Military Events in Syria and Iraq Thread #4

[iceaura]

There are some differences between dems and reps, but they are minor, both are first of all criminals and warmongers.

Not equivalently.
The Republican launched invasions and occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan, for example, were not "minor", and nothing remotely similar has been launched by the Dems since Vietnam - back when the neo-Confederates were Dems.

It is you who looks ridiculous, ignoring Kosovo, Libya and Syria.

I went out of my way to compare them, as evidence of you being wrong. That's the opposite of ignoring them.

Yes, international law, as applied during the separation of Crimea from the Ukraine and Crimea joining Russia.

Russian annexation of Crimea by force was in violation of international law. It was not applied - in large part because Russia is a nuclear power with a veto seat on the Security Council (same basic reason the US violations in invading Iraq were not held to account).

First of all, I could name them publicly terrorists too without problems,

But you don't. And you don't name any of Assad's allies "terrorist", or any of his actions "terrorism".

many separatists have been named terrorists (IRA, ETA) only based on the facts that they have used military means against the government,

Car bombs targeting passersby are not military means.

so this would not be even in conflict with NATO standards of identifying terrorists, not? Then, there are separatists I name terrorists, without any hesitations: The gangs in Kosovo, the Uigures in China, the Chechens like Bassajev.

Completely irrelevant. The issue was your pattern of naming some people in Syria "terrorist", and not others.

Then, I see no reason to deny Russian attacks, if they happen.

You have, in fact, denied them - on this forum.
You have also used the presumptive innocence of Russian involvement to decide whether or not to believe media reports - so your denial of Russian attacks is self-reinforcing.

BTW, Russia has enough own pipelines and oil, it does not need to control foreign oil.

You can't expect to be taken seriously after posting something that clueless. It's like those Hillaryhate videos you suckered for - there's just no way to walk back that kind of stuff.

If you don't recognize Syria's position in oil and gas geopolitics, you have no idea what Putin is doing in Syria. Or Ukraine, for that matter.[/QUOTE]

 

[Schmelzer]

Russian annexation of Crimea by force was in violation of international law. It was not applied - in large part because Russia is a nuclear power with a veto seat on the Security Council (same basic reason the US violations in invading Iraq were not held to account).

First, the UN is not a world government which "applies" some UN law or so. Then, that you repeat the official position of Washington does not make it true. Ok, you can say that I simply repeat the official position of Russia, and this does not make it true too. Which of the two positions is correct one would have to discuss by considering the particular evidence. Which is clearly impossible here, given your methods of "discussion".

But you don't. And you don't name any of Assad's allies "terrorist", or any of his actions "terrorism".

Yes, and I have reasons for this. Because they fight on the side of the legal government, thus, their actions in Syria have a legal base. In such a situation naming them "terrorists" is simply propaganda.

The issue was your pattern of naming some people in Syria "terrorist", and not others.

The issue is that you have lied about this, my naming pattern is different.

You have, in fact, denied them - on this forum.

Link please. Which Russian attack against YPG I have denied? I have used "Kurds" instead of "YPG", ignoring your beloved Kurdish terrorist group in Latakia, ok. But I have never denied that Russia bombs all anti-government forces which fight in Latakia.

If you don't recognize Syria's position in oil and gas geopolitics, you have no idea what Putin is doing in Syria. Or Ukraine, for that matter.

It plays of course some role, but this role is imho overestimated by many people. Syria is not a big player in the oil business.

In the Ukraine gas geopolitics plays only a role because of the pipeline from Russia to Europe. And after Turkstream and Northstream II working this role will be finished.

 

[iceaura]

First, the UN is not a world government which "applies" some UN law or so.

Russia's annexation of Crimea by force was a violation of international law.

Yes, and I have reasons for this. Because they fight on the side of the legal government, thus, their actions in Syria have a legal base. In such a situation naming them "terrorists" is simply propaganda.

So in Syria if they fight on the side of Assad they are not terrorists, and everything done by those fighting on the side of Assad has a legal base and is therefore not terrorism. By definition, apparently, there is no such thing as State terrorism - in Syria. This you have now stated explicitly.
But in Ukraine, apparently, this principle does not hold, but rather the reverse. Also in Georgia, there are complications. And elsewhere.
So the apparent labeling criterion is 'supported/attacked by Putin', not 'supported/attacked by the State'. And if you recall I have pointed this out to you before, on this forum - it's been your MO for identifying terrorists throughout your tenure here. You, the supposed libertarian, consistently refuse to acknowledge even the possibility of terrorism from the State - if the State is friendly to Putin.

The issue is that you have lied about this, my naming pattern is different.

You have just now verified my description of your naming pattern, as it applies to Syria. Explicitly.

I have used "Kurds" instead of "YPG", ignoring your beloved Kurdish terrorist group in Latakia, ok.

You denied the attacked were really Kurds, in the process of refuting my observation that Putin was bombing some Kurds but not others as an apparent strategy. And you called the people Putin bombed "terrorists" - as you did right there, exactly according to your naming pattern for "terrorists".

It plays of course some role, but this role is imho overestimated by many people. Syria is not a big player in the oil business

But Iran and Iraq are. Why do you think the US is involved in Syria anyway - because Hillary Clinton is a psychopath and the deep State of the US follows her like a cult for her charisma ?
Syria was planned (by Assad) to be one of Iran's (and thus Iraq's) major pipeline outlets.
It occupies a key part of the geography, and the politics, of a major pipeline deal with serious political ramifications. There is a pipeline involved, and has been all along (a couple of random links illustrating):
http://www.middleeasteye.net/column...e-war-syria-could-destabilise-putin-103505758

Up to this point, US policy toward Assad had been ambivalent. State Department cables obtained by Wikileaks reveal that US policy had wavered between financing Syrian opposition groups to facilitate “regime change,” and using the threat of regime change to induce “behaviour reform”.

Obama’s preference for the latter resulted in US officials, including John Kerry, shamelessly courting Assad in the hopes of prying him away from Iran, opening up the Syrian economy to US investors, and aligning the regime with US-Israeli regional designs.

Even when the Arab Spring protests resulted in Assad’s security forces brutalising peaceful civilian demonstrators in the streets, both Kerry and then Secretary of State Hillary Clinton insisted that he was a “reformer” - which he took as a green light to respond to further protests with massacres.

The Scramble for the Mediterranean
Then in July, a $10 billion Iran-Iraq-Syria pipeline deal was announced, and a preliminary agreement duly signed.

By late 2011, the US, UK, France and Israel were ramping up covert assistance to rebel factions in Syria to elicit the “collapse” of Assad’s regime “from within”.

“The United States… supports the Qatari pipeline as a way to balance Iran and diversify Europe’s gas supplies away from Russia,” explained Orenstein in Foreign Affairs.

Russia moved quickly to support the parties in signing a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) in July 2012. By the end of 2013, Russia had signed an offshore gas deal with Syria to explore the eastern Mediterranean, estimated to contain a total of about 122 trillion cubic feet of recoverable natural gas.

The move was seen as “unhelpful” by the US, which has worked with Israel, Egypt, Turkey, Cyprus and Lebanon to develop an Israeli-dominated regional gas export architecture capable of supplying eastern Mediterranean gas to Europe.

“Natural gas discoveries in the eastern Mediterranean… have the ability to undermine Russia’s dominant position as a natural gas supplier to Western Europe,” wrote Simon Henderson, director of the Washington Institute’s Gulf and Energy Policy Programme.

http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2012/08/201285133440424621.html

Syria is way more important as an energy crossroads, much like Turkey - but on a smaller scale. The key point is that Turkey needs Syria to fulfill its energy strategy.

Syria's play in Pipelineistan includes the Arab Gas Pipeline (AGP) from Egypt to Tripoli (in Lebanon) and the IPC from Kirkuk, in Iraq, to Banyas - idle since the 2003 US invasion.

The centrepiece of Syria's energy strategy is the "Four Seas Policy" - a concept introduced by Bashar al-Assad in early 2011, two months before the start of the uprising. It's like a mini-Turkish power play - an energy network linking the Mediterranean, the Caspian, the Black Sea and the Gulf.

Damascus and Ankara soon got down to business - integrating their gas grids, linking them with the AGP and, crucially, planning the AGP's extension from Aleppo to Kilis in Turkey; this could later link to the perennial Pipelineistan opera, the Nabucco, assuming this fat lady ever sings (and that's far from given).

Damascus was also getting ready to go one up on the IPC; in late 2010 it signed a memorandum of understanding with Baghdad to build one gas and two oil pipelines. Target market, once again: Europe.

Then all hell broke loose. But even while the uprising was underway, the $10 billion Iran-Iraq-Syria Pipelineistan deal was clinched. If finished, it will carry at least 30 per cent more gas than the bound-to-be-scrapped Nabucco.

Aye, there's the rub. What is sometimes referred to as the Islamic Gas Pipeline bypasses Turkey. - - - -

https://www.counterpunch.org/2015/12/08/syria-ultimate-pipelineistan-war/

- - -
Damascus, instead, chose in 2010 to privilege a competing project, the $10 billion Iran-Iraq-Syria, also know as «Islamic pipeline». The deal was formally announced in July 2011, when the Syrian tragedy was already in motion. In 2012, a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) was signed with Iran.
- - - - -
An Iran-Iraq-Syria pipeline is unacceptable in the Beltway not only because US vassals lose, but most of all because in currency war terms it would bypass the petrodollar. Iranian gas from South Pars would be traded in an alternative basket of currencies.

 

[Schmelzer]

News from the day: Further advances in Deir Ezzor itself, as in the map:

Russia's annexation of Crimea by force was a violation of international law.

That this is the US position, as well as that of iceaura, is well-known. Anything new?

So in Syria if they fight on the side of Assad they are not terrorists, and everything done by those fighting on the side of Assad has a legal base and is therefore not terrorism. By definition, apparently, there is no such thing as State terrorism - in Syria. This you have now stated explicitly.

State terrorism exists, but is, of course, something different from usual terrorism, which is done by non-state actors. State terrorism can be, and often is, even more horrible than usual terrorism, because the state is much more powerful and the victims much more helpless. If I name a group terrorist, without adding "state", I do not have in mind state terrorism.

But in Ukraine, apparently, this principle does not hold, but rather the reverse. Also in Georgia, there are complications. And elsewhere.

There are, of course, complications if it is not clear if some organization which at some time controls some territory is a state or not.

Is this problematic in Georgia? Not really. As the Georgians, as the Abkhasians and Ossetians have been separatists, and after the dissolution of the Soviet Union tried to create new states on the territory of their former Soviet republics. This resulted in a civil war. In such a situation, it depends on the ability to control the territory if a given entity is a state or not. Given that there has been an internationally negotiated ceasefire, with international (Russian) peacekeeping forces accepted by all sides of the conflict, I see no reason to claim that this side is a state and the other not. So, I consider them all as states. One can classify the genocidal horrors by both sides in Abkhasia's independence war as state terrorism, or as what is unfortunately typical in civil wars - as you like. The 8.8.8 war was a classical war between states, with Georgia being the aggressor and the loser.

Is this problematic in the Ukraine? For Crimea, not, here Kosovo was a precedent. A NATO aggression against Serbia, then the NATO has occupied the Kosovo, and declared it a separate state. If one accepts that this annexation was legal, but whines about Crimea, one disqualifies oneself. The legal situation with Crimea was much better for the separatists, given the Bandera-fascist coup in Kiew, which left the Ukraine without legal rule. So, one can consistently argue that Kosovo was a NATO annexation, but Crimea was in full agreement with international law. Of course, there are also two other consistent positions - that both have been annexations, or that both have been unproblematic separations. But to accept Kosovo, but not Crimea is obvious nonsense.

How to classify the Bandera-fascist gangs, given what they do (their war crimes and robbery of the population) and their half-official status - as state terrorists or usual terrorists - is, indeed, a problem. But not really an important one.

The legal status of the Iranian military forces in Syria may be comparable. It is are also not the Iranian army itself, but officially non-state actors, but not viable without state support. Comparable also to the American private firms like Blackwater or however they have renamed themselves.

The situation with Hisbollah in Syria is a little bit different, but in some sense also similar. Hisbollah has started as a terrorist organization. It became a powerful military actor in the Lebanese civil war, and is now part of the legal military structure of the Lebanon, which is a quite complex thing. For the West, it remains an enemy, and, therefore, they continue to label it terrorist.

You, the supposed libertarian, consistently refuse to acknowledge even the possibility of terrorism from the State - if the State is friendly to Putin.

Nonsense. I have no problem if you name, say, what Turkey is doing in its Kurdish regions state terrorism. Turkey is actually quite friendly to Putin.

You denied the attacked were really Kurds, in the process of refuting my observation that Putin was bombing some Kurds but not others as an apparent strategy. And you called the people Putin bombed "terrorists" - as you did right there, exactly according to your naming pattern for "terrorists".

The question was about the people who live in a part of Latakia named "Kurdish mountains". The information I had was that the population there has been Kurdish in the long ago past, but is actually Turkmen and Arabic, with a few remaining Kurds. Your information was different. Your "denied" presupposes that your information is the correct one. Russia bombs jihadi terrorists independent of their nationality. If they prefer to bomb some based on their nationality, then the Russian-speaking ones, because they are especially dangerous for Russia.

And, yes, I named them terrorists, because there was good enough evidence for this. Like their fighting community with Al Qaida against the government.

Again, the discussion becomes boring, for the same reason as the discussion of fascism. You care a lot about these labels, for me these are not much more than words, so that I have for some time simply switched to name all those terrorists "joepistole's friends". Have you had a problem understanding who has been named "joepistole's friends"? Not? Fine, this is what is necessary in communication.

But Iran and Iraq are. Why do you think the US is involved in Syria anyway - because Hillary Clinton is a psychopath and the deep State of the US follows her like a cult for her charisma ?
Syria was planned (by Assad) to be one of Iran's (and thus Iraq's) major pipeline outlets.

I know this theory, Pepe Escobar likes it. But I do not consider it as a fact proven beyond doubt. There are also other interests, like the Israeli interest in destabilizing all the Arab states around it (given they are all enemies), or the Saudi jihadism.

 

[CptBork]

Is this problematic in the Ukraine? For Crimea, not, here Kosovo was a precedent. A NATO aggression against Serbia, then the NATO has occupied the Kosovo, and declared it a separate state. If one accepts that this annexation was legal, but whines about Crimea, one disqualifies oneself. The legal situation with Crimea was much better for the separatists, given the Bandera-fascist coup in Kiew, which left the Ukraine without legal rule. So, one can consistently argue that Kosovo was a NATO annexation, but Crimea was in full agreement with international law. Of course, there are also two other consistent positions - that both have been annexations, or that both have been unproblematic separations. But to accept Kosovo, but not Crimea is obvious nonsense.

The only relation between Kosovo and Crimea is that in former case the West intervened to prevent a Russian-backed massacre, and in the other case Russia intervened in order to carry out a massacre. I'm truly shocked to find that you, a loyal German patriot with deep ancestral roots in historic Germany, only seeming to care about events related to the dismantling of the defunct Russian empire. Do East German schools only teach Russian history and Russian-accented English?

The situation with Hisbollah in Syria is a little bit different, but in some sense also similar. Hisbollah has started as a terrorist organization. It became a powerful military actor in the Lebanese civil war, and is now part of the legal military structure of the Lebanon, which is a quite complex thing. For the West, it remains an enemy, and, therefore, they continue to label it terrorist.

They also blew up a former Lebanese Prime Minister and a whole bunch of parliamentary reps who all happened to serve in opposing parties, but of course you've said many times how you don't care for democracy, so that's probably a good thing in your eyes- elected officials who build things are terrorists, unless they admire Putin and roll out the red carpet for anyone who looks and sounds like him. As officials back in your Russian homeland have already stated, Hezbollah is no longer considered a terrorist entity to them because it does their bidding in Syria, and that's the only criterion they've ever cited.

Nonsense. I have no problem if you name, say, what Turkey is doing in its Kurdish regions state terrorism. Turkey is actually quite friendly to Putin.

You don't care what Turkey does as long as it doesn't impact Russia's military presence in Syria.

 

[Schmelzer]

Oh, something from CptBork worth to be answered, that's something new.

I'm truly shocked to find that you, a loyal German patriot with deep ancestral roots in historic Germany, only seeming to care about events related to the dismantling of the defunct Russian empire. Do East German schools only teach Russian history and Russian-accented English?

East German schools teached, in communist time, Russian language as the first foreign language, English only second. The history was Soviet history - which was also quite different from Russian history, because deeply anti-tsarist, and in a similar way also against the German Reich. Not only against Hitler's III. German Reich, but against them all. And certainly against any form of German patriotism - it was internationalism which was teached. Today, it would have been named multicultural education. With the American history taught as the heroic fight of the Indian tribes against the evil capitalist Whites, and with full support of any form of anti-colonialist struggle in Africa, India, South America against evil colonial powers.

In this anti-colonial background there was a minor difference: While the Western colonial powers were evil Whites against whatever the local tribe, the tsarist empire was presented as a "prison of nations", but the Russians were not presented as the prison guards, but as yet another imprisoned nation. On the other hand, the proletarian Whites in America were, of course, poor victims of capitalist repression too. So, Jack London's "The Road" was, in East German translation, one of my most favored childhood books.

They also blew up a former Lebanese Prime Minister and a whole bunch of parliamentary reps who all happened to serve in opposing parties, but of course you've said many times how you don't care for democracy, so that's probably a good thing in your eyes- elected officials who build things are terrorists, unless they admire Putin and roll out the red carpet for anyone who looks and sounds like him. As officials back in your Russian homeland have already stated, Hezbollah is no longer considered a terrorist entity to them because it does their bidding in Syria, and that's the only criterion they've ever cited.

As I wrote, it started as a terrorist organization. Similar to Arafat's PLO. Arafat also started as a terrorist, and later became a Nobel Peace Price laureate. So, terrorists can become state-like actors later, if they are successful from a military point of view. What defines a state is the monopoly of power. So, if a terrorist group establishes monopoly of power over some territory, and the neighbor states make peace with it, it becomes a state. Lebanon is an intermediate case - there are several military forces, all with control over some part of the territory, with some peace or ceasefire, however you name it.

I indeed do not care for democracy, given that I'm a libertarian. And if a terrorist organization becomes a state, it does not make this organization better. The state is nothing but a successful criminal or terrorist gang able to establish control over some territory. So, all what makes the difference between the terrorist gang ISIS and a real "Islamic state", like Iran, is that ISIS is losing the war.

And what you also confuse is the role of Putin. What I care about is not Putin, but America, or, more accurate, the globalist faction of the US, which wants a unipolar world. The unipolar world is my enemy. A multipolar world is what I want. And what are the parts of this multipolar world is nothing I care about much - if there are many sufficiently different parts, I will find a nice place to live. My ideal would be a world of a lot of quite small communities - "states" so small that all its "citizens" really can reach consent about the "laws" of this "state", so that it is indistinguishable from a volitional community. Unfortunately, such small "states" would be unable to defend themselves against the US, so that some other, greater states, powerful enough to defend themselves against US aggression, are necessary to prevent a unipolar world government.

As Russia, as China are equally good for this purpose. Both have a long imperial tradition which is satisfied if it is clear that one will not attack them but pay some moderate tribute - a sort of payment for the protection given - and are not interested in further meddling with local traditions. In comparison with them, US colonialism, even if it also accepts that its de facto colonies look formally like independent states, is much more aggressive, fights against local cultures to make them compatible with American "culture".

You don't care what Turkey does as long as it doesn't impact Russia's military presence in Syria.

I don't care what Turkey does as long as it is not an US puppet. If it submits to Russia, or to China, or to Europe, or to nobody becoming an own Osmanic pole, is nothing which worries me. How Turkey organizes its inner policy would only worry me if I would have plans to live there. I have no such plans, so I don't care. But US puppets are dangerous, because they support the US unipolar world.

The only relation between Kosovo and Crimea is that in former case the West intervened to prevent a Russian-backed massacre, and in the other case Russia intervened in order to carry out a massacre.

Except that the NATO really bombed Belgrad, murdering a lot of people, to "prevent" their propaganda fantasies, and Russia killed nobody in the evil "annexation" of Crimea. The only two deaths I know about was an Ukrainian Nazi, who was killed by local militiamen after shooting at them, and one of the militiamen he succeeded to kill before he was killed.

 

[iceaura]

That this is the US position, as well as that of iceaura, is well-known.

And it is correct.

There are, of course, complications if it is not clear if some organization which at some time controls some territory is a state or not.

Which has nothing to do with this thread. The issue was your visible, clearly established criterion for labeling somebody a "terrorist" in Syria - and it has nothing to do with "legal government".

I indeed do not care for democracy, given that I'm a libertarian.

Given that you do not care for democracy, you are not a libertarian - merely an anarchist, and a rather simple-minded one.

And what you also confuse is the role of Putin. What I care about is not Putin, but America, or, more accurate, the globalist faction of the US, which wants a unipolar world.

Your complete alignment with Putin, and defense of everything Putin does, and adoption of Putin-favoring interpretations of all media and every event, is an observation of behavior - not a mindreading exercise. Nobody is accusing you of caring about the guy - any more than noticing your child-like gullibility in the face of professional American propaganda operations accuses you of caring about Steve Bannon or Roger Ailes.

Meanwhile: You have proven incapable of identifying the "globalist faction" of the US, or the sources of imperial aggression within domestic US politics. You can see the bad stuff in your neighborhood, but you apparently have no idea where it's coming from in the US. So you are claiming to care about something you don't appear to know much about - most clearly illustrated in your favoring of a Republican (i.e. fascist) President on the grounds that they would be less "globalist" somehow than Clinton. (The executives of the major US oil and banking and agricultural and mass market import/export companies, along with the major military contractors and significant high level command, are Republican supporters and Republican Party backers in furtherance of their global agenda: they backed Trump against Clinton in the campaign, and currently sit representatives in Trump's cabinet and throughout his administration, in part because of their interests in global US hegemony).

The central issue seems to be your notion that a politically weaker and more chaotic US, no matter how it happened and who became comparatively stronger, would be less of a threat to others. That's very ignorant, in particular ignorant of fascism - which is the direction an economically and diplomatically weakened US would fall, and is falling.

As Russia, as China are equally good for this purpose. Both have a long imperial tradition which is satisfied if it is clear that one will not attack them but pay some moderate tribute - a sort of payment for the protection given - and are not interested in further meddling with local traditions

"Moderate tribute" - is that what you call it.
And the British, of course - similar approach. Likewise the Dutch and French and Japanese and Spanish. The old Romans. Egypt's Pharoahs.
Local traditions such as slavery and caste systems and female subjugation are rather more useful than not, after all - even the harshest of despotisms are often orderly vassals. Every region has some available tradition of strongman rule, and that favors an incoming empire.

Which is exactly what America saw in Saddam, years ago, and what Putin sees in Assad.

 

[Schmelzer]

An interesting map about the whole situation in Syria and Iraq:

The darker red parts are the regions the Iraq army has taken from the Kurds. The most important part of this is the small piece in the North - it means, the Iraqi army has crossed the Tigris and taken control over some parts of the region which was unquestioned part of Kurdish autonomy. So, the Iraqi army does not only retake what has been taken by the Kurds beyond their autonomous region, using the weakness of the Iraq army against ISIS, but aims to take complete control of the border. This has been also declared openly: The border will be taken under control of the army, no shared control or so. https://mobile.almasdarnews.com/article/no-joint-administration-borders-iraqi-kurdistan-abadi/

And, according to the map, the first and actually most important part of this has been already done: The control over the part of the Iraq-Syria border which has been, before, controlled by Kurdish forces from both sides, is now from Iraq side under government control. This makes also US weapon transfer to the Syrian SDF more complicate - up to now, these weapons were transported from Iraq to Syria by land. If the Iraq government allows this is questionable. In this case, the Syrian Kurds could get weapons only through the air.

 

[Schmelzer]

And it is correct.

Hear, hear!!! Iceaura thinks that iceaura's position is correct!!!!!!!!!!!1111111!!!!!!!11111!!11111!!1111! I'm really shocked.

The issue was your visible, clearly established criterion for labeling somebody a "terrorist" in Syria - and it has nothing to do with "legal government".

The difference between terrorism and state terrorism is only about the organization in question being a state from a legal point of view.

Given that you do not care for democracy, you are not a libertarian - merely an anarchist, and a rather simple-minded one.

So you have also your own definition of libertarian. Ok, your choice. Whatever, I classify myself also as an anarchist, an anarcho-capitalist. There are, indeed, also minarchists, minimal state libertarians, but I reject the state completely, so that anarchist is more accurate. The only state-like thing I would accept would be a community where all the laws would have been accepted by all citizens volitionally, in full consent. But in this case, it could be classified as not being a state.

Your complete alignment with Putin, and defense of everything Putin does, and adoption of Putin-favoring interpretations of all media and every event, is an observation of behavior - not a mindreading exercise.

I'm here on a pro-American, anti-Russian site, and this is sufficient reason for me not to talk about any disagreements I have with what Putin is doing. I just explain you that your mindreading exercise fails, and why.

You have proven incapable of identifying the "globalist faction" of the US, or the sources of imperial aggression within domestic US politics.

Translated from US American into human civilized language, you disagree with me about the identification of the "globalist faction" of the US, or the sources of imperial aggression within domestic US politics. Indeed, I disagree.

So you are claiming to care about something you don't appear to know much about - most clearly illustrated in your favoring of a Republican (i.e. fascist) President on the grounds that they would be less "globalist" somehow than Clinton. (The executives of the major US oil and banking and agricultural and mass market import/export companies, along with the major military contractors and significant high level command, are Republican supporters and Republican Party backers in furtherance of their global agenda: they backed Trump against Clinton in the campaign, and currently sit representatives in Trump's cabinet and throughout his administration, in part because of their interests in global US hegemony).

Maybe. Whatever, I see actual politics which damage the globalist project in a quite heavy way. You can have two explanations for this: Trump's incompetence to realize the globalist project, or Trump's competence in destroying the globalist project. Or, plausibly, a combination of both.

The central issue seems to be your notion that a politically weaker and more chaotic US, no matter how it happened and who became comparatively stronger, would be less of a threat to others. That's very ignorant, in particular ignorant of fascism - which is the direction an economically and diplomatically weakened US would fall, and is falling.

"Moderate tribute" - is that what you call it. And the British, of course - similar approach. Likewise the Dutch and French and Japanese and Spanish. The old Romans. Egypt's Pharoahs.

No. The difference is not the size of the tribute. The difference is the influence on/destruction of the local culture. All the former British empire has now law codes quite close to the British one at that time. All Latin America speaks Spanish, except for the former colonies of Portugal, and is Catholic. Instead, all of the colonies of Russia have their own language preserved, and their own religion left untouched. And Confucianism remains Chinese only.
(And, again, the Soviet rule was much more following the Western tradition, very intrusive, unifying and controlling everything. A natural consequence of the Western Marxist ideology.)

 

[iceaura]

No. The difference is not the size of the tribute. The difference is the influence on/destruction of the local culture.

Which in the case of despotically governed people, empires have no need to alter much. Preservation of despotism and slavery for the convenience of new masters is no great virtue. Nor does it advance the cause of liberty - if you actually care.

Maybe. Whatever, I see actual politics which damage the globalist project in a quite heavy way.

No, you don't. They don't exist to be seen. And therein lies a puzzle: what leads you to see such things, and not see fascism or its incoming consequences?

All the former British empire has now law codes quite close to the British one at that time. All Latin America speaks Spanish, except for the former colonies of Portugal, and is Catholic. Instead, all of the colonies of Russia have their own language preserved, and their own religion left untouched. And Confucianism remains Chinese only.

That's all silly and irrelevant. (And it reveals again your odd tolerance of slavery, btw).

For starters, the US didn't even exist as an empire until the 1800s - compare modern to modern. Cultural destruction by market capitalist economics is more recent than empires.

Continuing: all of the Tsarist Russian Empire was organized into slave-farmed landholdings - a fifth of the population was serfs - going way back to the founding. The notion that local cultures remained "untouched" by being enslaved under an imposed Christian nobility is worthless.
The cultures under British rule - not empire law, but the local stuff - remained as largely "untouched" throughout the British Empire as the Russian until after they lost their colonies. One finds the traditional languages, religions, etc, throughout India and the Brit Asian colonies, for example, at least as significantly as throughout the old Russian or Chinese empires.
The former possessions of Tsarist Russia are more likely to be Russian Orthodox or similar than former British colonies are to be Anglican or Episcopalian, for example.
You can make your own inquiries after the comparative treatment of colonized people by the Americans and Russians, among the people of Alaska, side by side.
Local languages abound in Latin America to this day.
The entire Chinese empire with all its hundreds of millions of culturally varied conquered peoples was brought and remained under Confucianism, and literacy based on Chinese writing, and governance based on that literacy - even the former British colonial possessions - until Mao.

And so forth.

All of which is merely to illuminate the central matter - your welcoming of fascism into international politics, as something you expect to combat "globalism"; even into dangerous war zones.

 

[Schmelzer]

Further large progress of the Syrian army in Deir Ezzor. Given the temp, it looks like the remains will be liberated (ups, sorry, taken from iceaura's friends) in a few days too:

Here a better map from the interesting part of the border taken by the Iraqi army from the Kurds (Peshmerga):

So, it appears they have also taken control of one of the border checkpoints to Turkey.

They don't exist to be seen.

You don't want to see them, so you don't see them. US is out of TPP? TTIP is dead? Relations with SA and Qatar so seriously damaged that both travel, for whatever reasons, to Moscow to visit the isolated leader of some economy crashed by Obama? Some Syrian terrorists (ok, iceaura friends) no longer paid? Turkey and SA thinking about buying S-400? EU seriously thinking about countersanctions against the US if US sanctions those European firms which participate in Northstream II? Iraqi Kurds left without any support, so that Kirkuk was lost and Barzani has given up? US embassies in Cuba and Russia heavily reduced?

all of the Tsarist Russian Empire was organized into slave-farmed landholdings - a fifth of the population was serfs

LOL.

The cultures under British rule - not empire law, but the local stuff - remained as largely "untouched" throughout the British Empire as the Russian until after they lost their colonies. One finds the traditional languages, religions, etc, throughout India and the Brit Asian colonies, for example, at least as significantly as throughout the old Russian or Chinese empires.
The former possessions of Tsarist Russia are more likely to be Russian Orthodox or similar than former British colonies are to be Anglican or Episcopalian, for example.

You think so? Hm. America, Canada, Australia, are predominantly Christian, being not at all Christian before colonialism, not? Instead, Russian Orthodox are essentially only the Russians. Even other Christians (Georgia, Armenia, Poland, Balticum) did not convert to Orthodoxy, the Muslim population remained Muslim too.

You can make your own inquiries after the comparative treatment of colonized people by the Americans and Russians, among the people of Alaska, side by side.

I have seen some film about actual law enforcement in Alaska. I was quite shocked: My impression was inmates 95% Aborigines, policemen and guards 95% Whites. I have expected to see some differences, but that was really extreme.

 

[iceaura]

all

of the Tsarist Russian Empire was organized into slave-farmed landholdings - a fifth of the population was serfs
LOL.

Numbers and maps from many sources - Wikipedia offers a reasonable summary. When one of the later Russian rulers forbade the selling of serfs, it was recorded as a significant change. I'm surprised you would overlook that - American imperial government needed a Civil War to accomplish throughout its States what one Russian ruler managed for the entire empire by issuing a single command one day - that's something you could spin into an attack on American democracy, if you ever figure out American slavery.

You think so? Hm. America, Canada, Australia, are predominantly Christian, being not at all Christian before colonialism, not? Instead, Russian Orthodox are essentially only the Russians. Even other Christians (Georgia, Armenia, Poland, Balticum) did not convert to Orthodoxy, the Muslim population remained Muslim too.

Now you are muddling sectarian divisions with entire religions, on top of your muddling different eras and technologies of empire, while avoiding the matter at hand.

Briefly: The American empire did not interfere with the local Christian religions either - the Catholics of the Louisiana Purchase and the Mexican War land grab remained Catholic, and their descendants are Catholic now, for example. Similar to the Russia Empire in that respect - although with rather more tolerance, in America, for Judaism. America also displayed greater multipolarity in government, from the beginning - with significantly more political and economic independence among the States than the Chinese emperors or the Tsars allowed among their provinces. You like multipolarity, remember?

You don't want to see them, so you don't see them. US is out of TPP? TTIP is dead? Relations with SA and Qatar so seriously damaged that both travel, for whatever reasons, to Moscow to visit the isolated leader of some economy crashed by Obama? Some Syrian terrorists (ok, iceaura friends) no longer paid? Turkey and SA thinking about buying S-400? EU seriously thinking about countersanctions against the US if US sanctions those European firms which participate in Northstream II? Iraqi Kurds left without any support, so that Kirkuk was lost and Barzani has given up? US embassies in Cuba and Russia heavily reduced?

This is where your inability to identify your globalist enemies in American domestic politics throws you. None of that stuff heavily damages the "globalist" agenda. Half of that stuff is not political. Some of it doesn't even exist (economy crashed by Obama).
You need to provide examples of political stuff that heavily damages the globalist agenda - that is, the agenda that American corporate capitalists such as Secretary of State Tillerson et al have in common with the Russian and Chinese corporate capitalists.

That's the agenda underlying the Syrian war, after all. Trump backing off on financing terrorists in Syria - to the extent he has, as a policy change, which is not visible - furthers it, rather than damaging it. Likewise the abandonment of the oil fields by Iraqi Kurds.

 

[Schmelzer]

Numbers and maps from many sources - Wikipedia offers a reasonable summary. ... Some of it doesn't even exist (economy crashed by Obama).

You have not even recognized that I have laughed about the "all" with "one fifth"? And that this remark about Obama was also a joke? Ok, the last one may be a misunderstanding based on different culture. In Russia, but also in Germany this is a standing joke, one does not even have to mention Obama to be understood than one jokes about some of Obama's remarks about the success of the anti-Russian sanctions, which have nothing to do with reality. If Americans understand why we are laughing about this remains open.

To continue the discussion of the differences between Russian, Chinese and Anglo-American imperial traditions makes no sense. Such discussions make sense between people trying to understand them, not with people who don't like them, and therefore reject them out of hand. So only this remark:

America also displayed greater multipolarity in government, from the beginning - with significantly more political and economic independence among the States than the Chinese emperors or the Tsars allowed among their provinces. You like multipolarity, remember?

I like it, and I have always liked the American tradition of religious tolerance. Actually, it seems that this is only a tradition, thrown away by political correctness. But we will see.

You need to provide examples of political stuff that heavily damages the globalist agenda - that is, the agenda that American corporate capitalists such as Secretary of State Tillerson et al have in common with the Russian and Chinese corporate capitalists.

No. If I think that Trump has damaged the globalist agenda, I'm talking about my understanding what is the "globalist agenda". And not about your definition of globalism, which is quite different. So, if I would provide evidence that Trump has damaged what you think is globalism, I would provide evidence against my own claim.

Have you forgotten about our disagreement about the meaning of globalism? Or do you think that by definition everybody has to follow your definitions?

 

[iceaura]

You have not even recognized that I have laughed about the "all" with "one fifth"?

? Both accurate, simple, and directly refuting your fantasy of a Russian empire that did not meddle in local customs. No joke visible.

And that this remark about Obama was also a joke? Ok, the last one may be a misunderstanding based on different culture.

Poe's Law applies to all your comments about domestic American politics and politicians. There's no way for you to post anything we can take as an intentional joke.

No. If I think that Trump has damaged the globalist agenda, I'm talking about my understanding what is the "globalist agenda"

Yes. I keep pointing that out to you. Your "understanding" of "the globalist agenda" is - how to put it - uninformed. Your list of supposedly damaging things illustrates that perfectly - you seem to regard it as an ideologically based, essentially political effort undertaken by government officials acting according to their political beliefs and personal goal of expanding US government hegemony. This is part of your inability to see fascism - rightwing corporate capitalist totalitarianism.

Have you forgotten about our disagreement about the meaning of globalism?

I keep bringing it up - your inability to identify the promulgators of the globalist agenda you say you fear in domestic American politics, for example. Or even more to the point your continuing assumption that there is some kind of division or conflict or significant Partisan difference in America between those who support military violence and those who support CIA hegemony expansion stuff.

And so you see Trump as some kind of opponent of American globalism - even knowing that he is a Republican Party President - and file all his actions in Syria as damaging to globalism - even the claimed defunding of Syrian Sunni jihadists.

 

[pjdude1219]

News from the day: Further advances in Deir Ezzor itself, as in the map:


Is this problematic in the Ukraine? For Crimea, not, here Kosovo was a precedent. A NATO aggression against Serbia, then the NATO has occupied the Kosovo, and declared it a separate state. If one accepts that this annexation was legal, but whines about Crimea, one disqualifies oneself. The legal situation with Crimea was much better for the separatists, given the Bandera-fascist coup in Kiew, which left the Ukraine without legal rule. So, one can consistently argue that Kosovo was a NATO annexation, but Crimea was in full agreement with international law. Of course, there are also two other consistent positions - that both have been annexations, or that both have been unproblematic separations. But to accept Kosovo, but not Crimea is obvious nonsense.

i mean you could, if you wanted to make yourself look like an ignorant jackass.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/annex


note the definition. a separatist movement cannot annex anything. there was nothing illegal in what happened in ukraine except for russia's invasion and annexation. NATO was not the aggressor in serbia. Please stop your historical revision to white wash russian crimes.

 

[CptBork]

You have not even recognized that I have laughed about the "all" with "one fifth"? And that this remark about Obama was also a joke? Ok, the last one may be a misunderstanding based on different culture. In Russia, but also in Germany this is a standing joke, one does not even have to mention Obama to be understood than one jokes about some of Obama's remarks about the success of the anti-Russian sanctions, which have nothing to do with reality.

Well for starters, the sanctions are disappointingly weak since they only apply to the wealthiest Russians, and they only work as effectively as they do because those oligarchs own 90% of the country and are too greedy to relax their grip by even the slightest margin. If it were up to me there would be a total cut in all economic ties with Russia along with anyone else who insists on continuing to trade with them, including China and Germany if need be. In any case yes the sanctions are working; 0% or 1% economic growth is effectively a recession because you lose competitivity vs. the economies that continue growing, unless people around the world suddenly stop wanting better products at better prices. Even then, Russia only escapes negative GDP growth because Merkel the Moron keeps buying Russia's oil and gas while griping about the Kremlin-sponsored human rights catastrophes her purchases finance.

Lacking as they presently are, the existing sanctions are working well enough, otherwise Putin wouldn't send his cronies to bitch about them every time they have a meeting with US officials.

If Americans understand why we are laughing about this remains open.

Doesn't look like you're laughing very much every time that Navalny dude organizes a protest. I guess life in Russia must be so boring that trumped up court cases against protestors count as national entertainment, bread and circuses for the unwashed masses...

 

[Schmelzer]

Deir Ezzor is almost completely taken by the Syrian army from iceaura's friends. https://mobile.almasdarnews.com/article/breaking-syrian-army-liberates-almost-deir-ezzor-city/ Technically, there remain two islands and a small stripe at the Euphrat under ISIS control, but practically Deiz Ezzor is now controlled by the Syrian army.

NATO was not the aggressor in serbia.

The NATO was bombing Belgrad. And this was a key event for many people here in Europa, even more in Russia, finally destroying illusions about the NATO becoming a peaceful organization after the end of the Cold War. Of course, there was propagandistic preparation for this, presenting Milosevic as an evil guy and so on. The anti-terrorist actions against the KLA, a highly criminal organization even today after taking power, and a classical example of terrorist group supported by a foreign country (Albania) with weapons, was presented as a genocide. https://www.newstatesman.com/node/151946 So, this was a serious lecture about Western media distributing in a coordinated way lies too.

Well for starters, the sanctions are disappointingly weak since they only apply to the wealthiest Russians,

Those things reduced to a few persons nobody takes seriously. There are general sanctions against the financial sector, which made it very problematic to get any credits from the West for everybody in Russia.

If it were up to me there would be a total cut in all economic ties with Russia along with anyone else who insists on continuing to trade with them, including China and Germany if need be.

China would certainly not participate - they would know that they would be anyway the next American victim after Russia. Germany would also at least think twice. In fact, the point of the actual sanctions is not Russia, but mainly German firms which participate in Northstream II, and German politicians already think openly about countersanctions against the US if this really happens.

The sanctions had some effect, but a quite minor one, the low oil price was more relevant for the crisis.

the existing sanctions are working well enough, otherwise Putin wouldn't send his cronies to bitch about them every time they have a meeting with US officials.

Propaganda fantasies. In fact, Putin does not even ask about lifting the sanctions, and in particular offers nothing, nichts, nada to get rid of them. And there are good reasons for this, namely if Europe would end the sanctions, Russia would have to end the countersanctions too. But these countersanction have the purpose to defend the Russian agriculture market from Western competition.

Doesn't look like you're laughing very much every time that Navalny dude organizes a protest.

Navalny? LOL. All what he succeeds to mobilize are naive school boys.

 

[iceaura]

Propaganda fantasies. In fact, Putin does not even ask about lifting the sanctions, and in particular offers nothing, nichts, nada to get rid of them.

He offered Clinton's emails. He's threatened oil and gas cutoffs.
Putin has put considerable effort into lifting - for example - the Magnitsky Act, getting a friendlier US administration into power, etc. Apparently the financial curbs are cramping the oligarch style. And that's a minor example.

And there are good reasons for this, namely if Europe would end the sanctions, Russia would have to end the countersanctions too. But these countersanction have the purpose to defend the Russian agriculture market from Western competition.

Do you honestly believe every single thing you hear from Putin's PR guys?

 

[pjdude1219]

The NATO was bombing Belgrad.

Well no fucking shit they did. it was a war to prevent ethnic cleansing. something which you seem to be ok with, the ethnic cleansing not the prevention of it.

And this was a key event for many people here in Europa, even more in Russia, finally destroying illusions about the NATO becoming a peaceful organization after the end of the Cold War. Of course, there was propagandistic preparation for this, presenting Milosevic as an evil guy and so on. The anti-terrorist actions against the KLA, a highly criminal organization even today after taking power, and a classical example of terrorist group supported by a foreign country (Albania) with weapons, was presented as a genocide. https://www.newstatesman.com/node/151946 So, this was a serious lecture about Western media distributing in a coordinated way lies too.

most in europe supported and i really don't give two shits about what russia thought of it. unlike you i don't have a hard on for fascists like you do.

 

[Schmelzer]

Well no fucking shit they did. it was a war to prevent ethnic cleansing. something which you seem to be ok with, the ethnic cleansing not the prevention of it.

Ethnic cleansing came with the NATO. The Kosovo is almost cleaned of Serbs now, except for some small regions where they were able to defend themselves against the Albanian ethnic cleansing.

take a look on John Norris's book and what he says is that the real purpose of the war had nothing to do with concern for Kosovar Albanians. It was because Serbia was not carrying out the required social and economic reforms, meaning it was the last corner of Europe which had not subordinated itself to the US-run neoliberal programs, so therefore it had to be eliminated. That's from the highest level.

He offered Clinton's emails. He's threatened oil and gas cutoffs.
Putin has put considerable effort into lifting - for example - the Magnitsky Act, getting a friendlier US administration into power, etc. Apparently the financial curbs are cramping the oligarch style. And that's a minor example.

It is a quite consistent NATO propaganda scheme that the various anti-Russian measures are presented as if they were successful. Part of these propaganda lies are, of course, claims that Putin tries to get rid of various sanctions and so on. They are not. Those Russians who appeared on various sanctions lists and so on are proud of being there, this presents them as important tough guys. And Putin said many times (many Western journalists like to ask such questions) that, say, the EU sanctions are an internal problem of the EU, if they want to stop them, fine, if not, so what. And it is a quite consistent position of most of the Russian commentators that the sanctions will remain for long, if not forever.

Do you honestly believe every single thing you hear from Putin's PR guys?

LOL, asked by somebody who honestly believes most of the globalist anti-Putin and anti-Assad propaganda.