All things New Cold War

Blackflag: Indeed.

Blackflag: Also, I'm not saying that Russia is the good guy here or anything, I'm simply saying Russia is the lesser of two evils.

Bolshevik-: I am not intrested in scaling the US and Russia. I think the US committed to more "Bad" actions during the Cold War, always with the justification of containing communism, but there were a few decisions which I agree with. Even though Russia was less active military and intelligence wise, they were not quiet like the US about spreading their sphere of influence.

Basically it was a two sided powergrab, and public image is irrelevant since both nations had the same endgame.

So doods its time to revive this thread...
Russia is supporting the Assad regime by doing air strikes which *it claims* targets ISIL but in reality it targets both the ISIL and the FSA. Basically all the enemies of Assad's regime. If NATO does air strikes against Assad, then they'll now have to deal with Russian fighter jets.
My proposal is that the U.S. and NATO agree to work together in targeting the ISIL and to a mutual non-intervention in the conflict besides attacking the ISIL and providing humanitarian aid.
To force Russia to the bargaining table the U.S. should perhaps begin very large scale bombings of Assad's forces. If Russia fires on an F-16 then the U.S. should create a no-fly zone for the Russians in Syria (Russian jets would have to deal with F-22s).

Dassault Papillon: My proposal is that the U.S. and NATO
The US is apart of NATO JSSYK

To force Russia to the bargaining table the U.S. should perhaps begin very large scale bombings of Assad's forces.
NO, very bad idea! We have diplomatic relations with Syria. Severing them to create a hostile nation with a very large military in the Middle East would make things very difficult.

If Russia fires on an F-16 then the U.S. should create a no-fly zone for the Russians in Syria (Russian jets would have to deal with F-22s).


So Russia is just going to launch a missile with a heat signature on a US marked plane? That would be a huge international incident, and for what, the shooting down of one interceptor jet?

Also, NATO does not have the power to create a no fly zone over a foreign entity.

Finally, I worry that a tactical air war with Russia over Syria would be a disaster. Russia definitely has the strategic advantage in that region,but I also think there airforce is better despite it being much smaller. Now if all of NATO was participating in enforcing the no fly zone, your chances of success rise with the much more advanced and structured French and UK airforces.

Dassault Papillon: I doubt bombing Assad would bring Russia to the negotiating table.

Bolshevik-: Depends on the severity of the bombing. Russia has been losing its traditional allies in the Middle East through the Arab Spring. They don't want to lose another ally. If the U.S. fails to stop Assad, then all it means for us is that we failed to knock out one of Russia's traditional allies. It really isn't a big deal for us. Thus, Russia has a lot more to lose than we do. Assuming that both parties are led by rational individuals, Russia is more likely in this case to capitulate than we are in order to save Assad (a non-intervention policy except against ISIL at least gives Assad a fighting chance).
If the U.S. plays the role of the nation which simply wants "butcher Assad" gone and doesn't have any ulterior motive, then it can boost its reputation and make the Russians look like total *expletive*s. Obama's current policy on Syria really isn't so dumb strategically speaking. But when the right moment comes he shouldn't waste it. At this moment even the U.S. would be at least somewhat justified in doing air strikes against Assad; Obama had said a while back that he wouldn't allow Assad's regime to stay in power and he could say that it's only in compensation for Russian air strikes against the FSA.
If the U.S. makes it look like it's going to occupy the country and establish a democratic, pro-U.S. regime and the Russians will have no power to stop this from happening, then may agree to a deal where the nonpartisan U.N. occupies the country, fights the ISIL in Syria, brings an end to the fighting, and allows for the Syrian people to decide their own fate, which is a bad outcome for Russia but not the worst one. Again, this ends with the U.S. looking morally superior to Russia.

Dassault Papillon: I think that now I have a better idea as to why Russia is protecting Assad: as authoritarian as his regime is, he protects religious minorities (most notably Christians). If the ISIL takes over, those Christians are all screwed. If the FSA takes over, they probably won't be strong enough to stop the ISIL from taking over. Traditional tyranny is safer, or at least allegedly it is.