump is a dangerous moron

Post by Sertorio » Tue Apr 10, 2018 11:30 am

SteveFoerster wrote:
Tue Apr 10, 2018 11:25 am
Sertorio wrote:
Tue Apr 10, 2018 10:08 am
In September 1939, some German soldiers dressed in Polish uniforms broke through the border with Germany, offering Hitler the excuse he needed to invade Poland and thus start WWII.

It seems the US is willing to use a similar trick, by accusing Syria of a non-existent attack with chemical weapons, in order to justify a war with Russia. But the US should remember how the nazi started war ended, and who forced a German surrender by occupying Berlin and destroyng most of Germany.
A more recent example were all the Russian Spetsnaz in fatigues with no insignia who were fighting the "civil war" in Eastern Ukraine.
The difference being they were fighting alongside ethnic Russians, their own kin...

User avatar
SteveFoerster
Posts: 1389
Joined: Thu Dec 15, 2016 7:17 pm
Location: Northern Virginia, USA and Dominica, West Indies
Contact:

Re: Trump is a dangerous moron

Post by SteveFoerster » Tue Apr 10, 2018 12:00 pm

Sertorio wrote:
Tue Apr 10, 2018 11:30 am
SteveFoerster wrote:
Tue Apr 10, 2018 11:25 am
Sertorio wrote:
Tue Apr 10, 2018 10:08 am
In September 1939, some German soldiers dressed in Polish uniforms broke through the border with Germany, offering Hitler the excuse he needed to invade Poland and thus start WWII.

It seems the US is willing to use a similar trick, by accusing Syria of a non-existent attack with chemical weapons, in order to justify a war with Russia. But the US should remember how the nazi started war ended, and who forced a German surrender by occupying Berlin and destroyng most of Germany.
A more recent example were all the Russian Spetsnaz in fatigues with no insignia who were fighting the "civil war" in Eastern Ukraine.
The difference being they were fighting alongside ethnic Russians, their own kin...
The justifications differ, the subterfuge is the same.
Writer, technologist, educator, gadfly.
President of New World University: http://newworld.ac

User avatar
Sertorio
Posts: 1551
Joined: Fri Dec 16, 2016 3:12 am

Re: Trump is a dangerous moron

Post by Sertorio » Tue Apr 10, 2018 4:05 pm

SteveFoerster wrote:
Tue Apr 10, 2018 12:00 pm
Sertorio wrote:
Tue Apr 10, 2018 11:30 am
SteveFoerster wrote:
Tue Apr 10, 2018 11:25 am
Sertorio wrote:
Tue Apr 10, 2018 10:08 am
In September 1939, some German soldiers dressed in Polish uniforms broke through the border with Germany, offering Hitler the excuse he needed to invade Poland and thus start WWII.

It seems the US is willing to use a similar trick, by accusing Syria of a non-existent attack with chemical weapons, in order to justify a war with Russia. But the US should remember how the nazi started war ended, and who forced a German surrender by occupying Berlin and destroyng most of Germany.
A more recent example were all the Russian Spetsnaz in fatigues with no insignia who were fighting the "civil war" in Eastern Ukraine.
The difference being they were fighting alongside ethnic Russians, their own kin...
The justifications differ, the subterfuge is the same.
Not at all. That wasn't a false flag operation, as Russians were playing the part of...Russians...

Post Reply