Russia pull out from Syria

Scritto da Khal.eesi, 16.03.2016 at 18:17

Who the hell are you and what have you done with Tito!

Seriously now, if you were Putin, Assad would ve been removed by now and that would suck for all of us who wish for a balanced share of power between leading countries, stability in Syria and Isis lossing ground.

Russia intervention in Syria, while not without its drawbacks ( biggest being total ridicule and humiliation by Turkey, after having their aircraft shot down and being forced to sit it out, doing nothing and the military stalemate in the actual fighting), it definately (imo) had more advantages. Not only did it sent a message to both the Usa/Eu that Russia can step out of its neighborhood and deploy far away with success, it also proved it can be a loyal and powerfull ally to have in the region. It gained some very usefull battle experience and most importantly, secured Assad's regime, which was all that really mattered.

I believe it really was the right time for Putin to withdraw, since he couldnt gain more ground, he saved money, Assad was secure, Usa changed its stance and he managed to pull it off during Obamas run. Smart moove.

But why? Why help Bashar?

Why not helping Slobodan Miloshevich of Serbia in 2000? Why not helping Askar Akayev of Kyrgyzstan in 2005? Why is Bashar different?

Waste of money to interfere in Syria on my opinion, here's why: i believe that Russia should use isolationist policy concerning military and politics, and only trade with the outside world. History show us that invasion of Russia trigger 'progress speed x100' and make an Empire from Russia. Intervention only divide opinions among people about Russia, some say its aggressive, killing civilians, others praise it for helping free world. But point is (atleast mine) to ignore everything and just mind our own business.


Proofs:

wikipedia/mongol_invasion_of_rus (result: united russia created, expand millions of kilometers)
wikipedia/polish_invasion_of_russia (result: russia elevated to regional power)
wikipedia/great_northern_war (result: russia became great power)
wikipedia/french_invasion_of_russia (result: more political power and leverage in europe and the world)
wikipedia/german_invasion_of_the_soviet_union (result: ussr became superpower)

Scritto da Skanderbeg, 16.03.2016 at 18:01

Would that send a clear message to every invader that if they decide to attack someone - they will have to deal with atleast 20 more armies in the defending nation?

Some people are careless about that. They'll rather fight until the end, sacrificing and using every human resource to do so.

The reason about why I would invade the country before sending humanitarian aid is because I'd like to ensure that both sides will stop fighting. Stopping the war would'be my #1 priority, and if I were to have the final say, I'll do anything to achieve that.

Another thing though, I wouldn't commit the error of Neville Chamberlain. If the peaces involves to invade Irak, I'll do it.

Scritto da Skanderbeg, 16.03.2016 at 18:39

Scritto da Khal.eesi, 16.03.2016 at 18:17

Who the hell are you and what have you done with Tito!

Seriously now, if you were Putin, Assad would ve been removed by now and that would suck for all of us who wish for a balanced share of power between leading countries, stability in Syria and Isis lossing ground.

Russia intervention in Syria, while not without its drawbacks ( biggest being total ridicule and humiliation by Turkey, after having their aircraft shot down and being forced to sit it out, doing nothing and the military stalemate in the actual fighting), it definately (imo) had more advantages. Not only did it sent a message to both the Usa/Eu that Russia can step out of its neighborhood and deploy far away with success, it also proved it can be a loyal and powerfull ally to have in the region. It gained some very usefull battle experience and most importantly, secured Assad's regime, which was all that really mattered.

I believe it really was the right time for Putin to withdraw, since he couldnt gain more ground, he saved money, Assad was secure, Usa changed its stance and he managed to pull it off during Obamas run. Smart moove.

But why? Why help Bashar?

Why not helping Slobodan Miloshevich of Serbia in 2000? Why not helping Askar Akayev of Kyrgyzstan in 2005? Why is Bashar different?

Waste of money to interfere in Syria on my opinion, here's why: i believe that Russia should use isolationist policy concerning military and politics, and only trade with the outside world. History show us that invasion of Russia trigger 'progress speed x100' and make an Empire from Russia. Intervention only divide opinions among people about Russia, some say its aggressive, killing civilians, others praise it for helping free world. But point is (atleast mine) to ignore everything and just mind our own business.

Why? Common Tito. Syria is one the oldest and most loyal allies to Russia, their friendship goes way back. Then theres the port of Tartus, Russia's only access to the Mediteranean, which it will loose if Assad falls. Then theres the lucrative arms trade, the political influence Russia is having in the area and the entrance and general strenthening of the bond and cooperation of the Iran-Iraq-Syria-Hezbolah axis. Iran has the biggest interests in Syria, it currently pays all of Assad's bills and Iran in turn buys weapons and tech from Russia, they are all connected and they share common enemies both in the region and outside. Did i mention the most importand reason, the Qatari natural gas pipeline that must pass through Syria to get to Europe and that Assad is the only one keeping this deal from happening?

I dont know why Russia didnt help Yugo, you know more about this stuff, maybe you tell me. I heard that prior to the attacks, Russia offered S300 missiles as payment for the loans and Yugo declined..as for Akayev, whos he

Scritto da Khal.eesi, 16.03.2016 at 19:30

Why? Common Tito.

Why tito? JNA is dead for a year now. You can call me my original name Andartes, like my friends do... oh wait nvm.

Scritto da Khal.eesi, 16.03.2016 at 19:30

Syria is one the oldest and most loyal allies to Russia, their friendship goes way back. Then theres the port of Tartus, Russia's only access to the Mediteranean, which it will loose if Assad falls. Then theres the lucrative arms trade, the political influence Russia is having in the area and the entrance and general strenthening of the bond and cooperation of the Iran-Iraq-Syria-Hezbolah axis. Iran has the biggest interests in Syria, it currently pays all of Assad's bills and Iran in turn buys weapons and tech from Russia, they are all connected and they share common enemies both in the region and outside. Did i mention the most importand reason, the Qatari natural gas pipeline that must pass through Syria to get to Europe and that Assad is the only one keeping this deal from happening?

I dont know why Russia didnt help Yugo, you know more about this stuff, maybe you tell me. I heard that prior to the attacks, Russia offered S300 missiles as payment for the loans and Yugo declined..as for Akayev, whos he

You don't understand.. i need more examples, hmm, where should i find more examples, ah there it is:

Godfather movie, or a book, but i doubt you've read it. Corleone were one of the five families controling New York. They extorted shops and owned few warehouses. They were highly territorial, which is primitive. They fought each other in the Mob War of 1946, bombing each other shops, using drive-by, shooting like gangs. Then Michael Corleone became Don. And what he did? He just moved to Nevada, purchased few casinos and hotels. He moved from backwarded mentality of territorialism and mob wars, he started to invest in legal business, recruiting lawyers instead criminals. He upgraded crime family into business family, and his goal was to develop into banking family, which is the final level of wealth and power.

Russia is moving from territorialism to business. That's why it is Federation instead Unitary State(republic), because it does not matter. Motto of Republic of Tatarstan is 'Business and Pleasure', because being muslim is not about bombings and terrorism. Why fight in war in Middle East, spend money when you can invest and profit in China and India? China's growth is 7% a year, India's is 10%, there is BRIC and AIIB with billions of rubles, yuans and rupees.

With money earned via doing business will be easier to stop or start wars or to control someone (if that's what you want). In this case we talk about stopping the war in Syria, so with more money, Russia will be able to stop the war easier and faster than by sending troops. Same with humanitarian aid.

Its how Capitalism works, Russia just follow the rules. Cash-less system which Russia was part of didn't work. Now lets try this one.

Scritto da Skanderbeg, 17.03.2016 at 06:36

Scritto da Khal.eesi, 16.03.2016 at 19:30

Why? Common Tito.

Why tito? JNA is dead for a year now. You can call me my original name Andartes, like my friends do... oh wait nvm.

Scritto da Khal.eesi, 16.03.2016 at 19:30

Syria is one the oldest and most loyal allies to Russia, their friendship goes way back. Then theres the port of Tartus, Russia's only access to the Mediteranean, which it will loose if Assad falls. Then theres the lucrative arms trade, the political influence Russia is having in the area and the entrance and general strenthening of the bond and cooperation of the Iran-Iraq-Syria-Hezbolah axis. Iran has the biggest interests in Syria, it currently pays all of Assad's bills and Iran in turn buys weapons and tech from Russia, they are all connected and they share common enemies both in the region and outside. Did i mention the most importand reason, the Qatari natural gas pipeline that must pass through Syria to get to Europe and that Assad is the only one keeping this deal from happening?

I dont know why Russia didnt help Yugo, you know more about this stuff, maybe you tell me. I heard that prior to the attacks, Russia offered S300 missiles as payment for the loans and Yugo declined..as for Akayev, whos he

You don't understand.. i need more examples, hmm, where should i find more examples, ah there it is:

Godfather movie, or a book, but i doubt you've read it. Corleone were one of the five families controling New York. They extorted shops and owned few warehouses. They were highly territorial, which is primitive. They fought each other in the Mob War of 1946, bombing each other shops, using drive-by, shooting like gangs. Then Michael Corleone became Don. And what he did? He just moved to Nevada, purchased few casinos and hotels. He moved from backwarded mentality of territorialism and mob wars, he started to invest in legal business, recruiting lawyers instead criminals. He upgraded crime family into business family, and his goal was to develop into banking family, which is the final level of wealth and power.

Russia is moving from territorialism to business. That's why it is Federation instead Unitary State(republic), because it does not matter. Motto of Republic of Tatarstan is 'Business and Pleasure', because being muslim is not about bombings and terrorism. Why fight in war in Middle East, spend money when you can invest and profit in China and India? China's growth is 7% a year, India's is 10%, there is BRIC and AIIB with billions of rubles, yuans and rupees.

With money earned via doing business will be easier to stop or start wars or to control someone (if that's what you want). In this case we talk about stopping the war in Syria, so with more money, Russia will be able to stop the war easier and faster than by sending troops. Same with humanitarian aid.

Its how Capitalism works, Russia just follow the rules. Cash-less system which Russia was part of didn't work. Now lets try this one.

Its so interesting to see you change and flirting with Westernized capitalism hehe. I Anyway its not like Putin really has a chance (or a choice). What you suggest would be ideal, but Nato is bringing the fight right to him. By removing Assad, the West is practically kicking Russia out of the Middle East for good and that translates to loss of both influence and money (gas and etc) for Russia. As for Ukraine, installing a Western puppet government, throwing the country into debt (Greek style) makes for a perfect Nato base of operations right at Russia's border. Not to mention how hard a blow Ukraine was financially to Russia, already.

Imo its just like a game of chess, where the West just keeps taking out Russia's pawns, getting closer and closer to a check mate. Putin must defend what little he has left.

Scritto da Khal.eesi, 17.03.2016 at 17:35

Its so interesting to see you change and flirting with Westernized capitalism hehe.

It is interesting to see you change and flirting with Russia. Wasn't you who said some time ago 'No one is trying to encircle or confront Russia, NATO is just moving troops which Russians percieve as a threat'?

So now you claim Russia have to desperately defend allies in order to slow down American advance?

But Americans said NATO in Eastern Europe is against Iran nuclear program, not Russia, so no need to worry right?

Scritto da Skanderbeg, 18.03.2016 at 12:35

Scritto da Khal.eesi, 17.03.2016 at 17:35

Its so interesting to see you change and flirting with Westernized capitalism hehe.

It is interesting to see you change and flirting with Russia. Wasn't you who said some time ago 'No one is trying to encircle or confront Russia, NATO is just moving troops which Russians percieve as a threat'?

So now you claim Russia have to desperately defend allies in order to slow down American advance?

But Americans said NATO in Eastern Europe is against Iran nuclear program, not Russia, so no need to worry right?

Hue hue. Well im flirting with nationalism true, but not with Russia. Im just trying to look at things objectively, dont remember the specifics of the old convo, but maybe i was dealing with your propaganda and paranoia and had to provide a more realistic view. I believe it was like, stop crying, Russia is not innocent, its all a geopolitical game, a continuation of cold war and it is what it is so you should just accept it. Same as i say to Americans when they cry about Ukraine or Syria, Putin is just playing the game.