US Politics - Trump cancels summit having to do with North Korea
-
Return_of_the_STAR
- Member
- Joined in 2008
Shoe Army
-
Lex-Man
- Member
- Joined in 2008
- Contact:
Amusement under late capitalism is the prolongation of work.
-
Alvin Flummux
- Member
- Joined in 2008
- Contact:
Rightey wrote:Alvin Flummux wrote:It's almost as if Russia wanted a story to bury their British poisoning problem, or wanted to divert western rage into Syria so that they can get on with a dramatic escalation in the war in Ukraine, so decided to stage a gas attack to divert the world's attention.
So Russia, who went into Syria years ago and spent presumably millions or billions of dollars to support Assad, now, on the verge of victory, decide they need to use chemical weapons which could lead to the West invading Syria in order to take the heat off them for poisoning a spy, or perhaps continuing their war in Ukraine, both of which have basically had no repercussions for them outside of some sanctions...
Yes? Maybe? I don't know. Russia is heavily involved, and obviously had some advance warning the chemical attack was going to happen...
But what is now becoming clear is that long before Johnson spoke -- and even before May expelled the Russian diplomats -- Moscow was already executing its real response.
It would not have been easy to spot at the time because it had nothing directly to do with the Skripals. Yet in hindsight it stands out like a red rag to a bull.
Perhaps its author might have been the clue: Valery Gerasimov, Russia's Military Chief of General Staff, the brains behind the so-called "Gerasimov Doctrine."
Believed by many analysts to be Russia's smartest general of his generation, Gerasimov is the architect of Russia's asymmetrical warfare.
He strategized that the state could achieve its goals by combining military, cyber, diplomatic, economic and cultural tools -- the same grab bag of tactics that presaged Russia's annexation of Crimea and incursion into Ukraine and morphed into its meddling in the US election.
On March 13, the day after Theresa May blamed Russia for Skripal's poisoning, Gerasimov announced that he had discovered a US plan to fake a chemical weapons attack against civilians in Eastern Ghouta and then blame Assad's army.
It was coincidentally also the day after US Ambassador to the UN Nikki Haley blamed Russia for stalling a ceasefire in Syria.
Only the keenest and perhaps most cynical observer of Russian propaganda might have thought at the time that the general's prediction of a chemical attack would actually come to pass.
That same seasoned observer might now be concluding that back then in early March, Gerasimov was actually employing his own asymmetrical doctrine to the Skripal issue.
What has now become clear is the full horror of last weekend's chemical weapons attack, with children, women and men dead in the basements where they were hiding.
International condemnation of Bashar al-Assad and Russia has followed, with diplomats from the US, the UK, France, Australia and other countries clear in their minds that the Assad regime was responsible.
The debate at the UN has since been blocked by Russia, balking at the independence of an investigation that would find out exactly who was responsible.
The OPCW, so vital in the Skripal case, has since been drawn in to reviewing the Syria attack -- and almost all mention of Russia's culpability in Skripal's poisoning has disappeared from view.
In asymmetric terms, Gerasimov seems to have pulled off the impossible: diverting attention, albeit at huge potential cost.
Yet Russia's top general had another trick in his pocket back in March: he announced that if the US were to launch an attack on Syria, Russia would target the American missiles and the carriers firing them.
On Wednesday this week, within hours of Russia's Ambassador to Lebanon repeating Gerasimov's March statement about targeting US missiles and carriers, US President Donald Trump entered the fray with a Twitter fusillade, loud enough to drown out any talk of Skripal by the cacophony responding to Trump's apparent declaration of strikes.
Even Gerasimov may have been surprised at the way Russia has buried its British problem. But now, it appears Moscow may be left with a far bigger and more dangerous issue on its hands.
Yet Gerasimov may have a solution for that too: huge numbers of Russian troops and heavy armor have been sighted heading to Russia's border with Ukraine, where Russian-backed Ukrainian separatists are reportedly increasing artillery exchanges with Ukrainian forces.
With his asymmetrical doctrine, Gerasimov appears to be armed with an array of patches for any holes in Vladimir Putin's strategies.
https://www.cnn.com/2018/04/12/opinions ... index.html
So, has Russia decided to hit back yet?
-
Moggy
- "Special"
- Joined in 2008
- AKA: Moggy
lex-man wrote:Jones should run for president in 2020, I'd love to see him at the republican primaries.
Remember when we all laughed at Trump running because it was so stupid and was never going to happen?
-
Alvin Flummux
- Member
- Joined in 2008
- Contact:
-
Lex-Man
- Member
- Joined in 2008
- Contact:
Moggy wrote:lex-man wrote:Jones should run for president in 2020, I'd love to see him at the republican primaries.
Remember when we all laughed at Trump running because it was so stupid and was never going to happen?
I actually thought people were under rating him.
From March 2016:
lex-man wrote:The problem is we've heard all along that Trump will be finished by x and he's kept on rolling. Clinton is basically the establishment personified and will make sure that every Trump supporter votes. I really hope he loses but I'm very worried but we'll see him win.
It's not that I think that Americas are dumb I just think people vote more on personality than policy and Trump comes across as a strong leader to a lot of people and his success will give him more legitimacy.
Moggy wrote:
People assumed he would be finished by now but these selection processes are much different to an actual election. At the moment there is no real harm in people voting Trump or expressing a preference for him in an opinion poll.
When it comes to the actual election, people will be faced with the real prospect of President Trump. I just don't see any Democrat at all voting for him and I think a lot of Republican voters would abstain from the election rather than vote for Trump or Clinton (or Sanders but that's unlikely). Trump on the ballot would certainly ensure that everyone got out to vote and I don't think that would be a good thing for him.
lex-man wrote:I actually think that he'll lose but that people are still underestimating his chances.
Although I wonder if he does win American soilders will end up replacing Nazi's as video games goto bad guy.
Amusement under late capitalism is the prolongation of work.
-
Monkey Man
- Member
- Joined in 2008
