Turkey siezes four Russian ships

[DJ...]

Cringe away, but you're still the pawn, not the Queen. And the pawn in this playbook has zero insight into the overall strategy and ultimate end goal. You're reading carefully released and timed propaganda by the players who are keeping their cards close to their chests.

And their public image is being carefully and selectively managed on both sides of the artificial battle lines they want you to draw. Unless something massive leaks, you're reading information because someone wants you to, because it aligns with their strategy or further solidifies the battle lines. You can argue with each other, or accept that in doing so and reverting to ad hominem, you're the equivalent of a digital foot soldier for the agency/nation responsible for the original PR release, which in all likelihood may not be the "side" you're more inclined to support...

Edit: I also see rationale in everything all nations/agencies have publicly stated on the matter, other than the Saudis and ISIS. USA got a headstart on energy control yonks ago, and Russia are playing some public and behind the scenes catch up using vulnerable organisations and nations as proxies or victims. It's still politics, but it's teetering on military engagement primarily. China is the benefactor either way but has political imperatives to see Russia maintain primary supply and economic benefit. Step back a bit. USA has built a good ME control by Israeli proxy and diplomatic ties but the Saudis simply cannot be trusted. Russians thought they were doing the same, but failed. This is the result of that. And there's no way any of us will publicly know for sure who the protagonist in each incident is. And remember that the protagonists are not just USA and Russia. Think more strategically, and remember that one allies with a nation for reciprocal benefit. Each gains something a little different from the other, and each has different incentives for certain action and inaction.

This is hardly as simple as Russia wanting control and doing so at all costs. It's also far more complex than the USA securing pricing control in ME or influence at least, and ensuring a stable local production price point, as well as culminating this all with a China supply drive. Each player is engaged in an "economic land grab" at the moment. It can be driven by diplomacy or military, or both. There is no such thing as an innocent "side" in this. It's simply the nature of the nonsense that is borders, reinforced by fervent ideologies and often antiquated thinking and strategies. If you think the USSR collapse was just accepted, you're mistaken. If you think the USA were willing to accept being economically dictated to on energy and other key balance sheet and currency drivers, you're mistaken. If you think the Saudis ever underestimated their control in this matter, and their ability to temporarily play puppeteer, you're mistaken. If you think China have been stock piling foreign currency for years to the point of major volatility and liquidity influence for the sake of it, you're mistaken. If you think there are smaller proxies and nations using this to their advantage, you're 100% correct, and that causes problems for the diplomacy route. If you think that stability in the Middle East was in USA, UK, France, Germany, Russia, or China's benefit, you're wrong. Destabilising the area is in everyone's long term benefit and furthers their cause, but handling the fallout (ISIS is proving more difficult than expected, although they're a common enemy). This is the culmination of decades of planning, strategy, and execution. None of you know which country benefits from diplomacy and which has crazier military objectives. And China hasn't even begun to play its hand yet, which could catalyse everything one way or another. So IMHO this constant back and forth playing digital foot soldiers, sourcing dodgy sources to backup your unrelenting point of view, without proper regard for the actual debate and reasoned opinions of those you're engaging with, is the mindset of an immature perspective on the matter. Take advantage of the tools at your disposal. Allow news and opinions to inform your intellectual collateral on the matter, and use your own filtering. Ignore traditional moron conspiracy sites like Icke and Jones, and research properly.

While it's never quite what it appears to be on the surface, it doesn't take all that much to identify source material and follow the abundance of history on this situation, which is actually more critical to the situation than current affairs, at least in terms of informing one's opinions and facts. It's not aliens, but it's almost certainly not what Fox, CNN, RT, Zerohedge, BBC, and other carefully selected media and opinion sites are trying to convince you it is. They're issuing propaganda for the man in the trailer likely to aggressively defend their position without question. They're not trying to win the intellectual over, as you're in the minority...

Quoted for the update...

 

[DJ...]

No, not really. The Russians are ahead in the energy game because this conflict is about energy supplies to Europe, which Russia has a stranglehold over. That's what Ukraine was really about, and that's also what the conflict in Syria is about. Qatar and Saudi Arabia's support of the Syrian rebels really took off in 2013 after Assad refused to agree to Qatar's proposal while citing loyalty to the Russian proposal instead.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qatar-Turkey_pipeline
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran-Iraq-Syria_pipeline

Iran is also making a major play to become the regional hegemon. Assad is pretty much their guy in Syria, and through Syria is how Iran manages to support Shiite Hezbollah (who just happen to be fighting alongside the Russians and Syrian government. Coincedence? Nah.) Iran is also backing the Houthis in Yemen which the Saudis are fighting directly. It should also be noted that Iran pretty much gets to dictate Iraqi politics these days, so I'm not really sure why you claim that the USA has built good ME control when clearly they've lost control of the situation entirely.

Where you're wrong is in claiming that Russia's primary mechanism of engagement is military. If you look carefully at the way they react to conflicts, military responses is always the last recourse. They much prefer to use economic soft power to get what they want; with Ukraine as an example, they played economic tit for tat with the EU right up until the point that the Americans orchestrated a coup. It was only when economics became meaningless that they resorted to other means to ensure their security needs and regional interests were met.

And frankly, so long as Europe is dependent on Russian energy is exactly how long it is impossible for the Americans to convince the Europeans to go to war with Russia. And that's a good thing for every person on the planet. As far as I'm concerned, there's no us vs. them in this regard. It's just me and everyone else who's in the same boat.

I think you've misunderstood me and made too many assumptions about my position. And isolated this to a very narrow viewpoint. Europe and Asia need energy supply stability to catalyse their economies on the upside. China will be the catalyst based on numerous factors, some related, and most unrelated to energy whatsoever. Europe is a key factor, but are largely allied on their strategies...

 

[Space_Chief]

And frankly, so long as Europe is dependent on Russian energy is exactly how long it is impossible for the Americans to convince the Europeans to go to war with Russia. And that's a good thing for every person on the planet. As far as I'm concerned, there's no us vs. them in this regard. It's just me and everyone else who's in the same boat.

That's not true. The Americans are not interested in war with Russia. As you say it would be a nuclear exchange which would be a loss for everyone regardless of whether Europe is more or less dependent on Russian gas.

 

[Xarog]

I think you've misunderstood me and made too many assumptions about my position. And isolated this to a very narrow viewpoint. Europe and Asia need energy supply stability to catalyse their economies on the upside. China will be the catalyst based on numerous factors, some related, and most unrelated to energy whatsoever. Europe is a key factor, but are largely allied on their strategies...

Actually, it was you who impugned my understanding of the situation, so I provided my analysis of it and also pointed out where my reading of things differs from yours.

And I suppose my reading of it along energy lines can be somewhat "narrow" but the bottom line is that if Assad had agreed to the Qatar/Turkey pipeline, Saudi Arabia would not have spent so much money trying to fund the Syrian rebellion because it would be in Saudi interests to make sure Assad stayed where he was. Thus the pipeline dispute places every single key player in their respective positions and does much to explain exactly why the battle-lines ended up being drawn up as they have.

The bigger picture remains the fact that if Europe moves out of American diplomatic orbit, the United States days as the world hegemon are gone. Russia's making a very calculated play for Europe as well as doing everything they can to undermine the Dollar's position as world reserve currency. The USA on the other hand is doing everything they can to undermine Russia's ability to do this.

 

[Jola]

And how should the Russians smell if these consequences are political, economic or military?

One minutes thought ?

Let's say I have a nasty, unpredictable and unstable neighbour, who is armed to the teeth, and walks around with a pistol on his hip.

He warns me that if my dog craps on his lawn again, there will be serious consequences.

Do I listen to his warnings ? Of course I do.

And, of course Putin knew about the F16's floating around, and the talk about a Turkish trap, etc, etc, etc.

You are again assuming that Putin is an idiot. I don't.

 

[Xarog]

One minutes thought ?

Let's say I have a nasty, unpredictable and unstable neighbour, who is armed to the teeth, and walks around with a pistol on his hip.

You forgot to add "shoots from the mouth".

He warns me that if my dog craps on his lawn again, there will be serious consequences.

Do I listen to his warnings ? Of course I do.

You are again assuming that Putin is an idiot. I don't.

Yes, I note again how you selectively quoted my response and ignored all the points you could not address as if they didn't exist. Especially the part where I said that your argument that Putin must be an idiot if he didn't foresee what was coming is a load of crap.

 

[Xarog]

That's not true. The Americans are not interested in war with Russia. As you say it would be a nuclear exchange which would be a loss for everyone regardless of whether Europe is more or less dependent on Russian gas.

It's not about The Americans being interested in a war with Russia; It's about the Americans being able to use the Europeans as a sacrificial pawn against the Russians. They can't bully the Europeans to go along with a plan that may well provoke a war with Russia, because Russia can simply turn off the gas valve. But without this the Americans can afford to be far more belligerent, and that may well escalate into an armed conflict even though it's something nobody really wants.

 

[Jola]

Especially the part where I said that your argument that Putin must be an idiot if he didn't foresee what was coming is a load of crap.

But I did repeat that and I will do it again.

IMO Putin did know what was coming and played the Turks. If indeed he did not know what was coming then he is an idiot.

 

[Space_Chief]

It's not about The Americans being interested in a war with Russia; It's about the Americans being able to use the Europeans as a sacrificial pawn against the Russians. They can't bully the Europeans to go along with a plan that may well provoke a war with Russia, because Europe does not want a potentially nuclear war or any war for that matter and Russia is too strong regardless. But without this the Americans can afford to be far more belligerent, and that may well escalate into an armed conflict even though it's something nobody really wants.

I made my correction above, in bold.

The energy dependency is not something Russia can use too much either. One can't eat gas or oil. If Europe has to, it can source oil and gas elsewhere and turn to coal and nuclear power. It would be costly but it would be something ahead of any armed confrontation with Russia. Russia has always been paranoid about this yet somehow they are usually the ones who manage to invade first.

The second factor is China. China does not want conflict in Europe as Europe is a bigger market for them then Russia. Thank God maybe we can count on China to bring some stability.

China will dominate Russia regardless and it will be Beijing giving Putin orders soon enough, if it's not already happening. Thing is that Chinese are not naturally imperialistic like Caucasians.

 

[Xarog]

But I did repeat that and I will do it again.

IMO Putin did know what was coming and played the Turks. If indeed he did not know what was coming then he is an idiot.

Yes, I know well what your opinion is, but I also think your opinion is of little value.

So once again, your opinion about his idiocy is not accepted, and now that I've explained fully why your reasoning is full of holes, you can appreciate why I'm justified in calling your previous claims that he's either a mastermind or an idiot to be a false dilemma. And it will remain justified until you reasonably address the objections I raised instead of trying to sweep them under the carpet like everything you find inconvenient.

 

[Space_Chief]

European - US ties will not go away unless something major happens in US. For one Central Europeans will prefer US protection and there are expat communities in the US. Western Europeans such as French and British have close cultural ties to US. That basically leaves Germany which is stuck between siding with Russia and USA. The Germans tend to be resentful of the Americans.

 

[Jola]

And it will remain justified until you reasonably address the objections I raised instead of trying to sweep them under the carpet like everything you find inconvenient.

Can't recall any objections that were of any value ? Of course I would ignore the trite stuff.

 

[Xarog]

I made my correction above, in bold.

The energy dependency is not something Russia can use too much either. One can't eat gas or oil. If Europe has to, it can source oil and gas elsewhere and turn to coal and nuclear power. It would be costly but it would be something ahead of any armed confrontation with Russia. Russia has always been paranoid about this yet somehow they are usually the ones who manage to invade first.

The second factor is China. China does not want conflict in Europe as Europe is a bigger market for them then Russia. Thank God maybe we can count on China to bring some stability.

China will dominate Russia regardless and it will be Beijing giving Putin orders soon enough, if it's not already happening. Thing is that Chinese are not naturally imperialistic like Caucasians.

Of course Europe doesn't want a war with Russia. They didn't want the whole situation in Ukraine to go the way it did either, but the USA went in like they always do and forced the issue. Now both sides (Europe/Russia) have applied sanctions which niether side wants, and yet both sides are politically stuck with the decisions that niether truly want. And that's precisely the point; so long as Russia and Europe are economically dependent upon each other, it makes open warfare infeasable. If they're separated, then political escalations don't have any economic calculus to them and the situation becomes much more dangerous.

 

[Xarog]

Can't recall any objections that were of any value ? Of course I would ignore the trite stuff.

Their value is that they prove you're committing the false dilemma fallacy.

 

[Space_Chief]

Of course Europe doesn't want a war with Russia. They didn't want the whole situation in Ukraine to go the way it did either, but the USA went in like they always do and forced the issue. Now both sides (Europe/Russia) have applied sanctions which niether side wants, and yet both sides are politically stuck with the decisions that niether truly want. And that's precisely the point; so long as Russia and Europe are economically dependent upon each other, it makes open warfare infeasable. If they're separated, then political escalations don't have any economic calculus to them and the situation becomes much more dangerous.

Not it does not. Again nobody is crazy to fight a war over parts of Ukraine with Russia. Not Europe. Not Russia. Not USA.

That's why Xarog the Poles (and Baltics) want US presence on the ground on a permanent basis. NATO guarantees are nice but not too believable. Russia will ultimately relent to this. This will happen sooner or later.

 

[Xarog]

Not it does not. Again nobody is crazy to fight a war over parts of Ukraine with Russia. Not Europe. Not Russia. Not USA.

Yeah, where did I say they'd fight a war over Ukraine? I said that The United States is doing everything it can to undermine Russian influence in Europe. That means escalating tensions wherever they feel its feasable.

That's why Xarog the Poles (and Baltics) want US presence on the ground on a permanent basis. NATO guarantees are nice but not too believable. Russia will ultimately relent to this. This will happen sooner or later.

Nice straw man.

 

[Space_Chief]

Yeah, where did I say they'd fight a war over Ukraine? I said that The United States is doing everything it can to undermine Russian influence in Europe. That means escalating tensions wherever they feel its feasable.

And that's precisely the point; so long as Russia and Europe are economically dependent upon each other, it makes open warfare infeasable.

What open warfare were you speaking about then?

Nice straw man.

Call it what you will. As an European I'm educating you a little about Europe. Learn from me or just read ZeroHedge and RT. You're the sort of guy who likes to ignore ethnic and historical tensions which is not good.

 

[Xarog]

What open warfare were you speaking about then?

Again, economic integration means that warfare is not a reasonable option because it amounts to economic suicide for both parties regardless. That reality serves as a safety valve to prevent political escalations from provoking a war that nobody wants because the economic neccessities always serve as a good rationale for the politicians to de-escalate the conflict.

Just consider how different the Russia/Turkey interaction would have been if there was no economic co-operation between them. Instead of being able to harass the Turkish delivery vehicles at the border and announce travel visa restrictions etc., Putin would have had to have acted very differently in order to save face and show that Russia wasn't going to take what happened sitting down.

Call it what you will. As an European I'm educating you a little about Europe. Learn from me or just read ZeroHedge and RT. You're the sort of guy who likes to ignore ethnic and historical tensions which is not good.

Historical and ethnic tensions do not rule the minds of politicians. Even obvious fearmongers like Netanyahu still have to think practically at the end of the day. Unless a real racist comes into power, ethnic and historical tensions will take a backseat to realpolitik because politicians are ultimately greedy and self-interested and that tends to make them pragmatic. The ease with which sworn enemies enter into political alliances when it is expedient should serve as an obvious sign to you that these kinds of schisms are very fungible.

 

[DJ...]

Actually, it was you who impugned my understanding of the situation, so I provided my analysis of it and also pointed out where my reading of things differs from yours.

And I suppose my reading of it along energy lines can be somewhat "narrow" but the bottom line is that if Assad had agreed to the Qatar/Turkey pipeline, Saudi Arabia would not have spent so much money trying to fund the Syrian rebellion because it would be in Saudi interests to make sure Assad stayed where he was. Thus the pipeline dispute places every single key player in their respective positions and does much to explain exactly why the battle-lines ended up being drawn up as they have.

The bigger picture remains the fact that if Europe moves out of American diplomatic orbit, the United States days as the world hegemon are gone. Russia's making a very calculated play for Europe as well as doing everything they can to undermine the Dollar's position as world reserve currency. The USA on the other hand is doing everything they can to undermine Russia's ability to do this.

I appreciate your opinions and have always found them to be informed and interesting. I do tend to read a slight negative bias to the USA which I don't share, but I equally don't share the negative Russian sentiment that others display here. You have a firmer grasp of the economic angle than most on here, which fundamentally dictates things other than ideology and ego. The reality however is that the Russians are playing a good strategy but I am not convinced that their economy can back it up, and they certainly don't hold the foreign currency reserves to see it through alone. Their strategy relies heavily on securing major European allies which I simply don't see happening. Saudis are playing the slow and safe game. China however is the key here and unfortunately relations between China, USA, and Russia are all strained and in all directions. Whoever secures the big two here will win big, and considering the natural hedge and ease of credit market access China has enjoyed with the USA, and the massive board level insurance and banking relations vs Russia I see them coming out trumps here too. And really I've got no dog in this fight. This is my honest, neutral perspective on the matter. Russia are playing a very risky and very aggressive game, and considering this, have very good reason to consider military solutions as a last resort, however if it's used as a last resort they'll find no support from primary military players unless they strategically lambaste and technologically surprise. They're playing this game from the back foot, which is not to say that they have no chance, and much can change to benefit their positions, but the cards are are stacked against them at the moment, and their military thumping of their chest and antagonistic attitude exposes these cracks a bit...

 

[DJ...]

Yeah, where did I say they'd fight a war over Ukraine? I said that The United States is doing everything it can to undermine Russian influence in Europe. That means escalating tensions wherever they feel its feasable.


Nice straw man.

Correction : it's not the USA alone. This is the problem with the debate. The battle lines are drawn as if nobody is involved other than Russia and USA. The USA is one of many involved in strategic and political plays that are in direct opposition to Russia...