Russia: US-led coalition planes in Syria to be treated as targets - Sensationalist Headlines

[QUOTE=Sky King;52378319]This isnt a football game god damnit. This is a major proxy war that killed hundreds of thousands of innocent people. The US should fuck off and stop supporting the rebels.[/QUOTE] F-18 shoots down SU-27 Ref blows whistle: "Technical foul, 10 yard penalty"

[QUOTE=millan;52378324]I suppose that does prove that at least at the time, Putin did not want to go into the conflict, but in the end that attack was in the end so ridiculously pointless they might have thought it just wasn't worth it at the time. IIRC if you calculate the cost of the missiles used in the attack versus cost of the losses in that attack, the missiles cost a lot (like, multiple times as much) as the few old planes that Russia can easily supply Assad with a replacement for.[/QUOTE] The difference is that US can afford to drop missiles willy-nilly, while in Russian terms the costs of each of those missiles are comparable to some of our towns' annual budgets. We're fucking poor, no matter how much Putin likes his strongman image, he knows that. [QUOTE=Trebgarta;52378334]US had a colossal moral high ground there with the chemical attack. The missile attack wasn't a major thing, just a single airport decommissioned for a few days, so it was better for Russians to let it happen instead of being caught as chemical warfare defenders. This announcement is I believe proof that Russia, too, can take the initiative when US is at the wrong. But only time can prove you or me right. We will see if USA will be able to infringe the airspace and attacks Syrians without a just cause like in the missile attack or any repercussions implied here.[/QUOTE] Except that Russia went and publicly defended Assad's chemical attack by shifting the blame on rebels, trying to save face against those accusations isn't really an explanation.

[QUOTE=The Rifleman;52378327]F-18 shoots down SU-27 Ref blows whistle: "Technical foul, 10 yard penalty"[/QUOTE] Russia/USSR has always relied more on air defence with anti air than fighters

[QUOTE=FinalHunter;52378294]It isn't. Russia wants an ally in Assad, and they want Assad in power of a stable Syria. Russia can't establish a permanent foothold in Syria if they get into a direct confrontation with the United States. Getting into a fight with the US which has superior technology would be economically draining and would be counter-intuitive to their goals.[/QUOTE] i doubt the united states would win such a war it's a country with a lot of problems, the USA is not going to wipe Russia

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;52378353]i doubt the united states would win such a war it's a country with a lot of problems, the USA is not going to wipe Russia[/QUOTE] Russia would get its ass beaten but it definitely wouldn't be easy like Iraq was

[QUOTE=Araknid;52378363]Russia would get its ass beaten but it definitely wouldn't be easy like Iraq was[/QUOTE] given that the sitting US ruler has a big swathe of support from anti-war people and people in the United States are tired of going on pointless and expensive wars in which tens of thousands of young American lives are thrown away for the stupidest of reasons (not even the rich and powerful in America really benefit) i don't see it ending in anything better than a draw with thousands dead on both sides and nothing to show for it.

[QUOTE=Doctor Zedacon;52378051]So we just start blowing apart your ground-to-air defenses and drop anything that isn't coalition out of the sky.[/QUOTE] Thanks Trump you can go back to the cardboard fort now

[QUOTE=Trebgarta;52378334]US had a colossal moral high ground there with the chemical attack. The missile attack wasn't a major thing, just a single airport decommissioned for a few days, so it was better for Russians to let it happen instead of being caught as chemical warfare defenders. This announcement is I believe proof that Russia, too, can take the initiative when US is at the wrong. But only time can prove you or me right. We will see if USA will be able to infringe the airspace and attacks Syrians without a just cause like in the missile attack or any repercussions implied here.[/QUOTE] How was the US in the wrong doing this, guy?

[QUOTE=Araknid;52378363]Russia would get its ass beaten but it definitely wouldn't be easy like Iraq was[/QUOTE] I'm really doubting NATO's ability to win. It's a paper tiger with massively degraded capabilities thanks to relative stability in Europe for the last couple decades and a shift to fighting retarded mountain men with Lee Enfields. Whereas Russia has recent conventional warfare experience in Georgia and Ukraine. If they mopped the floor with Georgia, I can see them doing the same to at least half of all NATO members. The Baltic states have weaker armies than Georgia did in 2008 for example, and the only countries that have capable modern tanks are America, Germany, France, Britain and Poland. But do they have the numbers to hold off the hordes of T-72s and T-90s rolling across the fields of Ukraine?

[QUOTE=Taepodong-2;52378470]I'm really doubting NATO's ability to win. It's a paper tiger with massively degraded capabilities thanks to relative stability in Europe for the last couple decades and a shift to fighting retarded mountain men with Lee Enfields. Whereas Russia has recent conventional warfare experience in Georgia and Ukraine. If they mopped the floor with Georgia, I can see them doing the same to at least half of all NATO members. The Baltic states have weaker armies than Georgia did in 2008 for example, and the only countries that have capable modern tanks are America, Germany, France, Britain and Poland. But do they have the numbers to hold off the hordes of T-72s and T-90s rolling across the fields of Ukraine?[/QUOTE] there's no point in even discussing this because any war between russia and europe would go nuclear anyways and noone would win

[QUOTE=Taepodong-2;52378470]I'm really doubting NATO's ability to win. It's a paper tiger with massively degraded capabilities thanks to relative stability in Europe for the last couple decades and a shift to fighting retarded mountain men with Lee Enfields. Whereas Russia has recent conventional warfare experience in Georgia and Ukraine. If they mopped the floor with Georgia, I can see them doing the same to at least half of all NATO members. The Baltic states have weaker armies than Georgia did in 2008 for example, and the only countries that have capable modern tanks are America, Germany, France, Britain and Poland. But do they have the numbers to hold off the hordes of T-72s and T-90s rolling across the fields of Ukraine?[/QUOTE] you mean the mopped the country of size 1/250 of Russia Georgian elite units were actually busy helping NATO in Afghanistan when the 'war' happened the first Russian column entering Georgia was obliterated by single of Dana arty unit it was just the use of airpower that allowed the push into that small country Russia lost multiple expensive planes in the South Osetia action so the 'gains' are good question the Georgians withdrawn w/o much of fighting to avoid losses because they had not enough AA/AT to inflict the damage to invader with greater Tank/Air power i mean look at Ukraine, the UKR troops with all the corruption, crappy equipment and fails in leadership they still inflicted noticeable losses to the `rebels` and `soldiers on leave` equipped with fresh new Russian toys if Russia was in good shape it would already control everything from Crimea and Dnepr to east yes, NATO is probably paper tiger in the total values and bureaucracy but it can wage wars Russia knows it that direct confrontation on conventional scale would be less optimal than nuclear stalemate

[QUOTE=DETrooper;52378500]there's no point in even discussing this because any war between russia and europe would go nuclear anyways and noone would win[/QUOTE]now if only the jingoists on both sides also considered this little detail

[quote]“Any aircraft, including the international coalition’s planes and drones, discovered west of the river Euphrates, will be accompanied by ground and air-based anti-aircraft defenses as aerial targets,[/quote] Like they weren't already? Every plane I guarantee you is tracked by someone's radar, be it ours, theirs, Syria's... I think what they intend to do now is instead of passively tracking them, when they notice a coalition aircraft they're going to actively track them, which pings the aircraft many times per second (So as to keep the location of the target accurate for any outgoing missile) or in layman's terms, To Lock On They'll probably do this to try and scare our aircraft out of the area, but not shoot at them. And if they do shoot, We're going to see some HARMs start taking out radar installations if we're really serious about being there

[QUOTE=gudman;52378336]The difference is that US can afford to drop missiles willy-nilly, while in Russian terms the costs of each of those missiles are comparable to some of our towns' annual budgets. We're fucking poor, no matter how much Putin likes his strongman image, he knows that.[/QUOTE] I think Western fiction depicting Russia as a credible threat has misled a lot of people into thinking that the Russian military is of comparable strength to the US's. In reality it's not 1983 anymore, our military expenditure is over seven times Russia's, and even paper strength comparisons are massively lopsided. A conventional war between the US and Russia wouldn't be nearly as curbstompy as the invasion of Iraq, but the eventual outcome would never be in doubt. And that's why, even with his strongman image, Putin won't risk a conflict, and instead dissuades intervention by making it the more expensive means of pursuing policy change than working diplomatically.

[QUOTE=Taepodong-2;52378224]You're aware of how massive of an escalation you're advocating for, right? This isn't some fucking football game where you can have some harmless fun playing armchair coach.[/QUOTE] I'm not advocating harmless, I'm advocating humiliation and emasculation. I don't care about the Russian government's geopolitical desires or even their bloody sovereignty at the end of the day. It's a shithole government that screws over its own people and everyone around it (worse than even the U.S. despite our own problems before someone tries it), and actively enabling genocide. Its a complete mess. So if they want to push and prod and make threats like this to maintain that, then I'm not interested in harmless. They fucked over Ukraine and got away with it, as the slap-on-the-wrist response we gave clearly didn't discourage them at all given they've only stepped up their game. So do we let them have their way, encouraging this further which only makes it worse and harder to prevent in the future, or do we take actual measures against this now? Of course there are consequences and bloodshed, but that is unavoidable. What do we do next year or the year after that when Russia is making efforts in other Eastern Europe countries like with Ukraine, bolstered by the fact they've gotten away with it multiple times before? Do those countries want an even more bloody conflict in their backyards when we finally choose to do something? Or do we keep tucking our tails to avoid that conflict and keep getting repeats of the same shit? One day one side has to buckle to the other. Even if Putin died tomorrow it's not likely his successor will be an improvement. So what do we do then? How do we put it to a stop to that? It's a shitty situation without a pleasant solution.

[QUOTE=The Rifleman;52378327]F-18 shoots down SU-27 Ref blows whistle: "Technical foul, 10 yard penalty"[/QUOTE] "And it looks like the MiG-29 is going in for the play AND HE'S TACKLED BY A RAPTOR WHAT A PLAY!" *Crowd goes wild*

[QUOTE=Michael haxz;52379056]"And it looks like the MiG-29 is going in for the play AND HE'S TACKLED BY A RAPTOR WHAT A PLAY!" *Crowd goes wild*[/QUOTE] "We are LIVE here over Damascus and - wait, what's this! It's, it's, BY GOD IT'S A B-2 SPIRIT WITH A STEEL CHAIR!"

[QUOTE=Taepodong-2;52378470]I'm really doubting NATO's ability to win. It's a paper tiger[/QUOTE] Man, Russia is far more of a paper target than NATO is. Back in the 60s-80s not so much but now? Like usually I fucking hate the whole shit where people go "LMAO RUSSIA/CHINA/WHOEVER WOULD GET STEAMROLLED SO HARD xD" but the reality is they would not have any chance of winning against NATO. They have a chance to inflict losses but no way of actually winning.

[QUOTE=Araknid;52380367]Man, Russia is far more of a paper target than NATO is. Back in the 60s-80s not so much but now? Like usually I fucking hate the whole shit where people go "LMAO RUSSIA/CHINA/WHOEVER WOULD GET STEAMROLLED SO HARD xD" but the reality is they would not have any chance of winning against NATO. They have a chance to inflict losses but no way of actually winning.[/QUOTE] Mostly it's because probability of clean win is very small, and borders on pyrrhic victory.

[QUOTE=Araknid;52380367]Man, Russia is far more of a paper target than NATO is. Back in the 60s-80s not so much but now? Like usually I fucking hate the whole shit where people go "LMAO RUSSIA/CHINA/WHOEVER WOULD GET STEAMROLLED SO HARD xD" but the reality is they would not have any chance of winning against NATO. They have a chance to inflict losses but no way of actually winning.[/QUOTE] yeah Russia is one country alone against dozens

I'd just like to pop in and add my bit to the "Russia is actually pretty strong!" discussion. Look up Chechnya and the two wars Russia fought there. They got utterly arse raped in the first war and even though the second war went much better for them, they still had a tough fight. This was against miliitas and mujahadeen. Now put them against the entirety of NATO. This is why it would end up in nukes, Russia just couldn't win.

[QUOTE=AutismoPiggo;52381176]I'd just like to pop in and add my bit to the "Russia is actually pretty strong!" discussion. Look up Chechnya and the two wars Russia fought there. They got utterly arse raped in the first war and even though the second war went much better for them, they still had a tough fight. This was against miliitas and mujahadeen. Now put them against the entirety of NATO. This is why it would end up in nukes, Russia just couldn't win.[/QUOTE] eh Chechnya is a special case. This was literally right after the fall of the Soviet Union when the Russian military is hilariously corrupt with guys just buying positions, leading to the leadership being hilariously incompetent, and supply officers selling shit off on the black market (where a lot of the time it ended up in the hands of Chechen fighters). There's a book called 'One Soldiers War in Chechnya' written by a conscript that shows the fuckery that was going on in the 90s Russian army. New conscripts were beaten by older conscripts, older conscripts were beaten by their commanding officer, those officers were beaten by their commanding officer, etc. Not to mention their guerrilla enemies often had previous military training experience, as well as experienced foreign fighters. I wouldn't say the Russian military is flawless now but comparing 2017 Russian armed forces to 1990s Russian armed forces is pointless.

Fair point

of course Russia wouldn't win, but Russia would make it certain that America wouldn't be able to win either certainly the war wouldn't end on Americas terms nor when it wished to

and the proxy wars continue [editline]20th June 2017[/editline] [QUOTE=Araknid;52381193]eh Chechnya is a special case. This was literally right after the fall of the Soviet Union when the Russian military is hilariously corrupt with guys just buying positions, leading to the leadership being hilariously incompetent, and supply officers selling shit off on the black market (where a lot of the time it ended up in the hands of Chechen fighters). There's a book called 'One Soldiers War in Chechnya' written by a conscript that shows the fuckery that was going on in the 90s Russian army. New conscripts were beaten by older conscripts, older conscripts were beaten by their commanding officer, those officers were beaten by their commanding officer, etc. [/QUOTE] ive actually heard from a lot of sources that there was organized, systematic male-on-male rape in the russian army during that era too, which has disturbingly lasted to this day in some units.

[QUOTE=Doctor Zedacon;52378910]I'm not advocating harmless, I'm advocating humiliation and emasculation. I don't care about the Russian government's geopolitical desires or even their bloody sovereignty at the end of the day. It's a shithole government that screws over its own people and everyone around it (worse than even the U.S. despite our own problems before someone tries it), and actively enabling genocide. Its a complete mess. So if they want to push and prod and make threats like this to maintain that, then I'm not interested in harmless. They fucked over Ukraine and got away with it, as the slap-on-the-wrist response we gave clearly didn't discourage them at all given they've only stepped up their game. So do we let them have their way, encouraging this further which only makes it worse and harder to prevent in the future, or do we take actual measures against this now? Of course there are consequences and bloodshed, but that is unavoidable. What do we do next year or the year after that when Russia is making efforts in other Eastern Europe countries like with Ukraine, bolstered by the fact they've gotten away with it multiple times before? Do those countries want an even more bloody conflict in their backyards when we finally choose to do something? Or do we keep tucking our tails to avoid that conflict and keep getting repeats of the same shit? One day one side has to buckle to the other. Even if Putin died tomorrow it's not likely his successor will be an improvement. So what do we do then? How do we put it to a stop to that? It's a shitty situation without a pleasant solution.[/QUOTE] The fact that you're so blatantly and openly calling for WW3 is worrying. Will you be saying the same when you're laying in a field in Ukraine with your legs blown off or bleeding to death in some Syrian desert? Because a draft is fucking unavoidable in a conventional war. You will be forced to fight, I will be forced to fight, all of us posting in this thread will be forced to fight. And for what? Absolutely nothing. But hey, humanity doesn't learn. WWI was supposed to be the war to end all wars but look where that got us.

[QUOTE=Taepodong-2;52381886]The fact that you're so blatantly and openly calling for WW3 is worrying. Will you be saying the same when you're laying in a field in Ukraine with your legs blown off or bleeding to death in some Syrian desert? Because a draft is fucking unavoidable in a conventional war. You will be forced to fight, I will be forced to fight, all of us posting in this thread will be forced to fight. And for what? Absolutely nothing. But hey, humanity doesn't learn. WWI was supposed to be the war to end all wars but look where that got us.[/QUOTE] I dunno about myself being drafted, I'd rather go to prison than fight a war killing Russians. At least the Russians didn't dismantle my social and public services and cause my nation to rot from the inside out

[QUOTE=Sgt.Kickass;52377718]This war was declared by the US years ago,when they incited the uprising in 2011 and armed and trained the so-called "moderate opposition" terrorists and aiding them with airstrikes against the Syrian Armed Forces.[/QUOTE] Youre confusing Syria with Libya. The US and NATO was completely uninvolved outside of sending radios and bulletproof vests to Syria until a few years ago. How did the US incite the uprising? Because it started as peaceful protests until the Syrian military started slaughtering civilians. [editline]20th June 2017[/editline] [QUOTE=Sobotnik;52381914]I dunno about myself being drafted, I'd rather go to prison than fight a war killing Russians. At least the Russians didn't dismantle my social and public services and cause my nation to rot from the inside out[/QUOTE] Nah they just wanted to completely glass you over. Clearly your government is much worse because you lost some social services. But I wouldn't fight for your nanny state either so I feel you there.

[QUOTE=Cyke Lon bee;52382124] Nah they just wanted to completely glass you over.[/QUOTE] "muh scary russia want to kill everyone". The red scare ended a while ago bud.

[QUOTE=Cyke Lon bee;52382124] Nah they just wanted to completely glass you over.[/QUOTE] To be honest, complete annihilation of US was more of a Red Chinese thing than Soviet.