Topic: WE'RE STUFFED!!!

[Michael]

Though, I suspect, ISIS has not said its last word on the matter. It seems to carry the darkness that refuses to move to light in this cycle.

Indeed - I have heard that ISIS are basically winning in Syria.

[erik]

Indeed - I have heard that ISIS are basically winning in Syria.

It certainly does not look beaten. DIA seems to be rather pessimistic about it: http://www.longwarjournal.org/archives/2015/02/dia_head_warns_al_qa.php

[erik]

Russian cluster munition dropped on town called Kramatorsk:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=cc9Kh-OL4sQ

More than 10 killed, 60 wounded. Casualties are being counted.

[Michael]

Russian cluster munition dropped on town called Kramatorsk:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=cc9Kh-OL4sQ

More than 10 killed, 60 wounded. Casualties are being counted.

Ceasefire, and nothing changes. Now, is this a sign that what has been set in motion can now not be stopped by those who set it in motion?

[erik]

Ceasefire, and nothing changes. Now, is this a sign that what has been set in motion can now not be stopped by those who set it in motion?

Ceasefire should start at 00.00 on Feb 15, but for now, fighting is more intense than ever before since the beginning of this war. Tactical missiles, very long range MLRS, cluster munitions, tank battles - anything and everything you can imagine - up hand-to-hand fighting in trenches.

Look at the picture below: Ukrainians defended that road crossing for a week under the rain of Russian shells (the black dots are craters from explosions). One of the most frequently requested supplies by the first line Ukrainian units is headache pills - literally 100% of men get lighter, harder or severe concussions from nearby shell explosions. Yet they refuse to yield and keep fighting. Syria and ISIS are nowhere near the levels of kill power used in Ukraine.



It is not about the ability of Putin to stop, but about the willingness to stop. Regular Russian units in separatist uniforms have been fighting in the first line for at least a month. Putin has evoked the most radical and darkest nationalist sentiment in Russia. Now he almost cannot stop - the wave of radicalism would turn against him. In the worst case scenario, we are witnessing the outbreak of yeat another major European war.

[Michael]

So it appears the situation in Ukraine is as complex as, if not more than, the IS situation in the Middle East. What exactly is going on? This question is bedeviling everyone apparently, except perhaps for Putin.

I have just read one of my 'trusted' sources in the media, Paul McGeough - an amazing guy who should have been killed long ago, yet seems to keep plugging on much like Robert Fisk. Here is his latest report on the Debaltseve debacle:
http://www.smh.com.au/world/ukraines-latest-defeat-confronts-west-and-obama-with-costly-zerosum-game-20150220-13kctu.html

The problem with this situation, and the difference between it and IS, is that we are dealing with some very hefty players here - the consequences of an escalation being far more serious than in the Middle East.

So nice to live in a quiet area of the world....

[erik]

So it appears the situation in Ukraine is as complex as, if not more than, the IS situation in the Middle East. What exactly is going on? This question is bedeviling everyone apparently, except perhaps for Putin.

I have just read one of my 'trusted' sources in the media, Paul McGeough - an amazing guy who should have been killed long ago, yet seems to keep plugging on much like Robert Fisk. Here is his latest report on the Debaltseve debacle:
http://www.smh.com.au/world/ukraines-latest-defeat-confronts-west-and-obama-with-costly-zerosum-game-20150220-13kctu.html

The problem with this situation, and the difference between it and IS, is that we are dealing with some very hefty players here - the consequences of an escalation being far more serious than in the Middle East.

So nice to live in a quiet area of the world....

The author is very much on target. There was a ceasefire agreement made on 5 Sep. 2014 and Russians have kept shelling and pushing forward. Ukrainian governemnt did not respond in kind until Dec.-Jan. and then they effectively stopped Russian advance. From mid-January 2015 the war intensified to the levels of full-scale war that led to a ceasefire of 15 Feb. 2015. Russians immediately launched an assault on the place Debaltsevo and now they seem to be slowing down for a while. They lost 3,000-4,000 combatants killed only around Debaltsevo.

A few things need to be clarified:
1) there are only a few local separatists fighting against Ukrainian government. Majority of anti-Ukrainian combatants are Russian citizens specifically recruited and trained for that war. They constitute 60-90% of so-called 'separatist' units. Among these 'separatist' unist fight regular Russian troops who hide their identity, but are clearly identifiable by their tanks, missiles, ethnicity etc. So it is not Nicaragua. An accurate analogy would mean US citizens and armed forces to fight against Sandinistas.

2) Ukrainian forces may be less organised than Russians, but they are continuously improving. They lost Debaltsevo because their government denied them artillery support during the ceasefire - when Russians attacked. However, say, 70-75% of Ukrainian troops managed to withdraw in reasonable order and Ukrainian line was not broken.

3) Putin is banking on West to not have the guts to: (a) introduce comprehensive economic sanctions and fully collapse Russian state; (b) provide Ukraine with arms and (potentially) ignite a major war in Europe that may go nuclear eventually; (c) trust a state - Ukraine - that is highly corrupt and penetrated by Russian intelligence.

Thus, we have that creeping ('hybrid') campaign that has ups and downs, but never stops. Meanwhile, good men (of whom I know quite a few) fight tooth and nail, and sit under artillery barrages in the first line of Ukrainian defences.

Putin is pushing it and it almost became a zero sum game 2 weeks ago. It may well take an apocalytic track in coming weeks. I doubt the end of this war is anywhere near. Putin is not that different from Hitler.

[erik]

C'est
C'est la vie.

Two shots in the head, two in the chest.
Another powerful voice less to oppose the undeclared war in Ukraine.

[Nichi]

The US has gone insane, with Senators attempting to implement their own foreign policy, behind the back of the president. No matter how they may disagree with him, this kind of thing just isn't done. I hope that something will be done swiftly about it, rather than just sitting there with no internal consequences.

In United States v. Curtiss-Wright Export Corp. (1936) decision by the Supreme Court, Justice Sutherland wrote in the majority opinion :

"[T]he President alone has the power to speak or listen as a representative of the nation. He makes treaties with the advice and consent of the Senate; but he alone negotiates. Into the field of negotiation the Senate cannot intrude, and Congress itself is powerless to invade it."

Sutherland also notes in his opinion the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations report to the Senate of February 15, 1816:

"The President is the constitutional representative of the United States with regard to foreign nations. He manages our concerns with foreign nations, and must necessarily be most competent to determine when, how, and upon what subjects negotiation may be urged with the greatest prospect of success. For his conduct, he is responsible to the Constitution."

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-31804575

[Michael]

Yes, I have been hearing about this. Comes on top a few other insane actions by the Republicans, demonstrating to everyone how they are not fit to govern.

If I were to summarise the current Middle East situation, I'd say the big game changer in all of it is the US's self-sufficiency in oil. For the first time in a very long time, no Western power is interested in controlling the Middle East.

Now we have a virtual vacuum in Iraq and Syria. The old order of Sunni and Israeli power is being challenged by Iran, and the result could be extremely destructive. Iran is on an empire mission, and surrounding Saudi Arabia. Israel is petrified about Iran, as are Saudi, Gulf States, Egypt, Jordan etc.

The old power there, the US, is reluctant to get further involved, despite a change in ground-swell opinion within the US about that. They can't just walk away, but they also don't need to control it like in the past, because of the oil situation.

It appears the current US administration is walking a fine line between acceptance and nuclear containment of Iran - how on earth this will turn out is very questionable.

The two new elements to add to this, are the apparent likelihood of a power shift in Israel, and the new leader of Iran ensuring that Sunni fighters move in to control the Sunni areas of Tikrit. These are positive signs amongst an otherwise destabilising scenario.

[runningstream]

http://rt.com/usa/244069-asteroid-fly-by-earth/

[Michael]

This could be it  .
Would be nice to solve my current PHP problem before I go though.

[Michael]

Yemen:

Saudi government-owned al-Arabiya television said that planes from Egypt, Morocco, Jordan, Sudan, Kuwait, the UAE, Qatar and Bahrain were involved in the air campaign and that Egypt, Pakistan, Jordan and Sudan were willing to add ground troops to 150,000 being sent by Saudi Arabia.

http://www.smh.com.au/world/saudi-arabia-begins-bombing-military-operations-in-yemen-20150326-1m80cq.html

At a question-and-answer session with reporters this week, Saudi Brigadier-General Ahmed Asiri was asked to respond to the argument that this was a sectarian war. As Riyadh's media frontman, the general pointed the finger of blame at Tehran.

"Who created the situation of sectarianism? The Iranians. They created the militias in Lebanon, Hezbollah; they created the militias in Iraq."

Think about that last observation – as seen from Riyadh, the problem in Iraq is not IS and its "caliphate" so much as the Iranian-sponsored militias, which are doing most of the fighting to check IS and protect Baghdad.

http://www.smh.com.au/world/bombing-yemenis-you-bet-fighting-is-in-iraq-not-so-fast-20150410-1mi9x7.html

So what is the USA doing in all this? I expect most of you know about the recent Iranian-US event. Frankly, I don't know the endgame of the USA, but I have a speculation...

I think Obama is guiding the US to downsize its Middle Eastern commitment, because despite the incredible destruction fracking is leaving it its wake, it has provide America with oil sufficiency. Their strategy now is a balance of powers in the Middle East, to which end they are quietly laughing while they parley with Iran, Saudi Arabia and Iraq, whilst antagonising Israel. Their only vested interest is to ensure no one ME Power goes amuck.

But is this realistic, and if not, does the US really care? I think these questions are next on the block, as it is obvious the US's response is not solving anything, and why they should carry the can for an intractable situation, is highly questionable.

When you hit bottom with this case, there are two things outstanding: Firstly, when will Sunni and Shia grow up and accept each other? Secondly, when will Iran stop its empirical aspirations? I suspect the answer to both these will not be found in my lifetime.

[Michael]

I attended an interesting talk at the uni last Friday, by a PHP candidate with substantial knowledge of Saudi Arabia.

What I was not fully informed of, was the creation of SA state. This was a collaboration by two men, Ibn Saud and Abd al-Wahhab. Ibn Saud was a smart guy, who realised there was no physical existential threat to rally what was known as Najd into a state, but with the help of the obsessive purist Abd al-Wahhab, he succeeded by raising the spectre of a spiritual existential threat. Thus Wahhabism became foundational in the formation of modern Saudi Arabia.

But Wahhabism is retrospective and internal - it seeks to return to a pure past, and has no answer to the crisis of the modern world. Whenever the Saudi authority has been threatened, it always retreats to the Wahhabi line that Islam is in danger from liberal or Shiite influences. But don't for a minute believe the Saudi strategists believe this crap - they are ultimate pragmatists. The problem for them is their old power-strategy of threats to the purity of 'reality' (ie Islam) is not that useful for addressing problems outside Arabia nor the pressures of globalism.

In fact, they are ill-prepared to deal with the rise of the Muslim Brotherhood, Iran or ISIS. They bought off their population with money to stall any internal Arab Spring aspirations, but that was only temporary. It now appears they are foundationally unprepared to confront the new crises that face the broader Sunni states.

Thus many commentators feel their recent attempt to rally those states into a threat that does not directly affect Saudi Arabia, is doomed to failure.

[erik]

Saudis sending 150,000 troops? Sounds like they are sending almost everything they have - Wiki assesses the size of their armed forces (three services+paramilitary troops) at some 200,000 men. 150,000 does not look like a realistic assessment. 15,000 I would believe - and they would be hard-pressed to rotate and sustain such deployment. Saudis would send 150,000 if they were fighting an ultimate war of survival.

Yemen seems to become the first horror movie of the ME. A gigantic demographic explosion with drinking water in a very short supply and oil/gas running out. Paradoxically, the fundamental driving force behind the conflict is neither religious nor political. It's about country losing means of subsistence and leadership stealing the money. Neither Saudis nor Iranians nor US can solve this.