Putin Continues to Push Obama's

[Proud Tiger 4,261]

You don't "think" but you don't know. He sure as heck has a stronger position in the ME right now than we do right now.

And no, I don't agree that Putin (Russia) has a "stronger position" in the ME than we do.

What is an example of our strength in the ME? Do you think we could take on Russian tanks and troops in Syria?

The fact that we can draw together a coalition of the wealthy Gulf states to accomplish something. If we were inclined to pursue military intervention in Syria, they would gladly join in. There's also a NATO member sitting right on top of Syria. If push comes to shove with open war in the Middle East, we would have more allies than the Russians, and ours are more wealthy and important.

As for dealing with Russian tanks and troops in Syria, do we have a need to? If we do, then absolutely. If we decided to actively oppose Russian operations in Syria, it quickly becomes a logistical nightmare for the Russians. We can park a few mobile airfields (carrier battle groups) off their coast to cut off the sea. The Russians attacking one of those means a war they are not interested in, and the attack would likely fail anyway. Turkey will not allow them to proceed over land, and neither would Jordan or Iraq. If they attacked Turkey attempting to force the issue, that brings NATO into it directly. All of that just speaks of supply blockade. It gets uglier for the Russians if we started performing strikes on forces in Syria. We can operate directly out of facilities in countries that surround Syria. The Russians' best chance at engaging us would come in Europe, not anywhere in the Middle East.

That said, if the Russians are moving in to shore up Assad and prevent Syria from collapsing, I cannot say that I necessarily disagree with them. I do not particularly care for Assad's rule myself, but I think it looks better than anything I see so far that would take his place.

We have a vastly different opinion.....and that's all either of us have is an opinion. I seem to be 180 from you but I hope you are right. We didn't stand up to Russia in the Ukraine and neither did anyone else. Putin can still do what he wishes there. And, IMHO, if he decides to just take over Syria neither us nor anone else will lift a finger. But we will lift a lot of words, threats, and heck maybe even draw a red line :-\

[homersapien 11,353]

You don't "think" but you don't know. He sure as heck has a stronger position in the ME right now than we do right now.

And no, I don't agree that Putin (Russia) has a "stronger position" in the ME than we do.

What is an example of our strength in the ME? Do you think we could take on Russian tanks and troops in Syria?

I didn't say we had a strong position in the ME, I said Russia's is no better.

And yes, we could "take on" Russian tanks in Syria. The question is, on who's behalf?

1.We disagree a bunch. IMHO Russia's position is much stronger. I don't see how you think otherwise

2.What would we take on Russian tanks and troops with?

1. I think Strychnine expounded on our advantages quite nicely above. (Thanks Strychnine)

2. Presumably, with Hellfire missiles from drones and Apaches (for starters) but I'm no military expert.

[Proud Tiger 4,261]

You don't "think" but you don't know. He sure as heck has a stronger position in the ME right now than we do right now.

And no, I don't agree that Putin (Russia) has a "stronger position" in the ME than we do.

What is an example of our strength in the ME? Do you think we could take on Russian tanks and troops in Syria?

I didn't say we had a strong position in the ME, I said Russia's is no better.

And yes, we could "take on" Russian tanks in Syria. The question is, on who's behalf?

1.We disagree a bunch. IMHO Russia's position is much stronger. I don't see how you think otherwise

2.What would we take on Russian tanks and troops with?

1. I think Strychnine expounded on our advantages quite nicely above. (Thanks Strychnine)

2. Presumably, with Hellfire missiles from drones and Apaches (for starters) but I'm no military expert.

We will see. Actually I hope we don't have to see. My bet is Putin will do what he wants to make a statement and then sit tight. We will do nothing, The Ukraine scenario all over.

[Strychnine 1,802]

You don't "think" but you don't know. He sure as heck has a stronger position in the ME right now than we do right now.

And no, I don't agree that Putin (Russia) has a "stronger position" in the ME than we do.

What is an example of our strength in the ME? Do you think we could take on Russian tanks and troops in Syria?

The fact that we can draw together a coalition of the wealthy Gulf states to accomplish something. If we were inclined to pursue military intervention in Syria, they would gladly join in. There's also a NATO member sitting right on top of Syria. If push comes to shove with open war in the Middle East, we would have more allies than the Russians, and ours are more wealthy and important.

As for dealing with Russian tanks and troops in Syria, do we have a need to? If we do, then absolutely. If we decided to actively oppose Russian operations in Syria, it quickly becomes a logistical nightmare for the Russians. We can park a few mobile airfields (carrier battle groups) off their coast to cut off the sea. The Russians attacking one of those means a war they are not interested in, and the attack would likely fail anyway. Turkey will not allow them to proceed over land, and neither would Jordan or Iraq. If they attacked Turkey attempting to force the issue, that brings NATO into it directly. All of that just speaks of supply blockade. It gets uglier for the Russians if we started performing strikes on forces in Syria. We can operate directly out of facilities in countries that surround Syria. The Russians' best chance at engaging us would come in Europe, not anywhere in the Middle East.

That said, if the Russians are moving in to shore up Assad and prevent Syria from collapsing, I cannot say that I necessarily disagree with them. I do not particularly care for Assad's rule myself, but I think it looks better than anything I see so far that would take his place.

We have a vastly different opinion.....and that's all either of us have is an opinion. I seem to be 180 from you but I hope you are right. We didn't stand up to Russia in the Ukraine and neither did anyone else. Putin can still do what he wishes there. And, IMHO, if he decides to just take over Syria neither us nor anone else will lift a finger. But we will lift a lot of words, threats, and heck maybe even draw a red line :-\

Ukraine has nothing to do with Syria, or anything I said. However, since you brought it up, we have no real room to intervene in Ukraine beyond providing them whatever support we provide openly or clandestinely. Considering their long and closely-intertwined history, Ukraine is a delicate issue. I can envision Ukraine being something Russia would be willing to go to war over if we got involved, and that benefits no one. Then again, Putin cannot "still do what he wishes there", for if that were true he would have just invaded Ukraine and been done with it. It's not like the Russians have not set such a precedent before.

Looking at a map of the Middle East, I see only two potential allies of consequence for Russia in the event of Middle Eastern conflict: Syria and Iran. Turkey is a NATO member, so they're obviously on our side (and they hate Assad too). Saudi Arabia, UAE, and Jordan would certainly be on our side, and I would bet on Egypt too. Israeli involvement in such conflict would likely be a bad idea, but they would be on our side if they got involved.

If we're not talking about complete Middle East conflict, and we're just talking about Syria: the Russians are not interested in taking over Syria. They like having a navy base there, but not enough that they want to open the can of worms that comes with invading and holding a Middle East country. Making sure Assad stays in power is beneficial to them, but that's about it. If we are being honest, it's really in the region's best interest for Assad to stay in power as well. There are some very unsavory elements battling Assad, and they're the ones likely to take over when he's gone.

Perhaps you could articulate the strength of Russia's (or Putin's) position in the Middle East. I do not see it. The strongest countries in the region are our allies, we sell them weapons, and they do not like Assad. If we decided to intervene militarily to oppose the Russians in Syria, the Russians would quickly find themselves surrounded by US forces directly, some allies that are capable of striking them on their own, and they would be cut off from supplies. The Russians are incapable of doing that to us. It would be little different anywhere else in the Middle East.

[aujeff11 6,243]

Putin, Syria and Iran continue to make Obama look like a kindergarten kid, the State Dept. doesn't seem to have a clue and the DOS PR guy, ADM. Mullins has become pathetic. I feel sorry for him.

http://www.foxnews.c...r/?intcmp=hpbt2

What do you suggest?

We elect a leader who has some gonads.

What would you want that leader to do in this situation ?

Stand up to Putin in the Ukraine, Syria or whereever Putin flexes his muscles. Make a show of force and a serious threat. Putin doesn't want a war any more than we do but his strategy is clear.......take what he can without any opposition. He knows Obama is weak, doesn't even have a strategy, and won't stand up to him. Am I wrong? If so what do you think we should be doing/

I suggest you educate yourself in regard to Putin, his corruption, the internal politics in Russia, and the condition of their economy. Perhaps your views are a reflection of rhetoric rather than reality.

I didn't say I was a fan of Putin or the condition of Russia. I said he makes Obama look weak in the eyes of the world. That's reality you can't seem to grasp....or maybe you do and can't admit it. In any event it's time for Tiger Walk and enjoying a football Saturday in Auburn.

So you think Putin is viewed as a strong leader by the developed world?

Well yeah. Their justice dept bows to his commands, the Kremlin revolves around him, and his adversaries know to talk rhetoric but when push comes to shove, if they don't bow, they will be killed as well. That is pretty strong.

That has less to do with Putin or strength than it does the Soviet apparatus he inherited and grew up in. Gulag, purges, farcical justice, and political murder were the Soviet way for longer than anyone alive can remember, and Tsarist autocracy before the Soviets. He represents merely the latest in a long line of Russian corruption and brutality, not strong leadership.

Well said. Tyrants aren't 'leaders' they're problems. For everyone.

Tyrants can be leaders. Just not neccesarily leaders for a justified cause. I'd say Hitler was a leader.

Well, I suppose so, if you mean leading his country off the cliff....

If that's the sort of leader we are talking about, let Putin take it.

Our founding fathers would have been executed for treason if we had lost the revolutionary war. I'm sure it could be said that our leaders were problems for everyone in Great Britain. I really do not like that you are discounting the leadership abilities of the "tyrants" just because their behavior doesnt align with our beliefs. According to Fred Greenstein, a scholar that is well known for the Greenstein Model, a model that describes the six qualities of the United States President, that to have a greater impact in leadership there must be 4 conditions. Position+Situation+Personality= Impact. Some people that you call tyrants are/were essentially leaders that rose from the frustrations of their own situations. Like Hitler which rose to power to free Germany of the horrible conditions set by the peace treaties in Versailles. Or MLK who rose through power through his position as civil rights activist during the segregation period.

[Proud Tiger 4,261]

You don't "think" but you don't know. He sure as heck has a stronger position in the ME right now than we do right now.

And no, I don't agree that Putin (Russia) has a "stronger position" in the ME than we do.

What is an example of our strength in the ME? Do you think we could take on Russian tanks and troops in Syria?

The fact that we can draw together a coalition of the wealthy Gulf states to accomplish something. If we were inclined to pursue military intervention in Syria, they would gladly join in. There's also a NATO member sitting right on top of Syria. If push comes to shove with open war in the Middle East, we would have more allies than the Russians, and ours are more wealthy and important.

As for dealing with Russian tanks and troops in Syria, do we have a need to? If we do, then absolutely. If we decided to actively oppose Russian operations in Syria, it quickly becomes a logistical nightmare for the Russians. We can park a few mobile airfields (carrier battle groups) off their coast to cut off the sea. The Russians attacking one of those means a war they are not interested in, and the attack would likely fail anyway. Turkey will not allow them to proceed over land, and neither would Jordan or Iraq. If they attacked Turkey attempting to force the issue, that brings NATO into it directly. All of that just speaks of supply blockade. It gets uglier for the Russians if we started performing strikes on forces in Syria. We can operate directly out of facilities in countries that surround Syria. The Russians' best chance at engaging us would come in Europe, not anywhere in the Middle East.

That said, if the Russians are moving in to shore up Assad and prevent Syria from collapsing, I cannot say that I necessarily disagree with them. I do not particularly care for Assad's rule myself, but I think it looks better than anything I see so far that would take his place.

We have a vastly different opinion.....and that's all either of us have is an opinion. I seem to be 180 from you but I hope you are right. We didn't stand up to Russia in the Ukraine and neither did anyone else. Putin can still do what he wishes there. And, IMHO, if he decides to just take over Syria neither us nor anone else will lift a finger. But we will lift a lot of words, threats, and heck maybe even draw a red line :-\

Ukraine has nothing to do with Syria, or anything I said. However, since you brought it up, we have no real room to intervene in Ukraine beyond providing them whatever support we provide openly or clandestinely. Considering their long and closely-intertwined history, Ukraine is a delicate issue. I can envision Ukraine being something Russia would be willing to go to war over if we got involved, and that benefits no one. Then again, Putin cannot "still do what he wishes there", for if that were true he would have just invaded Ukraine and been done with it. It's not like the Russians have not set such a precedent before.

Looking at a map of the Middle East, I see only two potential allies of consequence for Russia in the event of Middle Eastern conflict: Syria and Iran. Turkey is a NATO member, so they're obviously on our side (and they hate Assad too). Saudi Arabia, UAE, and Jordan would certainly be on our side, and I would bet on Egypt too. Israeli involvement in such conflict would likely be a bad idea, but they would be on our side if they got involved.

If we're not talking about complete Middle East conflict, and we're just talking about Syria: the Russians are not interested in taking over Syria. They like having a navy base there, but not enough that they want to open the can of worms that comes with invading and holding a Middle East country. Making sure Assad stays in power is beneficial to them, but that's about it. If we are being honest, it's really in the region's best interest for Assad to stay in power as well. There are some very unsavory elements battling Assad, and they're the ones likely to take over when he's gone.

Perhaps you could articulate the strength of Russia's (or Putin's) position in the Middle East. I do not see it. The strongest countries in the region are our allies, we sell them weapons, and they do not like Assad. If we decided to intervene militarily to oppose the Russians in Syria, the Russians would quickly find themselves surrounded by US forces directly, some allies that are capable of striking them on their own, and they would be cut off from supplies. The Russians are incapable of doing that to us. It would be little different anywhere else in the Middle East.

Stry....I agree with a lot of what you say but disagree with a lot also. I'm into long posts on and on so I will cease here. I would only say that I think you overestimate the support we would get from other ME countries if push came to shove between us and Russia. Not that they like Russia better but because they are all deep down afraid of Iran and Iran would jump on Russia's side in any conflict.

[Strychnine 1,802]

You don't "think" but you don't know. He sure as heck has a stronger position in the ME right now than we do right now.

And no, I don't agree that Putin (Russia) has a "stronger position" in the ME than we do.

What is an example of our strength in the ME? Do you think we could take on Russian tanks and troops in Syria?

The fact that we can draw together a coalition of the wealthy Gulf states to accomplish something. If we were inclined to pursue military intervention in Syria, they would gladly join in. There's also a NATO member sitting right on top of Syria. If push comes to shove with open war in the Middle East, we would have more allies than the Russians, and ours are more wealthy and important.

As for dealing with Russian tanks and troops in Syria, do we have a need to? If we do, then absolutely. If we decided to actively oppose Russian operations in Syria, it quickly becomes a logistical nightmare for the Russians. We can park a few mobile airfields (carrier battle groups) off their coast to cut off the sea. The Russians attacking one of those means a war they are not interested in, and the attack would likely fail anyway. Turkey will not allow them to proceed over land, and neither would Jordan or Iraq. If they attacked Turkey attempting to force the issue, that brings NATO into it directly. All of that just speaks of supply blockade. It gets uglier for the Russians if we started performing strikes on forces in Syria. We can operate directly out of facilities in countries that surround Syria. The Russians' best chance at engaging us would come in Europe, not anywhere in the Middle East.

That said, if the Russians are moving in to shore up Assad and prevent Syria from collapsing, I cannot say that I necessarily disagree with them. I do not particularly care for Assad's rule myself, but I think it looks better than anything I see so far that would take his place.

We have a vastly different opinion.....and that's all either of us have is an opinion. I seem to be 180 from you but I hope you are right. We didn't stand up to Russia in the Ukraine and neither did anyone else. Putin can still do what he wishes there. And, IMHO, if he decides to just take over Syria neither us nor anone else will lift a finger. But we will lift a lot of words, threats, and heck maybe even draw a red line :-\

Ukraine has nothing to do with Syria, or anything I said. However, since you brought it up, we have no real room to intervene in Ukraine beyond providing them whatever support we provide openly or clandestinely. Considering their long and closely-intertwined history, Ukraine is a delicate issue. I can envision Ukraine being something Russia would be willing to go to war over if we got involved, and that benefits no one. Then again, Putin cannot "still do what he wishes there", for if that were true he would have just invaded Ukraine and been done with it. It's not like the Russians have not set such a precedent before.

Looking at a map of the Middle East, I see only two potential allies of consequence for Russia in the event of Middle Eastern conflict: Syria and Iran. Turkey is a NATO member, so they're obviously on our side (and they hate Assad too). Saudi Arabia, UAE, and Jordan would certainly be on our side, and I would bet on Egypt too. Israeli involvement in such conflict would likely be a bad idea, but they would be on our side if they got involved.

If we're not talking about complete Middle East conflict, and we're just talking about Syria: the Russians are not interested in taking over Syria. They like having a navy base there, but not enough that they want to open the can of worms that comes with invading and holding a Middle East country. Making sure Assad stays in power is beneficial to them, but that's about it. If we are being honest, it's really in the region's best interest for Assad to stay in power as well. There are some very unsavory elements battling Assad, and they're the ones likely to take over when he's gone.

Perhaps you could articulate the strength of Russia's (or Putin's) position in the Middle East. I do not see it. The strongest countries in the region are our allies, we sell them weapons, and they do not like Assad. If we decided to intervene militarily to oppose the Russians in Syria, the Russians would quickly find themselves surrounded by US forces directly, some allies that are capable of striking them on their own, and they would be cut off from supplies. The Russians are incapable of doing that to us. It would be little different anywhere else in the Middle East.

Stry....I agree with a lot of what you say but disagree with a lot also. I'm into long posts on and on so I will cease here. I would only say that I think you overestimate the support we would get from other ME countries if push came to shove between us and Russia. Not that they like Russia better but because they are all deep down afraid of Iran and Iran would jump on Russia's side in any conflict.

I doubt they fear Iran, as there really is not much to fear. All of those countries have a more capable air force, and would enjoy far greater logistical support than Iran would (via the United States). Aside from air power, Iran has to get their ground assets anywhere they intend them to go. They lack a mass airlift capacity, and ground movements are vulnerable to air strike. That said, it is important to qualify what you mean about push coming to shove between us and Russia. Are you talking about Syria, a Russian invasion of another Middle East country, or just open war between us and Russia in general?

In Syria, we really do not need any support from regional allies aside from them not letting the Russians use their territory. The Russian navy cannot impose its will against ours anywhere, and we have plenty of carrier battle groups we could dedicate to offensive and blockade operations. We also have plenty of places available for land-based aircraft. Air superiority is key in modern warfare, especially against a conventional unit like the Russians. We do have mass airlift and sea transit capacity, and plenty of recent experience using it. The Russians have good airlift capacity as well, but it is useless if they have to traverse our crosshairs to reach their destination. With a geographical blockade in place, the Russians would be unable to be combat effective for very long.

The picture worsens for the Russians as the geographical area (and our allied participants) expands, which is where any military conflict with Russia anywhere is likely to head. If the Russians wanted a fight with the US and NATO, they missed their opportunity to have a realistic opportunity to win. My fear in that is not what countries end up allied with us versus them, it is that such a conflict can easily escalate into a nuclear exchange. Everyone loses a nuclear exchange.

[Proud Tiger 4,261]

You don't "think" but you don't know. He sure as heck has a stronger position in the ME right now than we do right now.

And no, I don't agree that Putin (Russia) has a "stronger position" in the ME than we do.

What is an example of our strength in the ME? Do you think we could take on Russian tanks and troops in Syria?

The fact that we can draw together a coalition of the wealthy Gulf states to accomplish something. If we were inclined to pursue military intervention in Syria, they would gladly join in. There's also a NATO member sitting right on top of Syria. If push comes to shove with open war in the Middle East, we would have more allies than the Russians, and ours are more wealthy and important.

As for dealing with Russian tanks and troops in Syria, do we have a need to? If we do, then absolutely. If we decided to actively oppose Russian operations in Syria, it quickly becomes a logistical nightmare for the Russians. We can park a few mobile airfields (carrier battle groups) off their coast to cut off the sea. The Russians attacking one of those means a war they are not interested in, and the attack would likely fail anyway. Turkey will not allow them to proceed over land, and neither would Jordan or Iraq. If they attacked Turkey attempting to force the issue, that brings NATO into it directly. All of that just speaks of supply blockade. It gets uglier for the Russians if we started performing strikes on forces in Syria. We can operate directly out of facilities in countries that surround Syria. The Russians' best chance at engaging us would come in Europe, not anywhere in the Middle East.

That said, if the Russians are moving in to shore up Assad and prevent Syria from collapsing, I cannot say that I necessarily disagree with them. I do not particularly care for Assad's rule myself, but I think it looks better than anything I see so far that would take his place.

We have a vastly different opinion.....and that's all either of us have is an opinion. I seem to be 180 from you but I hope you are right. We didn't stand up to Russia in the Ukraine and neither did anyone else. Putin can still do what he wishes there. And, IMHO, if he decides to just take over Syria neither us nor anone else will lift a finger. But we will lift a lot of words, threats, and heck maybe even draw a red line :-\

Ukraine has nothing to do with Syria, or anything I said. However, since you brought it up, we have no real room to intervene in Ukraine beyond providing them whatever support we provide openly or clandestinely. Considering their long and closely-intertwined history, Ukraine is a delicate issue. I can envision Ukraine being something Russia would be willing to go to war over if we got involved, and that benefits no one. Then again, Putin cannot "still do what he wishes there", for if that were true he would have just invaded Ukraine and been done with it. It's not like the Russians have not set such a precedent before.

Looking at a map of the Middle East, I see only two potential allies of consequence for Russia in the event of Middle Eastern conflict: Syria and Iran. Turkey is a NATO member, so they're obviously on our side (and they hate Assad too). Saudi Arabia, UAE, and Jordan would certainly be on our side, and I would bet on Egypt too. Israeli involvement in such conflict would likely be a bad idea, but they would be on our side if they got involved.

If we're not talking about complete Middle East conflict, and we're just talking about Syria: the Russians are not interested in taking over Syria. They like having a navy base there, but not enough that they want to open the can of worms that comes with invading and holding a Middle East country. Making sure Assad stays in power is beneficial to them, but that's about it. If we are being honest, it's really in the region's best interest for Assad to stay in power as well. There are some very unsavory elements battling Assad, and they're the ones likely to take over when he's gone.

Perhaps you could articulate the strength of Russia's (or Putin's) position in the Middle East. I do not see it. The strongest countries in the region are our allies, we sell them weapons, and they do not like Assad. If we decided to intervene militarily to oppose the Russians in Syria, the Russians would quickly find themselves surrounded by US forces directly, some allies that are capable of striking them on their own, and they would be cut off from supplies. The Russians are incapable of doing that to us. It would be little different anywhere else in the Middle East.

Stry....I agree with a lot of what you say but disagree with a lot also. I'm into long posts on and on so I will cease here. I would only say that I think you overestimate the support we would get from other ME countries if push came to shove between us and Russia. Not that they like Russia better but because they are all deep down afraid of Iran and Iran would jump on Russia's side in any conflict.

I doubt they fear Iran, as there really is not much to fear. All of those countries have a more capable air force, and would enjoy far greater logistical support than Iran would (via the United States). Aside from air power, Iran has to get their ground assets anywhere they intend them to go. They lack a mass airlift capacity, and ground movements are vulnerable to air strike. That said, it is important to qualify what you mean about push coming to shove between us and Russia. Are you talking about Syria, a Russian invasion of another Middle East country, or just open war between us and Russia in general?

In Syria, we really do not need any support from regional allies aside from them not letting the Russians use their territory. The Russian navy cannot impose its will against ours anywhere, and we have plenty of carrier battle groups we could dedicate to offensive and blockade operations. We also have plenty of places available for land-based aircraft. Air superiority is key in modern warfare, especially against a conventional unit like the Russians. We do have mass airlift and sea transit capacity, and plenty of recent experience using it. The Russians have good airlift capacity as well, but it is useless if they have to traverse our crosshairs to reach their destination. With a geographical blockade in place, the Russians would be unable to be combat effective for very long.

The picture worsens for the Russians as the geographical area (and our allied participants) expands, which is where any military conflict with Russia anywhere is likely to head. If the Russians wanted a fight with the US and NATO, they missed their opportunity to have a realistic opportunity to win. My fear in that is not what countries end up allied with us versus them, it is that such a conflict can easily escalate into a nuclear exchange. Everyone loses a nuclear exchange.

You doubt they fear Iran? Surely you kid. Iran will have a nuke sooner or later.....sooner thanks to Obama and Kerry. The rest of the ME fears that and will eventually forced to salute Iran to save their ass. The Russians are in bed with Iran and hence hold the upper hand without having to use much force to get their way. Just my opinion FWIW. Only time will determine how the ME plays out no matter what you or I think.

[Strychnine 1,802]

You doubt they fear Iran? Surely you kid. Iran will have a nuke sooner or later.....sooner thanks to Obama and Kerry. The rest of the ME fears that and will eventually forced to salute Iran to save their ass. The Russians are in bed with Iran and hence hold the upper hand without having to use much force to get their way. Just my opinion FWIW. Only time will determine how the ME plays out no matter what you or I think.

I do doubt they fear Iran. They know who comes to their aid in the event Iran attempts to strike any of them. Iran knows it too, which is one of the reasons they have not done so. I see no evidence that Russia is any more in bed with Iran than they were Iraq. They certainly share no common ideology. Iran is not capable of waging effective war with Saudi Arabia, in any regard. Or UAE. Or Turkey. They absolutely want no part of Israel.

As for nuclear weapons: if Iran really wanted one, they would have one already. The North Koreans have them, and they did it while subject to far greater resource controls than the Iranians. That said, there is a big difference between having nuclear weapons and using them. Iran is not controlled by morons. They know what would happen if they tried to nuke anyone. Despite their bombastic rhetoric, the same reason applies to why North Korea has not attempted to nuke Seoul or Tokyo in advance of invading South Korea.

[homersapien 11,353]

You don't "think" but you don't know. He sure as heck has a stronger position in the ME right now than we do right now.

And no, I don't agree that Putin (Russia) has a "stronger position" in the ME than we do.

What is an example of our strength in the ME? Do you think we could take on Russian tanks and troops in Syria?

The fact that we can draw together a coalition of the wealthy Gulf states to accomplish something. If we were inclined to pursue military intervention in Syria, they would gladly join in. There's also a NATO member sitting right on top of Syria. If push comes to shove with open war in the Middle East, we would have more allies than the Russians, and ours are more wealthy and important.

As for dealing with Russian tanks and troops in Syria, do we have a need to? If we do, then absolutely. If we decided to actively oppose Russian operations in Syria, it quickly becomes a logistical nightmare for the Russians. We can park a few mobile airfields (carrier battle groups) off their coast to cut off the sea. The Russians attacking one of those means a war they are not interested in, and the attack would likely fail anyway. Turkey will not allow them to proceed over land, and neither would Jordan or Iraq. If they attacked Turkey attempting to force the issue, that brings NATO into it directly. All of that just speaks of supply blockade. It gets uglier for the Russians if we started performing strikes on forces in Syria. We can operate directly out of facilities in countries that surround Syria. The Russians' best chance at engaging us would come in Europe, not anywhere in the Middle East.

That said, if the Russians are moving in to shore up Assad and prevent Syria from collapsing, I cannot say that I necessarily disagree with them. I do not particularly care for Assad's rule myself, but I think it looks better than anything I see so far that would take his place.

We have a vastly different opinion.....and that's all either of us have is an opinion. I seem to be 180 from you but I hope you are right. We didn't stand up to Russia in the Ukraine and neither did anyone else. Putin can still do what he wishes there. And, IMHO, if he decides to just take over Syria neither us nor anone else will lift a finger. But we will lift a lot of words, threats, and heck maybe even draw a red line :-\

Ukraine has nothing to do with Syria, or anything I said. However, since you brought it up, we have no real room to intervene in Ukraine beyond providing them whatever support we provide openly or clandestinely. Considering their long and closely-intertwined history, Ukraine is a delicate issue. I can envision Ukraine being something Russia would be willing to go to war over if we got involved, and that benefits no one. Then again, Putin cannot "still do what he wishes there", for if that were true he would have just invaded Ukraine and been done with it. It's not like the Russians have not set such a precedent before.

Looking at a map of the Middle East, I see only two potential allies of consequence for Russia in the event of Middle Eastern conflict: Syria and Iran. Turkey is a NATO member, so they're obviously on our side (and they hate Assad too). Saudi Arabia, UAE, and Jordan would certainly be on our side, and I would bet on Egypt too. Israeli involvement in such conflict would likely be a bad idea, but they would be on our side if they got involved.

If we're not talking about complete Middle East conflict, and we're just talking about Syria: the Russians are not interested in taking over Syria. They like having a navy base there, but not enough that they want to open the can of worms that comes with invading and holding a Middle East country. Making sure Assad stays in power is beneficial to them, but that's about it. If we are being honest, it's really in the region's best interest for Assad to stay in power as well. There are some very unsavory elements battling Assad, and they're the ones likely to take over when he's gone.

Perhaps you could articulate the strength of Russia's (or Putin's) position in the Middle East. I do not see it. The strongest countries in the region are our allies, we sell them weapons, and they do not like Assad. If we decided to intervene militarily to oppose the Russians in Syria, the Russians would quickly find themselves surrounded by US forces directly, some allies that are capable of striking them on their own, and they would be cut off from supplies. The Russians are incapable of doing that to us. It would be little different anywhere else in the Middle East.

Stry....I agree with a lot of what you say but disagree with a lot also. I'm into long posts on and on so I will cease here. I would only say that I think you overestimate the support we would get from other ME countries if push came to shove between us and Russia. Not that they like Russia better but because they are all deep down afraid of Iran and Iran would jump on Russia's side in any conflict.

I doubt they fear Iran, as there really is not much to fear. All of those countries have a more capable air force, and would enjoy far greater logistical support than Iran would (via the United States). Aside from air power, Iran has to get their ground assets anywhere they intend them to go. They lack a mass airlift capacity, and ground movements are vulnerable to air strike. That said, it is important to qualify what you mean about push coming to shove between us and Russia. Are you talking about Syria, a Russian invasion of another Middle East country, or just open war between us and Russia in general?

In Syria, we really do not need any support from regional allies aside from them not letting the Russians use their territory. The Russian navy cannot impose its will against ours anywhere, and we have plenty of carrier battle groups we could dedicate to offensive and blockade operations. We also have plenty of places available for land-based aircraft. Air superiority is key in modern warfare, especially against a conventional unit like the Russians. We do have mass airlift and sea transit capacity, and plenty of recent experience using it. The Russians have good airlift capacity as well, but it is useless if they have to traverse our crosshairs to reach their destination. With a geographical blockade in place, the Russians would be unable to be combat effective for very long.

The picture worsens for the Russians as the geographical area (and our allied participants) expands, which is where any military conflict with Russia anywhere is likely to head. If the Russians wanted a fight with the US and NATO, they missed their opportunity to have a realistic opportunity to win. My fear in that is not what countries end up allied with us versus them, it is that such a conflict can easily escalate into a nuclear exchange. Everyone loses a nuclear exchange.

You doubt they fear Iran? Surely you kid. Iran will have a nuke sooner or later.....sooner thanks to Obama and Kerry. The rest of the ME fears that and will eventually forced to salute Iran to save their ass. The Russians are in bed with Iran and hence hold the upper hand without having to use much force to get their way. Just my opinion FWIW. Only time will determine how the ME plays out no matter what you or I think.

How about explaining that conclusion? It make no sense whatsoever. Without the nuclear agreement, they could have a weapon in months.

[Proud Tiger 4,261]

You don't "think" but you don't know. He sure as heck has a stronger position in the ME right now than we do right now.

And no, I don't agree that Putin (Russia) has a "stronger position" in the ME than we do.

What is an example of our strength in the ME? Do you think we could take on Russian tanks and troops in Syria?

The fact that we can draw together a coalition of the wealthy Gulf states to accomplish something. If we were inclined to pursue military intervention in Syria, they would gladly join in. There's also a NATO member sitting right on top of Syria. If push comes to shove with open war in the Middle East, we would have more allies than the Russians, and ours are more wealthy and important.

As for dealing with Russian tanks and troops in Syria, do we have a need to? If we do, then absolutely. If we decided to actively oppose Russian operations in Syria, it quickly becomes a logistical nightmare for the Russians. We can park a few mobile airfields (carrier battle groups) off their coast to cut off the sea. The Russians attacking one of those means a war they are not interested in, and the attack would likely fail anyway. Turkey will not allow them to proceed over land, and neither would Jordan or Iraq. If they attacked Turkey attempting to force the issue, that brings NATO into it directly. All of that just speaks of supply blockade. It gets uglier for the Russians if we started performing strikes on forces in Syria. We can operate directly out of facilities in countries that surround Syria. The Russians' best chance at engaging us would come in Europe, not anywhere in the Middle East.

That said, if the Russians are moving in to shore up Assad and prevent Syria from collapsing, I cannot say that I necessarily disagree with them. I do not particularly care for Assad's rule myself, but I think it looks better than anything I see so far that would take his place.

We have a vastly different opinion.....and that's all either of us have is an opinion. I seem to be 180 from you but I hope you are right. We didn't stand up to Russia in the Ukraine and neither did anyone else. Putin can still do what he wishes there. And, IMHO, if he decides to just take over Syria neither us nor anone else will lift a finger. But we will lift a lot of words, threats, and heck maybe even draw a red line :-\

Ukraine has nothing to do with Syria, or anything I said. However, since you brought it up, we have no real room to intervene in Ukraine beyond providing them whatever support we provide openly or clandestinely. Considering their long and closely-intertwined history, Ukraine is a delicate issue. I can envision Ukraine being something Russia would be willing to go to war over if we got involved, and that benefits no one. Then again, Putin cannot "still do what he wishes there", for if that were true he would have just invaded Ukraine and been done with it. It's not like the Russians have not set such a precedent before.

Looking at a map of the Middle East, I see only two potential allies of consequence for Russia in the event of Middle Eastern conflict: Syria and Iran. Turkey is a NATO member, so they're obviously on our side (and they hate Assad too). Saudi Arabia, UAE, and Jordan would certainly be on our side, and I would bet on Egypt too. Israeli involvement in such conflict would likely be a bad idea, but they would be on our side if they got involved.

If we're not talking about complete Middle East conflict, and we're just talking about Syria: the Russians are not interested in taking over Syria. They like having a navy base there, but not enough that they want to open the can of worms that comes with invading and holding a Middle East country. Making sure Assad stays in power is beneficial to them, but that's about it. If we are being honest, it's really in the region's best interest for Assad to stay in power as well. There are some very unsavory elements battling Assad, and they're the ones likely to take over when he's gone.

Perhaps you could articulate the strength of Russia's (or Putin's) position in the Middle East. I do not see it. The strongest countries in the region are our allies, we sell them weapons, and they do not like Assad. If we decided to intervene militarily to oppose the Russians in Syria, the Russians would quickly find themselves surrounded by US forces directly, some allies that are capable of striking them on their own, and they would be cut off from supplies. The Russians are incapable of doing that to us. It would be little different anywhere else in the Middle East.

Stry....I agree with a lot of what you say but disagree with a lot also. I'm into long posts on and on so I will cease here. I would only say that I think you overestimate the support we would get from other ME countries if push came to shove between us and Russia. Not that they like Russia better but because they are all deep down afraid of Iran and Iran would jump on Russia's side in any conflict.

I doubt they fear Iran, as there really is not much to fear. All of those countries have a more capable air force, and would enjoy far greater logistical support than Iran would (via the United States). Aside from air power, Iran has to get their ground assets anywhere they intend them to go. They lack a mass airlift capacity, and ground movements are vulnerable to air strike. That said, it is important to qualify what you mean about push coming to shove between us and Russia. Are you talking about Syria, a Russian invasion of another Middle East country, or just open war between us and Russia in general?

In Syria, we really do not need any support from regional allies aside from them not letting the Russians use their territory. The Russian navy cannot impose its will against ours anywhere, and we have plenty of carrier battle groups we could dedicate to offensive and blockade operations. We also have plenty of places available for land-based aircraft. Air superiority is key in modern warfare, especially against a conventional unit like the Russians. We do have mass airlift and sea transit capacity, and plenty of recent experience using it. The Russians have good airlift capacity as well, but it is useless if they have to traverse our crosshairs to reach their destination. With a geographical blockade in place, the Russians would be unable to be combat effective for very long.

The picture worsens for the Russians as the geographical area (and our allied participants) expands, which is where any military conflict with Russia anywhere is likely to head. If the Russians wanted a fight with the US and NATO, they missed their opportunity to have a realistic opportunity to win. My fear in that is not what countries end up allied with us versus them, it is that such a conflict can easily escalate into a nuclear exchange. Everyone loses a nuclear exchange.

You doubt they fear Iran? Surely you kid. Iran will have a nuke sooner or later.....sooner thanks to Obama and Kerry. The rest of the ME fears that and will eventually forced to salute Iran to save their ass. The Russians are in bed with Iran and hence hold the upper hand without having to use much force to get their way. Just my opinion FWIW. Only time will determine how the ME plays out no matter what you or I think.

How about explaining that conclusion? It make no sense whatsoever. Without the nuclear agreement, they could have a weapon in months.

Your source for this seemingly factual statement?

[Proud Tiger 4,261]

You doubt they fear Iran? Surely you kid. Iran will have a nuke sooner or later.....sooner thanks to Obama and Kerry. The rest of the ME fears that and will eventually forced to salute Iran to save their ass. The Russians are in bed with Iran and hence hold the upper hand without having to use much force to get their way. Just my opinion FWIW. Only time will determine how the ME plays out no matter what you or I think.

I do doubt they fear Iran. They know who comes to their aid in the event Iran attempts to strike any of them. Iran knows it too, which is one of the reasons they have not done so. I see no evidence that Russia is any more in bed with Iran than they were Iraq. They certainly share no common ideology. Iran is not capable of waging effective war with Saudi Arabia, in any regard. Or UAE. Or Turkey. They absolutely want no part of Israel.

As for nuclear weapons: if Iran really wanted one, they would have one already. The North Koreans have them, and they did it while subject to far greater resource controls than the Iranians. That said, there is a big difference between having nuclear weapons and using them. Iran is not controlled by morons. They know what would happen if they tried to nuke anyone. Despite their bombastic rhetoric, the same reason applies to why North Korea has not attempted to nuke Seoul or Tokyo in advance of invading South Korea.

I guess we will just agree to disagree and I hope you are right. One thing though.......how do you know Iran could have had a nuke by now if they wanted one. Facts or just your opinion?

[Strychnine 1,802]

You doubt they fear Iran? Surely you kid. Iran will have a nuke sooner or later.....sooner thanks to Obama and Kerry. The rest of the ME fears that and will eventually forced to salute Iran to save their ass. The Russians are in bed with Iran and hence hold the upper hand without having to use much force to get their way. Just my opinion FWIW. Only time will determine how the ME plays out no matter what you or I think.

I do doubt they fear Iran. They know who comes to their aid in the event Iran attempts to strike any of them. Iran knows it too, which is one of the reasons they have not done so. I see no evidence that Russia is any more in bed with Iran than they were Iraq. They certainly share no common ideology. Iran is not capable of waging effective war with Saudi Arabia, in any regard. Or UAE. Or Turkey. They absolutely want no part of Israel.

As for nuclear weapons: if Iran really wanted one, they would have one already. The North Koreans have them, and they did it while subject to far greater resource controls than the Iranians. That said, there is a big difference between having nuclear weapons and using them. Iran is not controlled by morons. They know what would happen if they tried to nuke anyone. Despite their bombastic rhetoric, the same reason applies to why North Korea has not attempted to nuke Seoul or Tokyo in advance of invading South Korea.

I guess we will just agree to disagree and I hope you are right. One thing though.......how do you know Iran could have had a nuke by now if they wanted one. Facts or just your opinion?

Opinion based on facts. Iran has had enrichment capacity for over a decade. It does not take a decade to enrich uranium to weapons grade, nor does it take a decade to produce primitive nuclear weapons. The US created a complete nuclear weapons program (infrastructure and all) in three years, during the early 40's, while fighting World War II.

North Korea, which is in a far more dire state than Iran, conducted its first nuclear test in 2006 (thought to be a failure), and its second in 2009. If North Korea could develop nuclear weapons while struggling to feed its people and generate electricity, it makes sense that Iran certainly could have in the same timeframe if they were so inclined. Iran is definitely more technologically advanced than the US was in the 40's.

[lca408 366]

I would agree with most of what Strychnine says with the exception of air power. While the US and NATO may have numbers superiority, right now, the Russians have the edge in fighter aircraft. Their new Su fighters are "stealth" capable and are faster and maneuver much better than our supposed ace in the hole - the JSF F-35. This has been proven in multiple tests and projections. The Chinese likewise have their own stealth aircraft which seem to have an advantage over the F-35 in dogfighting. The F-35's strength is supposedly being able to engage targets at very long range before dogfighting even becomes possible, however, both Russian and Chinese fighters have the same capability and long range air to air missiles are not entirely dependable or accurate anyway. I think the problem here is that planning and work on the F-35 was begun so many years ago and so much was added to the design to placate certain elements of the military (like the Marines who demanded vertical take-off capability), that it's made the JSF very average in comparison.

In a 1s vs. 1s scenario, I think we could still win air superiority eventually but losses will be quite heavy before that happens. American pilots will have to adapt quickly to their new fighter's limitations in order to maximize it's effectiveness - even then, it might be like the limitations of the Sherman in Europe in WW2.

I don't think it's an absolutely awful thing that Russia is in Syria. They have been for some time and Russian military support for Assad has been ongoing for a while during this conflict - it just hasn't really been talked about a lot. The Russians don't want ISIS in power any more than we, the Iranians, the Jordanians, the Saudis, the Turks, etc. do. If I had to choose, I'd rather Putin have more influence in Syria where it could eventually lead to some indirect help in stopping ISIS than in Ukraine. Of course, I guess I'd rather the Bear just stay put and be content with it's post Soviet status but that's not in the cards I suppose.

[Strychnine 1,802]

I would agree with most of what Strychnine says with the exception of air power. While the US and NATO may have numbers superiority, right now, the Russians have the edge in fighter aircraft. Their new Su fighters are "stealth" capable and are faster and maneuver much better than our supposed ace in the hole - the JSF F-35. This has been proven in multiple tests and projections. The Chinese likewise have their own stealth aircraft which seem to have an advantage over the F-35 in dogfighting. The F-35's strength is supposedly being able to engage targets at very long range before dogfighting even becomes possible, however, both Russian and Chinese fighters have the same capability and long range air to air missiles are not entirely dependable or accurate anyway. I think the problem here is that planning and work on the F-35 was begun so many years ago and so much was added to the design to placate certain elements of the military (like the Marines who demanded vertical take-off capability), that it's made the JSF very average in comparison.

In a 1s vs. 1s scenario, I think we could still win air superiority eventually but losses will be quite heavy before that happens. American pilots will have to adapt quickly to their new fighter's limitations in order to maximize it's effectiveness - even then, it might be like the limitations of the Sherman in Europe in WW2.

I don't think it's an absolutely awful thing that Russia is in Syria. They have been for some time and Russian military support for Assad has been ongoing for a while during this conflict - it just hasn't really been talked about a lot. The Russians don't want ISIS in power any more than we, the Iranians, the Jordanians, the Saudis, the Turks, etc. do. If I had to choose, I'd rather Putin have more influence in Syria where it could eventually lead to some indirect help in stopping ISIS than in Ukraine. Of course, I guess I'd rather the Bear just stay put and be content with it's post Soviet status but that's not in the cards I suppose.

The PAK FA and Chengdu J-20 (the stealth aircraft you refer to) are not yet in service. Their most advanced Flankers are only in service in small numbers. We have more operational F-22's than they have Su-30 and Su-35's combined. I still consider us to hold the edge in tactical avionics and aircraft modernization. Even if they did have the PAK FA operational, there is more to air superiority than fighter capability. The Russian Air Force has limited in-flight refueling, airborne early warning, and electronic warfare capabilities. They also lack the ability to project force like we do. Total package considered, I think we still hold a great advantage over the Russians in terms of both air force and naval capabilities.

I agree with you about a Russian presence in Syria. We have been consistently anti-Assad for long enough that we cannot publicly reverse that position and openly state that we would prefer a stable Syria under Assad to a Syria controlled by ISIS and al-Nusra. Should the Russians start backing Assad with force, I doubt we do anything about it militarily (and I don't think we should).

Unfortunately, the Bear is definitely not going to stay put and be content with its post-Soviet status. I would have preferred we use Putin's early term to draw the Russians closer as a potential ally, rather than maintain a wary relationship with them. I do not think expanding NATO and withdrawing from the ABM treaty was the right thing to do at that time, but I do think there are some powerful interests that miss the Cold War (here and in Russia).