[-] kittin@hexbear.net 3 points 2 weeks ago

FOLKS I DID IT

Well I did a rowing machine set. I inquired about a day pass to evaluate the gym and they let me in for a day for free.

[-] kittin@hexbear.net 3 points 4 weeks ago* (last edited 4 weeks ago)

Well I disagree with you about the ports but you didn’t introduce anything new re their importance so I’ll leave that to one side for a moment.

A strategy of area denial also argues in favor of Russia seeking to balance of power against US and Israeli factions which leaves a deal with Jihadis and Turkey against the Kurds and Israel.

There’s no chance of a Ba’athist come back so either Russia cedes the zone or picks a side.

So along with the immensely strategic port, that makes two strong reasons why Russia will make a deal with the jihadis and align with Turkey.

[-] kittin@hexbear.net 4 points 4 weeks ago* (last edited 4 weeks ago)

They didn’t do it because of their moral goodness and belief in the magic of friendship.

It was about the naval base the entire time & the history of Syria doesn’t exactly read “no refugee crisis” so your belief structure here is wild.

What did Assad have to offer Russia? One thing only, and it was a big thing worth 14 years of war for.

“Warm water port crap” actually ports matter they really do. They really really do. Guam isn’t a holiday destination for the US and the Falklands aren’t valued for their sheep. The importance of Okinawa isn’t sushi nor tuna.

[-] kittin@hexbear.net 3 points 4 weeks ago* (last edited 4 weeks ago)

Russia spent 14 years providing Assad with a backbone which cost a pretty penny. Russia obviously cares about this naval base.

Fucking 200 years of conflict have been fought over warm water ports for Russia in the Black Sea and Mediterranean what the fuck do you mean “no big deal”?

Empires have been lost over the Suez Canal, this is a very strategic position for Russia. British went to war over the damn Falkland’s your damn right Russia will make a deal with these jihadis if that’s what it takes.

[-] kittin@hexbear.net 4 points 4 weeks ago

When has the US ever seen a proxy conflict it didn’t want to engage in?

Yes the US is overstretched but the calculus isn’t affected since this conflict will stretch Russia too and kept Erdogan tied down, and also force a true break in Russia-Israeli relations which are still fairly good considering Israel is allied with the US.

Plus it’s the oil. That’s why the Middle East matters. The Kurdish zone and the bit near Jordan are where the oil is. They won’t let Turkey just take that.

Further, destabilization is an objective unto itself. If the region is destabilized they can divide and conquer, assert themselves as an “intermediary” to protect their interests, and prevent a regional power bloc from forming that is contrary to their interests.

The endgame wasn’t Assad. They didn’t care about Assad except insofar as he was in the way. The USA being anti- or pro- Assad was only ever a question of context.

[-] kittin@hexbear.net 3 points 1 month ago

You’re no doubt correct about that but it’s one thing to have a plan it’s another thing to have the logistics train in place

[-] kittin@hexbear.net 3 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

The UN is (more-or-less) the diplomatic arm of American hegemony,

I wouldn’t agree with this.

The UN reflected US hegemony since the UN reflects real world alignments and the strongest nation can push their interests more strongly but I don’t think it’s inherent in the structure of the UN, aside from the fact there’s no mechanism to replace Britain and France with India and Brazil on the SC.

The UN seems well designed to me in the sense its structure is mostly unopinionated about the structure of the world order, aside from the SC which is still mostly correct anyway.

The only real design flaw is that the security council was set in stone at the end of WW2, but they were smart enough to include china even if dumb enough to include France, - and France and the UK having a veto isn’t that big a deal since that’s simply giving the US 3 vetoes when 1 was enough to begin with so not a biggie.

[-] kittin@hexbear.net 3 points 1 month ago
[-] kittin@hexbear.net 3 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)
[-] kittin@hexbear.net 4 points 4 months ago

It’s a bear(y) market

[-] kittin@hexbear.net 3 points 4 months ago

Jamming isn’t an on or off thing. Like when you watch the videos you see garbled frames or dropped frames and periods of clarity. This makes it harder to steer but you can still generally point it towards the target.

If the EW is pretty good that might result in a fly-by, eg essentially equivalent to reduced accuracy rather than an kill-switch.

view more: ‹ prev next ›

kittin

joined 5 months ago