4 ms·

And the six-day war showed that destroying someone's air force on the ground can actually be done - twice, I think (Egypt and Syria). Mind you, the US is big,

And the six-day war showed that destroying someone's air force on the ground can actually be done - twice, I think (Egypt and Syria). Mind you, the US is big, and even ICBMs would take enough time, presumably even if they're fired from a sub just off the coast, that you could get some of your bombers and silo missiles airborne. Submarines are an extra layer of insurance on top of that. The UK is not that big, so their backup is a letter from the prime minister in a safe inside the submarine, with instructions what to do if they find the UK has been destroyed.

jajko 2y ago
Technically three times now, Israel in past few days wiped out any air force or air defenses in Syria. They moved the country basically to the level of say Afghanistan re air defenses, so they can do whatever they want. So can others. Till current jihadists will agree with russians to have some pantsirs and S-300/400 on the ground for keeping their bases there and situation changes again. If russians can get friendly with Taliban they can be friends with anybody so thats just question of time.
- thaGf 2y ago
  Ugh, the U.S. supported the Taliban during the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. The current Syrian rebels, despite being partly a rebranding of Al-Quaeda, are supported by the U.S., which will recognize the new government under certain conditions: https://www.timesofisrael.com/us-says-will-recognize-new-syrian-regime-if-it-renounces-terror-supports-women/ https://www.timesofisrael.com/us-says-will-recognize-new-syr... The regime change in Syria has been one of the primary U.S. foreign policy goals for decades. Of course, the Jihadists may turn on a dime and indeed cooperate with Russia in the future.
  - aguaviva 2y ago
    Ugh, the U.S. supported the Taliban during the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. The Taliban did not exist during the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. If you can't get that right, after all these years -- how can you hope to make heads or tails out of whatever word salad you've been ingesting in regard to Syria?
    - LargoLasskhyfv 2y ago
      Their precursors did. Where do you think they came from, and even more so who made that happen?
      - aguaviva 2y ago
        That's not how it works. Whatever you think is "really" happening in Syria -- you'll need to point to actual evidence in the current moment. Otherwise, it's just speculation.
        LargoLasskhyfv 2y ago
        I've been referring specifically to > Ugh, the U.S. supported the Taliban during the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. by ThaGf. That is not speculation at all. But one can extrapolate from that point onwards, following a certain behavourial pattern of one specific party. Or maybe just reading https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Art,_Truth_and_Politics https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Art,_Truth_and_Politics https://www.nobelprize.org/prizes/literature/2005/pinter/lecture/ which traces these patterns mostly trough South America, but there is some Iraq in there, too. Anything else? Do ya wanna have some freedom fries with that?
        aguaviva 2y ago
        The most you can get with that kind of "extrapolation" is some grounds for suspicion that something similar might be happening in the current day. Meanwhile, my concern is with what is actually happening, you know, in current physical reality. Based in turn on some form of observable evidence. Not with what "might" be happening. Which for some reason, seems to thoroughly flummox people in the "multipolar" crowd. It's like they've bought into this idea that events 40+ years ago establish a magical "pattern" that overrides any need to gather and ascertain the actual truth in the current moment (for example, in terms of what is happening in Syria). So when we ask them why they believe US is, in actual fact, doing a certain bad thing (like causing regime change, say) in country X, despite no visible evidence of such -- it's become quite common for them to simply point out past shenanigans in other countries, and the resulting "pattern" that they see arising from such, as their "basis" for this belief. "Iraq/Vietnam/Chile/etc, therefore everything the US does is also bad, therefore whatever is happening in country X today must be simply the US up to its usual imperial shenanigans, and if you can't see this you must be willfully blind or worse" is the apparent line of thinking here. Which as a way of looking at things I find to be, well, rather weird. Do ya wanna have some freedom fries with that? No thanks, I've had enough junk food for today.

jajko 2y ago

Technically three times now, Israel in past few days wiped out any air force or air defenses in Syria. They moved the country basically to the level of say Afghanistan re air defenses, so they can do whatever they want. So can others. Till current jihadists will agree with russians to have some pantsirs and S-300/400 on the ground for keeping their bases there and situation changes again. If russians can get friendly with Taliban they can be friends with anybody so thats just question of time.

thaGf 2y ago
Ugh, the U.S. supported the Taliban during the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. The current Syrian rebels, despite being partly a rebranding of Al-Quaeda, are supported by the U.S., which will recognize the new government under certain conditions: https://www.timesofisrael.com/us-says-will-recognize-new-syrian-regime-if-it-renounces-terror-supports-women/ https://www.timesofisrael.com/us-says-will-recognize-new-syr... The regime change in Syria has been one of the primary U.S. foreign policy goals for decades. Of course, the Jihadists may turn on a dime and indeed cooperate with Russia in the future.
- aguaviva 2y ago
  Ugh, the U.S. supported the Taliban during the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. The Taliban did not exist during the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. If you can't get that right, after all these years -- how can you hope to make heads or tails out of whatever word salad you've been ingesting in regard to Syria?
  - LargoLasskhyfv 2y ago
    Their precursors did. Where do you think they came from, and even more so who made that happen?
    - aguaviva 2y ago
      That's not how it works. Whatever you think is "really" happening in Syria -- you'll need to point to actual evidence in the current moment. Otherwise, it's just speculation.
      - LargoLasskhyfv 2y ago
        I've been referring specifically to > Ugh, the U.S. supported the Taliban during the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. by ThaGf. That is not speculation at all. But one can extrapolate from that point onwards, following a certain behavourial pattern of one specific party. Or maybe just reading https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Art,_Truth_and_Politics https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Art,_Truth_and_Politics https://www.nobelprize.org/prizes/literature/2005/pinter/lecture/ which traces these patterns mostly trough South America, but there is some Iraq in there, too. Anything else? Do ya wanna have some freedom fries with that?
        aguaviva 2y ago
        The most you can get with that kind of "extrapolation" is some grounds for suspicion that something similar might be happening in the current day. Meanwhile, my concern is with what is actually happening, you know, in current physical reality. Based in turn on some form of observable evidence. Not with what "might" be happening. Which for some reason, seems to thoroughly flummox people in the "multipolar" crowd. It's like they've bought into this idea that events 40+ years ago establish a magical "pattern" that overrides any need to gather and ascertain the actual truth in the current moment (for example, in terms of what is happening in Syria). So when we ask them why they believe US is, in actual fact, doing a certain bad thing (like causing regime change, say) in country X, despite no visible evidence of such -- it's become quite common for them to simply point out past shenanigans in other countries, and the resulting "pattern" that they see arising from such, as their "basis" for this belief. "Iraq/Vietnam/Chile/etc, therefore everything the US does is also bad, therefore whatever is happening in country X today must be simply the US up to its usual imperial shenanigans, and if you can't see this you must be willfully blind or worse" is the apparent line of thinking here. Which as a way of looking at things I find to be, well, rather weird. Do ya wanna have some freedom fries with that? No thanks, I've had enough junk food for today.