Outside Topic Way OT: Ukraine - Printable Version

+- The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board)
+-- Forum: C-House! (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-4.html)
+--- Forum: The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-5.html)
+--- Thread: Outside Topic Way OT: Ukraine (/thread-23071.html)

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - Hurlburt88 - 11-30-2024

Curious what various cardboarders think about Turkey/Turkiye possibly being the puppet-master here?   And are they taking advantage of Russia's focus on Ukraine and Hezbollah's setbacks?

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - dabigv13 - 11-30-2024

(11-30-2024, 01:25 PM)Hurlburt88 Wrote:  Curious what various cardboarders think about Turkey/Turkiye possibly being the puppet-master here?   And are they taking advantage of Russia's focus on Ukraine and Hezbollah's setbacks?

That WSJ article I posted certainly posited a large role.

Quote:“Russia is weakened, Iran is weakened, Hezbollah is beaten—and all this has created an enormous opportunity for Turkey, which it was quick to grab,” said Asli Aydintaşbaş, a Turkey specialist at the Brookings Institution.

At the very least, the latest developments will stem the flow of Syrian refugees into Turkey, a significant political problem there. Depending on how fighting develops in the coming weeks and months, the fall of Aleppo could also give Ankara a dominant role in Syria’s future—not necessarily a prospect that Israel would relish.
.....
While the HTS rebels—and their Turkish patrons—benefited from the Israeli strikes on Hezbollah and sites in Iran and Syria, the timing of the Aleppo offensive was likely tied to the cease-fire just reached in Lebanon.

“The militants have been ready for a while. And my guess is it’s the Turks who have been holding them back,” said Robert Ford, a former U.S. ambassador to Syria and a fellow at the Middle East Institute. “But now, once the Lebanon cease-fire is done, the attack on Aleppo doesn’t look anymore like Turkey fighting an enemy of Israel.”

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - Goose - 11-30-2024

(11-29-2024, 11:39 PM)dabigv13 Wrote:  That Ukraine's economy is in big trouble is not in dispute. But in your post you don't explain how that leads to Ukraine's nonviability as a state.

IMO I did explain, in detail. Ukraine's most important industry going forward (at least for many years) will be agriculture, by an overwhelming margin. This agriculture is non-competitive because of excessive  transportation costs. These costs are inherent in the structure of Ukrainian territory in the absence of water transport.  This non-competitive industry will therefore continue to shrink severely, and that which remains will be profit squeezed. The subsidies from the west will not continue. Right now, if Ukraine wasn't being propped up, it would collapse. That isn't going to get better. If you were a young person that wanted to live in a modern, prosperous European state would you stay there?

Quote:Ukrainian GDP per capita could drop by ~40% from present levels and they'd be in the same league as countries like India, Bolivia, the Phillipines. Not wealthy countries but certainly viable states.

Bolivia is perhaps the best comparison. The big differences from Ukraine are as follows: First of all, India has population of 1.429 billion people. The Philippines has a population of 117.3 million. They both therefore have a large domestic market that can consume lots of what they produce. India does export some agricultural products, but the vast majority is sold domestically. India's major exports are Refined Petroleum ($86.2B), Diamonds ($25.9B), Packaged Medicaments ($19.5B), Jewellery ($12.6B), and Rice ($11.1B), exporting mostly to United States ($82.9B), United Arab Emirates ($31.6B), Netherlands ($17.6B), China ($15.3B), and Bangladesh ($13.8B). The Philippines exports semiconductors and electronic products, transport equipment, garments, chemical products, copper, nickel, abaca, coconut oil, and fruits. Again, diversified. Many of the items, such as semiconductors diamonds, pharmaceuticals, and jewellery are high value relative to weight/volume, unlike commodities. Transportation costs don't matter nearly as much. This allows trade world-wide without much regard for distance.

In 2021 (before the war) Ukraine's top exports were led by Corn ($6.02B), Seed Oils ($5.54B), Wheat ($3.27B), Iron Ore ($2.97B), and Rapeseed ($1.55B). The iron ore has undoubtedly gone down significantly, because a lot of it was from Donbas. Notice the critical difference. ALL of the major Ukrainian export products are commodities and ALL are "bulk" items with high transportation costs relative to value. If Ukraine could use its south eastern transport network it would mitigate these transportation costs considerably. Lots of it could move by barge, which now it cannot. Unfortunately that is all in Russian hands.

The second critical difference, which also applies to Bolivia, is that these nations are all free to trade with their neighbors through all their borders. Presumably the rump Ukraine will not trade with Russia, which controls its eastern and a lot of Ukraine's southern border. Belarus will soon be officially part of Russia, so the northern border will also be closed. Russia has no need of Ukraine's agricultural products, but when Ukraine was part of the Soviet Union almost all of the Donbas trade was with Russia. The Donbas was critical to the Soviet Union. Russia is Ukraines "natural" trade partner. Ukraine's transportation network was constructed with Russia as the prime destination. Since Russia has now seized lots of that network, Ukraine is at a double disadvantage.  Russia is no longer a trade partner and the transportation network is compromised by Russia holding important parts of it.

So, without doubt these two nations are in significantly different (and much better) economic situations than a "rump" Ukraine will be. These nations also have a "way ahead" that distances them from the dependence on commodity prices that bedevils nations that have not diversified their exports. People living in these countries can reasonably expect a brighter future. The rump Ukraine will not have that option, at least in the foreseeable future.

Bolivia is indeed a poor nation. Their main exports are Petroleum Gas ($3.08B), Gold ($3.01B), Zinc Ore ($1.68B), Soybean Meal ($1.03B), and Soybean Oil ($874M). The most common destination for the exports of Bolivia are India ($2.27B), Brazil ($1.89B), Argentina ($1.76B), Colombia ($1.06B), and Japan ($963M). Bolivia is landlocked. It has a "guaranteed" rail connection to the Chilean port of Arica. Whether Bolivia is a "viable" nation is a bit in doubt these days. The thing "saving" Bolivia was the natural gas pipeline to Brazil and then on to Argentina. The vast majority of Bolivia's gas exports go that way. Pipeline is a fairly cheap way to "ship" natural gas. The problem is this: https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/bolivias-gas-exports-argentina-ended-september-state-run-firm-confirms-2024-09-25/ That will put a big dent in exports. Consider https://www.firstpost.com/world/what-south-america-must-learn-from-bolivia-and-venezuelas-economic-crises-13839741.html

Quote:Economic turmoil has been compounded by political instability. President Luis Arce, struggling to stabilise the economy, faces growing resistance from both opposition forces and factions within his own party. The internal rift with former president Evo Morales has created a political deadlock, stalling necessary reforms. Meanwhile, social unrest grows as inflation rises and essential goods become scarce, eroding public confidence in the government’s ability to manage the crisis.

Natural gas exports are cratering. The country is also in political gridlock. Fuel is unobtainable. The thing that argues Bolivia will continue as a nation is that the land will physically still exits, its indigenous population has nowhere to go and that both Peru and Chile took everything they wanted from Bolivia already. Bolivia has important natural resources. Due to the mountainous nature of most of the country exploiting and exporting these resources are very difficult. When the price of the commodities it exports at the moment is high enough, it will simply be very poor. When the price goes down, who knows? Is this a "viable" state?

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - dabigv13 - 11-30-2024

Yes, I'd say most people would recognize Bolivia as a viable state. And remember, this is supposing Ukraine's GDP falls almost by half from its current wartime economy. Is that possible, maybe but it would be extreme. All of the problems you cite for a rump Ukraine currently exist, and they are fighting an existential war!

Ukraine retains ~80% of their prewar territory. If they get appropriate security guarantees in a ceasefire deal and Russia remains too weak to restart the war in the near term, they will survive as a state. Those are big ifs, but nothing in your posts have convinced me at least that Ukraine won't remain a sovereign nation even in some supposed rump state.

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - Goose - 11-30-2024

(11-30-2024, 01:26 AM)BostonCard Wrote:  Even if Ukraine could recover that territory, how much of that industry could be restarted?  Like, is the steel plant in Mariupol going to even be operational?  And if it could be restarted, will Ukraine have the population to run it?  The pre-war population of Mariupol was about 425,000; it is currently about 120,000.  I presume that the what’s left is mostly retirees; it is doubtful that many working age men are going to be there as they would have fought the Russians, been shipped to camps, or forced to fight for the Russians.

The Azovstal steel plant in Mariupol will not be "restarted". The plant used blast furnaces built during Soviet times. There are six of them. The plant was producing 4.3 million tons per year in 2021. The "capacity" was 9+ million tons per year, but it hasn't operated anywhere near that for many years. As https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Azovstal_Iron_and_Steel_Works says, its equipment is "totally obsolete", as are most properties of the Metinvest group. In 2011 Azovstal decommissioned its open-hearth plant. In December 2012, Metinvest decided to close the sinter plant at Azovstal.  In short, it isn't coming back. Metinvest does have other properties in Ukraine that are still inside Ukrainian territory, i.e. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zaporizhstal. This plant is also hopelessly obsolete but still capable of operation. It is of interest to note that in https://www.reuters.com/markets/commodities/ukraines-top-steelmaker-sees-steady-production-no-need-debt-restructure-2023-07-05/ Metinvest states

Quote:Transporting steel from its other plants overland to ports elsewhere remains too expensive to be viable.

Sound familiar? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metinvest is also worth a look. It gives some perspective on the residual "smokestack" industry in Ukraine.

As far as replacing the 10,500 employees that worked at the Azovstal plant, that would be no problem. Even if all 300,000 people who fled the city wouldn't return, finding enough to run that plant would be easily possible. It is moot, because the plant isn't worth the cost of repair. However, before the war this and other plants did contribute significant steel and iron exports to Ukraine's "bottom line". That won't happen any more. Even the ones that still operate need close sea transport to make a profit. Steel is heavy. Rail is 4 times as costly per ton/mile. Simple really. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metal_production_in_Ukraine is also very informative, particularly regarding the problems with coal mining in Ukraine and the high cost of iron ore extraction.

Quote:Given that a war is being fought in the territory, there will be tons (literally) of unexploded ordinance and mines pretty much everywhere.  My guess is that the loss of capital and labor in the region is staggering, so if Ukraine is not a viable country without those regions, then it would not be a viable country for many years even with the territory.  At this point, it would mostly serve as a buffer between what’s left of Ukraine and Russia.

BC

The mines exist mostly in areas where Russia conducted defensive operations. The areas on the south east cost of Ukraine were never actually fought over in most cases and the damage is fairly localized. The railroad through Mariupol to Crimea is in better shape than ever before. The Russian have installed new bridges and double tracked it in places to increase its freight capacity. The port of Mariupol has been fully open and operational since July, 2022. The port of Berdiansk is also fully operational. The M14 highway is fully open. The people remaining in these areas are living somewhat normal lives, if you don't mind being occupied by Russians. The important point is that these transportation capabilities are perfectly functional right now, today. Utilizing them would enable the rest of the Ukraine to export its products at low enough costs that they could be economically viable. Without them they cannot.

It is true that the capital loss in the destroyed areas of Donbas is staggering. If there is any silver lining it is that lots of it, like the Azovstal plant itself, was tremendously obsolete. It was only operating because "it was there" and probably wouldn't be much longer even if there were no war. In any European country it would not be operating. Too dirty and too inefficient. However, IMO it is important not to overreact.

Ukraine was a signatory to the Ottawa accords. Russia was not. Ukraine has not made much use of anti-personnel mines because the ones they had were supposed to be destroyed and were not safe to use. If Ukraine had such mines Russia's "meat attacks" would be even more disastrous than they already are. When one looks at things like https://www.osw.waw.pl/en/publikacje/osw-commentary/2023-11-22/ukraine-worlds-biggest-minefield the situation initially sounds dire. However, when you go through the article you find the dire predictions are not supported by ground truth. From the article

Quote:According to estimates by the State Emergency Service of Ukraine, from the beginning of the full-scale war until 23 October 2023 261 individuals have been killed and 559 wounded by mines and other explosive devices. The number of victims includes 68 children, out of which 14 have died.

Bad, but hardly dire. Regarding civilian deaths from cluster munitions

Quote:In 2022 alone, 916 individuals were killed by this type of weapon, including 890 who have died in an immediate attack using cluster munitions and 26 due to their contact with unexploded cluster shells.

OK, 890 civilians were killed by attacks using cluster munitions. Pretty likely that any civilians caught in any kind of artillery barrage will suffer mass casualties. 26 died due to their contact with unexploded cluster shells. For the 26 individuals, the effects were dire, but for Ukraine as a whole it isn't even round-off error. Other nations, like almost every nation participating in WW I have had massive ordinance clearance requirements. In the WW II battle of Kursk Red Army combat engineers laid 503,993 anti-tank mines and 439,348 anti-personnel mines. People live on that battlefield today. It is being fought over yet again. I am sure the Russians laid more mines, but not that many! The problem has been solved in the past and can be in the future. Ukraine may have to put up fences around some of the more elaborate Russian minefields built in the south to protect the Russian fortifications. They can clear them slowly over time.

In the meantime, Ukraine could use that which isn't mined and isn't destroyed to export Ukrainian goods! THAT is the immediate value of these occupied territories. They do have other value in terms of resources for the future, but right now it is ACCESS to the sea that matters most.

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - GK3 - 12-02-2024

(11-30-2024, 06:33 PM)Goose Wrote:  

(11-30-2024, 01:26 AM)BostonCard Wrote:  Even if Ukraine could recover that territory, how much of that industry could be restarted?  Like, is the steel plant in Mariupol going to even be operational?  And if it could be restarted, will Ukraine have the population to run it?  The pre-war population of Mariupol was about 425,000; it is currently about 120,000.  I presume that the what’s left is mostly retirees; it is doubtful that many working age men are going to be there as they would have fought the Russians, been shipped to camps, or forced to fight for the Russians.

The Azovstal steel plant in Mariupol will not be "restarted". The plant used blast furnaces built during Soviet times. There are six of them. The plant was producing 4.3 million tons per year in 2021. The "capacity" was 9+ million tons per year, but it hasn't operated anywhere near that for many years. As https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Azovstal_Iron_and_Steel_Works says, its equipment is "totally obsolete", as are most properties of the Metinvest group. In 2011 Azovstal decommissioned its open-hearth plant. In December 2012, Metinvest decided to close the sinter plant at Azovstal.  In short, it isn't coming back. Metinvest does have other properties in Ukraine that are still inside Ukrainian territory, i.e. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zaporizhstal. This plant is also hopelessly obsolete but still capable of operation. It is of interest to note that in https://www.reuters.com/markets/commodities/ukraines-top-steelmaker-sees-steady-production-no-need-debt-restructure-2023-07-05/ Metinvest states

Quote:Transporting steel from its other plants overland to ports elsewhere remains too expensive to be viable.

Sound familiar? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metinvest is also worth a look. It gives some perspective on the residual "smokestack" industry in Ukraine.

As far as replacing the 10,500 employees that worked at the Azovstal plant, that would be no problem. Even if all 300,000 people who fled the city wouldn't return, finding enough to run that plant would be easily possible. It is moot, because the plant isn't worth the cost of repair. However, before the war this and other plants did contribute significant steel and iron exports to Ukraine's "bottom line". That won't happen any more. Even the ones that still operate need close sea transport to make a profit. Steel is heavy. Rail is 4 times as costly per ton/mile. Simple really. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metal_production_in_Ukraine is also very informative, particularly regarding the problems with coal mining in Ukraine and the high cost of iron ore extraction.

Quote:Given that a war is being fought in the territory, there will be tons (literally) of unexploded ordinance and mines pretty much everywhere.  My guess is that the loss of capital and labor in the region is staggering, so if Ukraine is not a viable country without those regions, then it would not be a viable country for many years even with the territory.  At this point, it would mostly serve as a buffer between what’s left of Ukraine and Russia.

BC

The mines exist mostly in areas where Russia conducted defensive operations. The areas on the south east cost of Ukraine were never actually fought over in most cases and the damage is fairly localized. The railroad through Mariupol to Crimea is in better shape than ever before. The Russian have installed new bridges and double tracked it in places to increase its freight capacity. The port of Mariupol has been fully open and operational since July, 2022. The port of Berdiansk is also fully operational. The M14 highway is fully open. The people remaining in these areas are living somewhat normal lives, if you don't mind being occupied by Russians. The important point is that these transportation capabilities are perfectly functional right now, today. Utilizing them would enable the rest of the Ukraine to export its products at low enough costs that they could be economically viable. Without them they cannot.

It is true that the capital loss in the destroyed areas of Donbas is staggering. If there is any silver lining it is that lots of it, like the Azovstal plant itself, was tremendously obsolete. It was only operating because "it was there" and probably wouldn't be much longer even if there were no war. In any European country it would not be operating. Too dirty and too inefficient. However, IMO it is important not to overreact.

Ukraine was a signatory to the Ottawa accords. Russia was not. Ukraine has not made much use of anti-personnel mines because the ones they had were supposed to be destroyed and were not safe to use. If Ukraine had such mines Russia's "meat attacks" would be even more disastrous than they already are. When one looks at things like https://www.osw.waw.pl/en/publikacje/osw-commentary/2023-11-22/ukraine-worlds-biggest-minefield the situation initially sounds dire. However, when you go through the article you find the dire predictions are not supported by ground truth. From the article

Quote:According to estimates by the State Emergency Service of Ukraine, from the beginning of the full-scale war until 23 October 2023 261 individuals have been killed and 559 wounded by mines and other explosive devices. The number of victims includes 68 children, out of which 14 have died.

Bad, but hardly dire. Regarding civilian deaths from cluster munitions

Quote:In 2022 alone, 916 individuals were killed by this type of weapon, including 890 who have died in an immediate attack using cluster munitions and 26 due to their contact with unexploded cluster shells.

OK, 890 civilians were killed by attacks using cluster munitions. Pretty likely that any civilians caught in any kind of artillery barrage will suffer mass casualties. 26 died due to their contact with unexploded cluster shells. For the 26 individuals, the effects were dire, but for Ukraine as a whole it isn't even round-off error. Other nations, like almost every nation participating in WW I have had massive ordinance clearance requirements. In the WW II battle of Kursk Red Army combat engineers laid 503,993 anti-tank mines and 439,348 anti-personnel mines. People live on that battlefield today. It is being fought over yet again. I am sure the Russians laid more mines, but not that many! The problem has been solved in the past and can be in the future. Ukraine may have to put up fences around some of the more elaborate Russian minefields built in the south to protect the Russian fortifications. They can clear them slowly over time.

In the meantime, Ukraine could use that which isn't mined and isn't destroyed to export Ukrainian goods! THAT is the immediate value of these occupied territories. They do have other value in terms of resources for the future, but right now it is ACCESS to the sea that matters most.

The economic situation in Russia remains a question of serious interest.  The following article covers a lot of the major points and reminds me of the old adage, "Figures don't lie, but Liars figure"
https://warontherocks.com/2024/09/russia-is-on-a-slow-path-to-bankruptcy-but-how-slow/

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - BostonCard - 12-05-2024

(11-29-2024, 09:30 AM)dabigv13 Wrote:  Rebel forces have been seen in the center of Aleppo. The whole city likely to fall by tonight, with reports of large pockets of Syrian forces caught behind rebel lines and negotiating to surrender. Rebel forces on videos with captured tanks, MANPADS, and lots of other formerly Russian goodies.

Regime aligned sources have remarked on "foreign" fighters with the rebels. This can probably be read as Ukrainian intelligence. Syrian forces have attempted counter attacks, but rebel FPV drones have been very disruptive in their rear to these efforts at counterattack and reinforcement.

With Assad's Russian and Iranian supporters preoccupied, Syrian regime forces seem unable to stem this attack. Where they have fought they have lost, and otherwise they have been retreating. Russian air support seems very limited at the moment, not seeming to make any tactical attacks at the front line but a few terror attacks on civilians in rebel held areas.

https://www.wsj.com/world/middle-east/syrian-rebels-say-they-have-entered-key-city-of-hama-94df648b?st=7qZhGr&reflink=article_copyURL_share

Homs looks to be next.  I would feel much more positive about this if the rebel leader weren’t previously in Al Qaida and ISIS.  There’s word that Russia had started to get more involved, but there’s probably a limit to that given matters elsewhere.  Hezbollah, too, has been an Assad supporter, but not sure how much of an organized fighting force can be mustered at the moment.  Iran, too, has issues, with the IRGC commander in Syria killed by an Israeli airstrike.

BC

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - dabigv13 - 12-05-2024

https://www.wsj.com/world/middle-east/who-is-syrian-rebel-leader-hts-jawlani-9b157eff

Not sure if I posted this yet. Profile on Jawlani.

Quote:Born Ahmed Hussein al-Sharaa, he adopted the nom de guerre of Jawlani, a reference to his family’s roots in the Golan Heights that Israel seized from Syria in 1967. The militant leader broke with Islamic State in 2012. He cut ties with al Qaeda in 2016, and since then he has fought both organizations in bloody campaigns. 

In doing so, he steered the HTS away from the transnational jihadist movement that is more interested in waging war on America and the West—and that sees national borders in the Muslim world as an artificial construct imposed by the infidel colonialists.

“His and his group’s break with Islamic State and al Qaeda is very genuine. They haven’t been part of these entities longer than they were with them, and it’s now been essentially 8½ years that they have forsworn global jihad,” said Aaron Zelin, senior fellow at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy and author of a recent book on HTS.

Instead, Jawlani has turned HTS—which has run a statelet of its own in Syria’s northern Idlib province since 2015—into a well-disciplined force that focuses squarely on Syria, a blend of Islamism and nationalism that is closer to Afghanistan’s Taliban and the Palestinian Hamas. Instead of the banner of Islam, HTS troops choose to fight under the Syrian flag that dates back to the republic that existed before the 1963 Baath Party revolution that eventually brought the Assad family to power.

They seem to so far be living up to their promise of tolerance, though early days. The more firmly Turkish backed SNA seems to be making trouble with the Kurds however.

All of these guys are better than Assad. It might be wise for the US to more forcefully support the rebels with air strikes against certain Assadist targets. It looks like the rebels will win, wouldn't hurt to have some influence there. But reticence to more deeply involve ourselves in a middle east conflict is understandable given our history.

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - Goose - 12-05-2024

(12-05-2024, 12:19 PM)dabigv13 Wrote:  All of these guys are better than Assad.

IMO it is far too early to conclude that. It also probably depends on "better" for who? Better for the US, better for Russia, better for the Syrian people as a whole, better for the Kurds etc. It is also quite possible that the various rebel groups cannot form a government at all and the fighting continues, with the Assad group led by some opportunistic Bathist.

Quote:It might be wise for the US to more forcefully support the rebels with air strikes against certain Assadist targets. It looks like the rebels will win, wouldn't hurt to have some influence there. But reticence to more deeply involve ourselves in a middle east conflict is understandable given our history.

I will believe the rebels are going to win when and only when I hear "real" reports of the Russians evacuating Tartus. There were reports of ships leaving that port that were interpreted as a Russian evacuation. https://www.navalnews.com/naval-news/2024/12/first-sign-russian-navy-evacuating-naval-vessels-from-tartus-syria/ We now know those ships participated in a major Russian naval exercise in the eastern Mediterranean sea. Russia somewhat regularly rotates ships from their home bases in the Baltic Fleet and the Northern Fleet. This is necessary because the Turks are enforcing the Montreux Convention and they can't use Novorossiysk. If Russia doesn't return these ships to Tartus or replace them with others, that means something. Until then, it isn't significant.

We have seen this movie before. Assad has been in serious trouble several times in this civil war. Russia has been able to save his skin, and may be able to do so again despite the problems it has elsewhere. It is also pretty probable that if the rebels close in on victory they start fighting each other. I am pretty sure the US wants no part of this civil war. I am sure we are talking to all sides. Realistically, helping any one of them won't buy any "goodwill". The Kurds know from hard experience that we will drop them like a hot potato when it suits us. All the parties involved have see that. They behave the same way themselves. "Nations do not have friends, only interests". If we want to overthrow Assad, we could do it. That has been true essentially forever. Obviously we don't, or we would have.

One big reason we haven't become involved in the Syrian civil wars is that the situation is just too volatile. Iraq has a serious interest in how and by whom Syria is governed. So does Turkey. So does Iran. So does Israel. It is unclear that the US has a real "vision" of what should happen. All of the other players listed above definitely have a vision of what must NOT happen, and they are all different. Iran at least has a vision of their preferred outcome as well. Given that we don't know what we want and that even if we did we would end up in direct conflict with several of the players, we are staying as far away as we can. IMO that is a good plan. Of course, if things get "bad enough" in Syria, we too may have a vision of what must NOT happen. Then, things may change.

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - Leftcoast - 12-05-2024

Quote:Given that we don't know what we want and that even if we did we would end up in direct conflict with several of the players, we are staying as far away as we can. IMO that is a good plan. Of course, if things get "bad enough" in Syria, we too may have a vision of what must NOT happen. Then, things may change.

What Goose said and in particular this last point.  Well put Mr Goose.  /JeffT

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - fullmetal - 12-05-2024

Agreed.  And also, what "we" want in December may change significantly once January rolls around and who "we" are changes.

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - dabigv13 - 12-05-2024

The only way Russia keeps their bases now is if they play nice with HTS. Assad lost Aleppo and Hama in less than a week; it's only a matter of time now for him.

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - Goose - 12-05-2024

(12-05-2024, 04:31 PM)dabigv13 Wrote:  The only way Russia keeps their bases now is if they play nice with HTS. Assad lost Aleppo and Hama in less than a week; it's only a matter of time now for him.

Maybe, maybe not. I don't know what the actual correlation of forces is. I am not sure anybody does. There are many cases of successful military advances reaching the limit of their supply lines and stalling. There are also quite a few cases of such advances being driven back as fast as they advanced. The latter is especially common when at least one "irregular" force is involved. Obviously Assad's regime is in a seriously bad position. The fact he is in Russia doesn't help. How many Iranian backed militia have entered Syria from Iraq? What will they do? Will they cooperate with HTS or do their own thing? Is Iran helping HTS, or is it helping Assad? Will the Iranian backed militias help Assad for Russia's sake or will they try to take over the country for themselves? If the latter, what will Israel do? Iraq is certainly more than a bit worried about all this. Could get real messy.

From the US point of view, HTS cooperating with Russia could be much more disruptive than Assad doing so. Assad was just trying to hang on. HTS might have more ambitious plans after a victory over Assad's forces and a "treaty" with Russia.

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - dabigv13 - 12-05-2024

https://x.com/markito0171/status/1864919639127466095

HTS is in Talbiseh now, just north of Homs on the main M5 freeway from Hama (and then to Damascus). Assad's forces blowing the bridge in Al-Rastan, supposedly with a Russian airstrike, not seeming to slow things down. If Homs falls, then the Russian air and naval bases in western Syria will be cutoff.

The regime had already sent some of their best forces to counterattack in Hama, and they lasted for a couple days before retreating. Things continue to rapidly deteriorate for Assad.

Also FYI he is back in Damascus from Russia for several days now. I read something that his family is still in Russia, but unsure how reliable that is.

Edit:

They are basically in the northern part of Homs now! Sometimes it really is as easy as driving down the freeway to the capital!

https://x.com/markito0171/status/1864931691380310252

Assad is so toast. Maybe if HTS can find the YouTube video that tells them how to operate all the Russian AD kit they've captured, they can knock out Assad's plane as he flees.

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - dabigv13 - 12-06-2024

https://x.com/mintelworld/status/1865082111058739365

Russia withdrawing from Kheimim airbase in western Syria to their naval base on the Mediterranean at Tartus. They see the writing on the wall. I'm not sure exactly what infantry assets Russia has on the ground but I don't think they have enough to mount any sort of sustained defense. I think they are going to be getting the hell out of dodge.

Regime forces seem to have lost most of southern Syria overnight as well. Iranian and Iraqi militias seem to be purposefully not getting involved. Endgame time now.

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - GK3 - 12-06-2024

(12-05-2024, 03:51 PM)Goose Wrote:  

(12-05-2024, 12:19 PM)dabigv13 Wrote:  All of these guys are better than Assad.

IMO it is far too early to conclude that. It also probably depends on "better" for who? Better for the US, better for Russia, better for the Syrian people as a whole, better for the Kurds etc. It is also quite possible that the various rebel groups cannot form a government at all and the fighting continues, with the Assad group led by some opportunistic Bathist.

Quote:It might be wise for the US to more forcefully support the rebels with air strikes against certain Assadist targets. It looks like the rebels will win, wouldn't hurt to have some influence there. But reticence to more deeply involve ourselves in a middle east conflict is understandable given our history.

I will believe the rebels are going to win when and only when I hear "real" reports of the Russians evacuating Tartus. There were reports of ships leaving that port that were interpreted as a Russian evacuation. https://www.navalnews.com/naval-news/2024/12/first-sign-russian-navy-evacuating-naval-vessels-from-tartus-syria/ We now know those ships participated in a major Russian naval exercise in the eastern Mediterranean sea. Russia somewhat regularly rotates ships from their home bases in the Baltic Fleet and the Northern Fleet. This is necessary because the Turks are enforcing the Montreux Convention and they can't use Novorossiysk. If Russia doesn't return these ships to Tartus or replace them with others, that means something. Until then, it isn't significant.

We have seen this movie before. Assad has been in serious trouble several times in this civil war. Russia has been able to save his skin, and may be able to do so again despite the problems it has elsewhere. It is also pretty probable that if the rebels close in on victory they start fighting each other. I am pretty sure the US wants no part of this civil war. I am sure we are talking to all sides. Realistically, helping any one of them won't buy any "goodwill". The Kurds know from hard experience that we will drop them like a hot potato when it suits us. All the parties involved have see that. They behave the same way themselves. "Nations do not have friends, only interests". If we want to overthrow Assad, we could do it. That has been true essentially forever. Obviously we don't, or we would have.

One big reason we haven't become involved in the Syrian civil wars is that the situation is just too volatile. Iraq has a serious interest in how and by whom Syria is governed. So does Turkey. So does Iran. So does Israel. It is unclear that the US has a real "vision" of what should happen. All of the other players listed above definitely have a vision of what must NOT happen, and they are all different. Iran at least has a vision of their preferred outcome as well. Given that we don't know what we want and that even if we did we would end up in direct conflict with several of the players, we are staying as far away as we can. IMO that is a good plan. Of course, if things get "bad enough" in Syria, we too may have a vision of what must NOT happen. Then, things may change.

When was the last time we had a visionary foreign policy?

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - Goose - 12-06-2024

(12-06-2024, 11:12 AM)dabigv13 Wrote:  https://x.com/mintelworld/status/1865082111058739365

Russia withdrawing from Kheimim airbase in western Syria to their naval base on the Mediterranean at Tartus. They see the writing on the wall. I'm not sure exactly what infantry assets Russia has on the ground but I don't think they have enough to mount any sort of sustained defense. I think they are going to be getting the hell out of dodge.

Regime forces seem to have lost most of southern Syria overnight as well. Iranian and Iraqi militias seem to be purposefully not getting involved. Endgame time now.

Withdrawing these air defense assets is indeed an indication the Russians fear for their security at the air base. The more important question is whether they are withdrawing their air assets from that base. Russia does not and never did have a large infantry/armor presence in Syria. Their current strength is much reduced from its peak. What Russia does have is aircraft capable of ground attack. If those aircraft are still in place, Russia hasn't given up yet and is still a formidable force. AFAIK, nobody is reporting that has happened yet.

Withdrawing all the aircraft (including some that are down for maintenance) on short notice is not an easy thing, especially if you do not have a plan in place to do it. One problem is that flying from Syria to any Russian air base isn't so easy. The only way to do it requires crossing Türkiye or Iraq. Both would be quite nervous about a bunch of Russia fighters crossing their airspace, or would pretend to be.  Türkiye for sure would extract something for granting permission. The MIG-31s in Syria would not be able to carry a weapons load in any case. They would need to be in a "ferry" configuration to cover the required distance. Russia would also have to withdraw all its support personnel from the air base. That won't be easy either.

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - dabigv13 - 12-06-2024

Losing Kheimim airbase would cripple Russia force projection to Africa.

https://x.com/JohnLechner1/status/1865104493282533445

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - martyup - 12-06-2024

I sure hope we don't have to change the title of this thread "Way OT: WWIII"

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - BostonCard - 12-06-2024

I mean, I don't either, but I'm not sure how the recent developments in Syria would lead to WWIII (though to be fair, one could wonder how the murder of the Autro-Hungarian Archduke Francis Ferdinand by a Serbian nationalist would lead to World War I), so you never know.

BC

---