What 'client state', please? What is making Syria of 1988-2015 a 'client state of Russia'?Originally Posted by Azor
The NATO introduced the ROEs along which it can open fire. These ROEs have been announced to the Russians - and what's their reaction? They shut up and stopped such behaviour.Russian aircraft and vessels already engage in dangerous maneuvers in international airspace and on the high seas, and ignore NATO air defense identification zones and even sovereign airspace. Yet there has not been so much as a radar lock-on in response.
...and then they would continue ignoring the situation in Syria, just like they did all the time before August 2015.Moreover, the blockade would be largely unenforced as it would take time for the U.S. to assemble and deploy the assets necessary to enforce it, giving Russia lead time to ignore it.
Ah, now I see the problem.These challenges are of course separate from any Iranian resistance, which would probably be kinetic and deniable, with various Shia militias operating anti-aircraft weaponry.
OK. Look, this is a forum about military affairs and wars. Please, make no mistake: I do not expect everybody here to have a diploma from West Point, Sandhurst, or Frunze. I'm the first to point out: I've got none of that. Nothing even distantly similar. But, I would say that at least some basic idea about military-related affairs, at least the ability to understand the mechanics of warfare, how the entire system of fighting wars works, might be of some advantage - so that people participating in discussions can follow what's going on.
One of advantages of having at least the most basic ideas about military-related affairs is to understand the importance of something called 'logistics'. For essential definitions and descriptions of that term, please consult such places like Wikipedia.
Now, weirdos, not to say freaks - like me for example - insist that the logistics is the essence of warfare. I know: I'm stupid and clueless, and I tend to get sarcastic when I find things get ab absurdum...not to talk about none of my theories ever standing a chance whenever seriously checked...
But... and I'm very sorry sorry for bringing this to your attention... word has it, nobody can fight a war without beans, bullets and gas. Please, feel free to correct me, then I'm certainly wrong, and I actually have no idea how did anybody else, nor me, ever come to such conclusions - but that's what so many people say... I guess it's truth. Probably, the entire affair with importance of the logistics is like a wheel: it works, but nobody can explain why. Or doesn't, if there is none.
Ah, nevermind... let's say it's 2013 and the USA and allies decided to impose an aerial blockade of the Syrian airspace. Turks, Saudis, Emiratis, Kuwaitis, Jordanians etc. - all the supposed and/or true US allies in the area - were calling for the USA to do something in Syria... most of the countries in question (and their militaries) were then sent by Oblabla to fight a useless war in Yemen instead... Whatever: back then, they were all offering their militaries and their military bases for use for such an operation - if only the USA would lead.
Word is also, the USN has some swimming things called...what...something like 'aircraft carriers'. Can that be? No clue how they work but, supposedly, these can take a wing of about 48 combat aircraft to the sea and thus reach something like 70% of land mass of this planet. And somebody at the CENTCOM once said that Syria has a coast to some sea too... Provided Syria is not to be found on the western side of Kentucky, that might be truth.
Now, rumour has it, the logistics systems of these countries are closely tied to those of the US military logistics system - which is already massive because it's supporting military bases and deployments in something like hundred territories of all sorts on this planet. I mean: nobody might know why, but the system works, is well tested and oiled. And the militaries in question are spending hundreds of billions for new equipment and intensive, realistic training, every year. They're supported by an amazing intelligence apparatus: surely enough, this is meanwhile better at finding out what toothpaste is Outlaw09 using, or how often do I go to the toilette (even the consistency...), but from time to time it finds out a few useful things about potential enemies, too. If nothing else, even a broken watch is showing the correct time of the day - and that twice a day.
But no... now comes Putler. Oh man, that super-hero...he's going to scare everybody else away - by his sight alone... wow... simply fantastic. Guess, that's so because his intel services are excelling at helping oppositionals fall down some stairs (and then outta window, too) or from top of various buildings in New York. But especially because they are ah just so awesomely good at fighting PR-wars on the internet.
That in turn is going to make up for all the other issues they might face. Namely, Putler's intel actually has no trace of clue about even who's who in Syria; his military just woke up out of lethargic vegetation over the last 20 years. Since some pesky little clash near the place called Tsushima - supposedly fought some 112 years ago - it's clear his military has got no equipment suitable for expeditionary operations, not to talk about experience in this kind of operations; it lacks all sorts of modern combat and combat-support aircraft and (even more so) modern armament...but foremost: neither can his economy support a war away from Russia (if it can support any kind of a war at all), nor has his country and his military got a logistics system that would enable it to go fighting wars against a coalition of some 7-8 well-armed, well-trained, and combat-proven militaries with all of beans, bullets and gas already in place.
Nevermind! Nothing of this matters. Russia stronk. Putler can pull this off, and he's going to fight a war he's got no trace of chance of even starting, not to talk abut running. And that for Syria: a country for which we successfully convinced ourselves is the Russian 'client state' although it never really was...and if not, then just for the f..k of it. And especially because so many in the West are so sternously convinced the Russians can do it. Yeah, they simply know it.
Who cares about logistics or military realities? We've all played computer simulations of all sorts of Russian super-turbo Sukhoi fighter-bombers: we know they are armed with R-77 missiles. Sure, the VKS just received the first batch of 65 of these in 2017, but hey, in computer simulations of 2002 it turned out these are scoring kills by hitting enemy pilots in their hearts... and that was 15 years ago. Isn't that fantastic? Wow, simply great. And, we saw them pulling amazing manoeuvres at various air shows, not to talk about all the possible covers of our specialized magazines - and thus we all know that the Russian military can do it against everybody else over Syria. Period. So, better we do not do anything at all: these pesky Russkies are damn dangerous!
Ah yes, and then the next part of that equation: the bad, bad Iranians. Man, alone this Major-General Soleimani...the 'shadow leader'...the man who won the war against the USA in Iraq... brrrr.... isn't he scary? Arguably, some say the USA went there for no purpose and actually defeated itself (foremost through overspending) and all that bull####. But hey: no, that was Soleimani. The guy is so damn dangerous, I get scared from watching his photos alone, really.
Soleimani's aura of invincibility... his powerful karma... his witchcraft are so mighty, I get wet alone from talking about him. Did you know he can shoot down any F-22 by his looks alone? That's not only the reason why the USAF and the USN do not dare flying over Syria, but foremost: that's the reason why the IRGC has no air defences in Syria until this very day. They're simply unnecessary. They've got Solemani instead.
...ah sorry: I got so distracted discussing these super-heroes....
Whatever, it doesn't matter that gangs of Iranian jihadists deployed in Syria are living alone from the air bridge run by Mahan Air and similar Iranian companies. Plus the two Syrian Il-76s. No aerial blockade can stop that - because Boeing and Airbus want to sell hundreds of airliners to Tehran, and because a blockade is the same like a no-fly-zone. That's why they are spelled in exactly the same way, letter by letter, too.
...simply fantastic...
I'm soundly defeated, as always. Here's my white flag:
And don't worry, my dear Azor: should you still have any kind of problems to argument against my idea of an aerial blockade of Syria as of 2013, you can always bring in Mars People into this game. Or the Emperor, Darth Vader, and his Startroopers.
Bookmarks