The New Cold War

Who is the most dangerous in this New Cold War

  • USA

  • UK

  • Russia/Russian Federation

  • China

  • North Korea

  • Random Middle East Threat

  • EU

  • Other


Results are only viewable after voting.
I
Latakia is very important to them.

Silly question: has anyone seen anything definitive on the number of Russian " private military contractors " on the ground?
Nope. But then again, the Russians don’t need to use PMCs.

The use of PMCs tends to be a western phenomena to keep troop numbers down. Russia just says its troops are ‘advisors.’
 
It's their continent, let them get on with it. If Assad was ever that bad (and relatively speaking he is not) just compare this with George Dubya's banditry in Eye-rack, with full UK support, which has killed, maimed and made refugee perhaps millions. Assad's supposed crimes are small beer compared with those of our government and those with whom we enjoy cordial relations.

Why didn't the media show the ongoing reality of Iraq, the four Global oil cartels forcing, via the US puppet government, thirty year contracts ceding Iraq's oil to corporations without so much as a kiss-my-arse to the people who owned it? Don't hear many media pundits taxing their limited intelligence with that one.
Sorry to interject, but did we, the west, kill and maim millions of Iraqis?

There were many reasons for going into Iraq. Oil tends to be the tinfoil hat theory.

If we did go into Iraq for the oil, and not to topple Saddam for a host of other reasons (kept invading his neighbours, used chemical weapons, did try and develop nuclear weapons in the past going against his country’s nuclear non proliferation obligations, and generally being a pain in the arse costing a fortune in policing no fly zones etc)
 
Speak for yourself....The Poles have a decent military and they are preparing for the Bear to head West. We of course (US) are ramping up to fight in Europe again, in a crash course effort.
The US and some of the Eastern bloc countries are possibly the exception but a lot of those Eastern Bloc countries rely on conscription still, UK, Belgium, Netherlands, Spain are the ones that will struggle to mount a credible force. France irronically seems the only West European country that seems to have any kit and manpower worthy of doing anything.
 
The US and some of the Eastern bloc countries are possibly the exception but a lot of those Eastern Bloc countries rely on conscription still, UK, Belgium, Netherlands, Spain are the ones that will struggle to mount a credible force. France irronically seems the only West European country that seems to have any kit and manpower worthy of doing anything.
Conscription is a different topic completely, but the draft does have some positive aspects. You said NATO so in my mind that just means the US, UK, France, Canada, and the Poles. The rest are free riders, with the Germans being the most disappointing. I don’t expect much from the vast majority of Western Europe and their inaction. When you don’t fund your own defense properly good luck getting Joe Public to give two shits about you over here.
 

Goatman

ADC
Book Reviewer
Nope. But then again, the Russians don’t need to use PMCs.

The use of PMCs tends to be a western phenomena to keep troop numbers down. Russia just says its troops are ‘advisors.’
well at some point,if it hasn't happened already, some Russian SF FAC will run into a US or British SF patrol on the ground.

Wonder what the ROE says.....
 
Sorry to interject, but did we, the west, kill and maim millions of Iraqis?
"Millions" No. There are various studies on Iraqi deaths as a result of the war but the casualty figures in the area of 100,000 to 110,000 actual deaths from the fighting, but if you add on deaths from the aftermath then some figures go as high as 650,000. The only figure higher than that was the Opinion Research Business Poll which came out at just over a million violent deaths due to the gulf war, however that was taken based on a representative group of 2000 Iraqis who were asked if anyone in their family had been killed and then the numbers were scaled up to cover the population of Iraq.
 
Nope. But then again, the Russians don’t need to use PMCs.

The use of PMCs tends to be a western phenomena to keep troop numbers down. Russia just says its troops are ‘advisors.’

Russian openly uses "deniable" "private contractors".

Wagner Group - Wikipedia

IIRC a number of these have in fact been killed in contacts with western forces. So far, Russia has used their purported "private" status to avoid political confrontation after these blue-on-red incidents.

Putin actually has painted himself into a corner in Syria, in that he cannot now use Russian deaths there as a major propaganda tool - given that he has denied most of these people are operating on behalf of the Russian government.
 
If we did go into Iraq for the oil, and not to topple Saddam for a host of other reasons (kept invading his neighbours, used chemical weapons, did try and develop nuclear weapons in the past going against his country’s nuclear non proliferation obligations, and generally being a pain in the arse costing a fortune in policing no fly zones etc)
I'm really curious how that sentence is meant to go on.
 
Cheers, I thought there was some sort of if-then involved like 'if we did go into Iraq for the oil then how come...'.
There was no need to go into Iraq for oil. There was plenty of readily available reserves able to fill demand.

Had we decided to go into Iraq for the oil, we could’ve just taken the oil fields in the south.

We went into Iraq for the right reasons but f**ked up the end game. Bremmer should never have sacked the one unifying force in Iraq that transgressed the Sunni/Shi’a and tribal decide. Their army. Singularly, sacking the entire army and any member of the Ba’ath party in a position of authority were the two most stupid things that fanned the sectarian violence in Iraq.
 
Last edited:
There was now need to go into Iraq for oil. There was plenty of readily available reserves able to fill demand.

Had we decided to go into Iraq for the oil, we could’ve just taken the oil fields in the south.

We went into Iraq for the right reasons but f**ked up the end game. Bremmer should never have sacked the one unifying force in Iraq that transgressed the Sunni/Shi’a and tribal decide. Their army. Singularly, sacking the entire army and any member of the Ba’ath party in a position were the two most stupid things that fanned the sectarian violence in Iraq.
You can thank Donald Rumsfeld for that.
 

Goatman

ADC
Book Reviewer
Hmm

little bit more on the head scratcher that is ' why is Syria so important to Russia?'

Russia’s military bases in Syria

worth a five second scroll.

(1) Tartus naval base
The Russian navy has maintained a presence in Syria’s Mediterranean port of Tartus since the 1970s (some reports claim since 1971, other reports put the start date later).
Though the facility at Tartus was often called a base, until recently it was better described as a small logistics facility tasked with providing support for the Russian navy’s Mediterranean deployments. The facility lacked the capacity to hosting more than a small number ships, and none of anything beyond corvette size. Apparently it was mainly staffed by civilian contractors. At the outbreak of the Syrian conflict in 2011 it had apparently fallen into decay, and was barely in use.
Russia has now contracted a 49 year lease for the base, which is set for a huge expansion. The objective is to enlarge it so that it can host simultaneously 11 warships, some nuclear powered. Apparently work has already begun.
Assuming this work is completed, it will transform the base into a major naval base comparable in scale to those the US and NATO elsewhere in the Mediterranean. "
 
Last edited:

Goatman

ADC
Book Reviewer
How much did DoD spend in Camh Ran bay?I

Putin's vision is to restore the Soviet Union.

Every mujik in the land can live on potatoes and boot soup forever as far as he's concerned.
 
How much did DoD spend in Camh Ran bay?I

Putin's vision is to restore the Soviet Union.

Every mujik in the land can live on potatoes and boot soup forever as far as he's concerned.
Putins vision may be to restore the Soviet Union but the Soviet Union struggled financially to keep up with the west.

Tartus was a legacy of the Yom Kippur war when the Soviet’s tried to exert influence in the Middle East. As a base it is a bag of nails, but it’s still a warm water port.

@jim30 may have something to add.
 
Last edited:
Hmm

little bit more on the head scratcher that is ' why is Syria so important to Russia?'

Russia’s military bases in Syria

worth a five second scroll.


I have a feeling that the Syrian adventure is simply an(other) example of Putin's braggado-driven folly, rather than any clever geo-strategic move, and that the military effort and bases will prove quite counter-productive for Russia.

The bases are strategically isolated and thus militarily useless: in a hypothetical WW3 conflict they'd be little more than the equivalent of the Berlin garrison - instantly cut off from resupply or relief, and with token forces liable to be eliminated by overwhelmingly superior local enemy assets.

Until such a WW3 kicks off, Russia has placed some of its most hi-tech weaponry and systems right within easy surveillance reach of some of the western worlds most capable players. Hence there will be a constant bleed of sensitive information to the west.

The Syrian adventure itself has simply blackened Russia's international reputation even further, particularly by association with a murderous regime capable of using CW on its own population. Apart from the bases, Syria appears to offer Russia no worthwhile benefit. Russia's own rather warped world view is better served by its previous seditious activities in its bordering neighbours.
 
How much did DoD spend in Camh Ran bay?I

Putin's vision is to restore the Soviet Union.

Every mujik in the land can live on potatoes and boot soup forever as far as he's concerned.

Not a clue about the first question.

How much does Japan pay to host U.S. forces? Depends on who you ask | The Japan Times

The Costs and Benefits of U.S. Military Bases Overseas

https://josefmuehlbauer.files.wordpress.com/2016/09/american_bases_in_germany_fs.pdf

It ain't cheap honestly. I know the Russians don't have near the expense that we do but this is quite the chunk of change to foot.
 

Similar threads

New Posts

Latest Threads