Pentagon: Iran, Russia, Pakistan Continue to Support Afghan Taliban

[VCheng]

You might be right but CPEC is in the picture and China is pouring billions of dollars into it. However, it is true that CPEC is one of the legs of the overarching OBOR economic project. In case, one leg is paralyzed, other legs will continue to function.

Still, China can play a meaningful role in bringing US and Pakistan back to the negotiation table.

More importantly, Pakistan needs to revamp its foreign policy vis-a-vis US. Pakistani PM should schedule a meeting with Donald Trump ASAP and address all matters with him. This is how a leader needs to act in a time of diplomatic crises.

What if I told you both USA and China already have an agreement to keep Pakistan stable? It is in no one's interest to see Pakistan break up, and therefore what I said before about what will happen will unfold over the following year or two.

 

[Verve]

@Garfield

US has decisively defeated some of the greatest powers in history so I am not sure why you doubt its capability.

Russia did not defeat ISIS in Syria; US did (i.e. Operation Inherent Resolve). ISIS had significant footprint in both Syria and Iraq and only US was in the position to rout it in a decisive manner.

And yes! If China intervenes then this would change the strategic calculus in the region. China is Pakistan's TRUMP CARD in this great game.

In last 100 years, I do not know which greatest power(s) with the same capabilities (inc nuclear) we have that USA took a full scale war to. Care to name them?

USSR collapse was due to an economy in tatters. Japan didnt have nukes to retaliate with, if they had it could've been very different then. And Hitler didn't have the capability to reach US let alone survive the winter on the way to the Bear.

And I beg to differ on the USA thrashing ISIS in Syria. Maybe the massive bombing raids by Russians were on the livestock?

 

[LeGenD]

In last 100 years, I do not know which greatest power(s) with the same capabilities (inc nuclear) we have that USA took a full scale war to. Care to name them?

USSR collapse was due to an economy in tatters. Japan didnt have nukes to retaliate with, if they had it could've been very different then. And Hitler didn't have the capability to reach US let alone survive the winter on the way to the Bear.

And I beg to differ on the USA thrashing ISIS in Syria. Maybe the massive bombing raids by Russians were on the livestock?

Bro,

I highlighted a "hypothetical scenario." I am not saying that this war is inevitable (God forbid).

Russian mission in Syria was to safeguard its regime from all kinds of threats on the ground. Russia has taken action against ISIS but this was a secondary objective for them.

Keep in mind that only US have mass produced precision-strike munitions and US invaded Syria to counter ISIS mostly. Contrary to popular belief, Russian bombing runs relatively lack in accuracy and technological shortcomings are often overlooked.

FYI: https://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/russia-s-involvement-in-syria-proves-that-its-far-behin-1794966734

"To illustrate the difference between American and Russian attack aircraft operating in the same theater of operations, the U.S. air force published photos of an A-10C Thunderbolt II, or Warthog, during a mission over Syria. The A-10 and Su-25 attack planes entered service within five years of each other, and have very similar roles within each nation’s air force. But where the A-10 has soared technologically, the Su-25 has stalled. In the photo, the A-10, which has 11 weapon hardpoints, is carrying nothing but guided munitions and one targeting pod. Even the rocket pod is carrying the new Advanced Precision Kill Weapons System (APKWS) II laser guided rockets.

But the Su-25 has been a turkey in comparison over Syria. Carrying no more than four 250 kg bombs, the Su-25 attacked static targets using its own internal navigation and targeting system to deliver the free fall weapons. More often than not, the Su-25 targets along with those of the Su-24, were never identified visually. With no targeting pod and only flying waypoints to deliver weapons that are inherently inaccurate, it is no wonder Russia has provided very little video of weapons strikes, especially targets struck in urban areas.

Which means that Russia has killed a vast number of civilians in Syria, and unfortunately many of these deaths can be classified as intentional. According to a report published by airwars.org titled ‘A Reckless Disregard for Civilian Lives’ which only looked at the first three months of Russian air combat missions in Syria in late 2015 found Russia had been responsible for as many as 1,450 non-combatant deaths and while Russian and the American led coalition were carrying out a similar number of combat missions, civilian fatalities from Russian strikes were six times higher. Since the Russian mission in Syria began in September 2015 to February 2017, it is alleged by airwars.org that as many as 11,282 civilians have died from Russian bombs."

Operation Inherent Resolve did the trick in large part.

What I see here is that Russia has scored a propaganda victory in Syria but achieved little against ISIS on the ground.

 

[Dalit]

Fvck the rednecks. All they are good at is playing the blame game. 16 years have gone by and all they can do is point fingers. Total failure. Afghanistan is today in a worse shape than any year before that. Opium production is record high. Children are being abused in front of American soldiers who are told to look away. The Afghan government lives in a fortified bunker somewhere in Kabul. It has zero writ. Meanwhile, the CIA is busy profiteering from the opium business. I could go on and on. There is only darkness and negativity in opiumland.

Pakistan, Russia and China should all come together and work for their own interest. These countries share a mutual interest in Afghanistan. This orange pu$$y grabbing baboon needs to be ridiculed and not taken seriously. Sideline this pathetic clown. He is a laughingstock the world over.

 

[Thanatos]

Natural allies. Together they can uproot US/Indian influence first from Afghanistan and than from region as whole.


There is so much to benefit from each other. Including economy, defense and regional connectivity.

The other important thing was highlighting the Kashmir issue. As long as Kashmir issue is around , india will always be considered an aggressor who has illegally occupied the area and has been involved in grave human rights violations.

 

[Ocean]

Bro,

I highlighted a "hypothetical scenario." I am not saying that this war is inevitable (God forbid).

Russian mission in Syria was to safeguard its regime from all kinds of threats on the ground. Russia has taken action against ISIS but this was a secondary objective for them.

Keep in mind that only US have mass produced precision-strike munitions and US invaded Syria to counter ISIS mostly. Contrary to popular belief, Russian bombing runs relatively lack in accuracy and technological shortcomings are often overlooked.

FYI: https://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/russia-s-involvement-in-syria-proves-that-its-far-behin-1794966734

"To illustrate the difference between American and Russian attack aircraft operating in the same theater of operations, the U.S. air force published photos of an A-10C Thunderbolt II, or Warthog, during a mission over Syria. The A-10 and Su-25 attack planes entered service within five years of each other, and have very similar roles within each nation’s air force. But where the A-10 has soared technologically, the Su-25 has stalled. In the photo, the A-10, which has 11 weapon hardpoints, is carrying nothing but guided munitions and one targeting pod. Even the rocket pod is carrying the new Advanced Precision Kill Weapons System (APKWS) II laser guided rockets.

But the Su-25 has been a turkey in comparison over Syria. Carrying no more than four 250 kg bombs, the Su-25 attacked static targets using its own internal navigation and targeting system to deliver the free fall weapons. More often than not, the Su-25 targets along with those of the Su-24, were never identified visually. With no targeting pod and only flying waypoints to deliver weapons that are inherently inaccurate, it is no wonder Russia has provided very little video of weapons strikes, especially targets struck in urban areas.

Which means that Russia has killed a vast number of civilians in Syria, and unfortunately many of these deaths can be classified as intentional. According to a report published by airwars.org titled ‘A Reckless Disregard for Civilian Lives’ which only looked at the first three months of Russian air combat missions in Syria in late 2015 found Russia had been responsible for as many as 1,450 non-combatant deaths and while Russian and the American led coalition were carrying out a similar number of combat missions, civilian fatalities from Russian strikes were six times higher. Since the Russian mission in Syria began in September 2015 to February 2017, it is alleged by airwars.org that as many as 11,282 civilians have died from Russian bombs."

Operation Inherent Resolve did the trick in large part.

What I see here is that Russia has scored a propaganda victory in Syria but achieved little against ISIS on the ground.

And how does a Su 25 vs A 10 comparison proves usa had defeated isis in syria and iraq?

How about provide some factual and i repeat a "Factual" report covering which side had actually defeated isis?

 

[VCheng]

What I see here is that Russia has scored a propaganda victory in Syria but achieved little against ISIS on the ground.

If Russia is seen as the victor, that is no mean achievement by itself.

 

[LeGenD]

And how does a Su 25 vs A 10 comparison proves usa had defeated isis in syria and iraq?

How about provide some factual and i repeat a "Factual" report covering which side had actually defeated isis?

Did you even bother to read the article I shared? I suggest you do.

Russian bombing runs have caused more harm on the ground than good. They are known to kill people indiscriminately because they lack in technological sophistication.

USAF carried out a large number of precision strikes on the position of ISIS combatants across Syria and Iraq. American troops and other allies provided relevant Intel from the ground. Google "Operation Inherent Resolve."

There wasn't any force on the ground that was large enough to rout ISIS from large swaths of land across Syria and Iraq. And indiscriminate bombing doesn't help. Precision strikes from the air and utilization of multiple groups on the ground to consolidate gains did the trick.

You can check the statistics of precision strikes on ISIS positions across the world here: http://www.inherentresolve.mil/News/Strike-Releases/

If Russia is seen as the victor, that is no mean achievement by itself.

Russia is seen as the victor only in certain quarters of the world.

Russia certainly acted against ISIS but US has played a much bigger role in routing ISIS from across the Middle East because Russian mandate was restricted to Syria (only). Some people do not want to acknowledge this reality due to their biases and ignorance.

Russian mandate was to safeguard Syrian regime in large part; routing ISIS was a secondary objective to them. Original Syrian rebels were "primary targets" actually. Russians indiscriminately bombed Rebel-held regions in order to dissuade residents from joining rebels and forced many to flee; same is true for the Syrian regime. ISIS took advantage of the carnage and spread its tentacles across Syria in 2014.

Now, what was US doing in Syria in your opinion? Not attacking its regime for sure. Its firepower was directed towards ISIS positions mostly.

There is more to this story. Obama administration and Russia reached an agreement in regards to fate of Syrian regime in 2013 per which US will not topple Syrian regime due to lack of credible political alternatives and will allow Russia to intervene, if necessary. Conversely, Syrian regime will not employ chemical weapons against Syrian rebels and both US and Russia will mutually work to eliminate chemical weapons stockpiles in Syria. A "win-win" bargain for both in the end.

However, Russian fanboys want you to believe otherwise. According to them Russia barged into Syria, beat the shit of ISIS and US was a silent spectator. The gullibility of some.

 

[Verve]

Bro,

I highlighted a "hypothetical scenario." I am not saying that this war is inevitable (God forbid).

Russian mission in Syria was to safeguard its regime from all kinds of threats on the ground. Russia has taken action against ISIS but this was a secondary objective for them.

Keep in mind that only US have mass produced precision-strike munitions and US invaded Syria to counter ISIS mostly. Contrary to popular belief, Russian bombing runs relatively lack in accuracy and technological shortcomings are often overlooked.

FYI: https://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/russia-s-involvement-in-syria-proves-that-its-far-behin-1794966734

"To illustrate the difference between American and Russian attack aircraft operating in the same theater of operations, the U.S. air force published photos of an A-10C Thunderbolt II, or Warthog, during a mission over Syria. The A-10 and Su-25 attack planes entered service within five years of each other, and have very similar roles within each nation’s air force. But where the A-10 has soared technologically, the Su-25 has stalled. In the photo, the A-10, which has 11 weapon hardpoints, is carrying nothing but guided munitions and one targeting pod. Even the rocket pod is carrying the new Advanced Precision Kill Weapons System (APKWS) II laser guided rockets.

But the Su-25 has been a turkey in comparison over Syria. Carrying no more than four 250 kg bombs, the Su-25 attacked static targets using its own internal navigation and targeting system to deliver the free fall weapons. More often than not, the Su-25 targets along with those of the Su-24, were never identified visually. With no targeting pod and only flying waypoints to deliver weapons that are inherently inaccurate, it is no wonder Russia has provided very little video of weapons strikes, especially targets struck in urban areas.

Which means that Russia has killed a vast number of civilians in Syria, and unfortunately many of these deaths can be classified as intentional. According to a report published by airwars.org titled ‘A Reckless Disregard for Civilian Lives’ which only looked at the first three months of Russian air combat missions in Syria in late 2015 found Russia had been responsible for as many as 1,450 non-combatant deaths and while Russian and the American led coalition were carrying out a similar number of combat missions, civilian fatalities from Russian strikes were six times higher. Since the Russian mission in Syria began in September 2015 to February 2017, it is alleged by airwars.org that as many as 11,282 civilians have died from Russian bombs."

Operation Inherent Resolve did the trick in large part.

What I see here is that Russia has scored a propaganda victory in Syria but achieved little against ISIS on the ground.

Bro, hypothetical scenarios can be many and in retaliation of a full scale war a US city could end up hosting a nuke. Thats also one such scenario.

Do you also know what the PA will do (i.e contingency plan) if your hypothetical scenario comes true?

 

[Tariq Nazir Syed]

The US has the audacity to call the local Afghan fighters as " terrorists and insurgents !" It is the US and it's Western allies who are the INVADERS of a foreign country, and have NO legitimate right to be there in the first place. When the USSR invaded Afghanistan, the US cried foul and fully assisted the local Afghans (Mujahideen) in repulsing the URRS. Now, the shoe is on the othet foot. They (the US) are the invaders. So why fault the Afghans fighting to throw them out of their own country ? Rank hypocrisy of the highest level by the US.

Sent from my GT-I9300I using Tapatalk

 

[firestorm77]

I am not overestimating; I look at these matters through the lens of technicalities and do not let my patriotism cloud my judgement. This mostly boils down to disparity between the R&D sectors and resources of both countries.

In war, you don't always look at things through lens of technicalities. Sometimes you have to act irrationally so your enemy can't predict your thoughts. Showing weakness will only make your enemy more confident. I still think that with ICBM capability, US will have to re-evaluate their risk calculus. Simply put, it would be irrational for them to take such a huge risk for a small geopolitical benefit.

In my opinion, North Korea is acting very rationally, by portraying Kim Jong as a 'mad man'. You can't predict if he is willing to face nuclear annihilation, and might end up targeting US allies, foreign bases and even mainland.

If Kim Jong was thinking rationally, North Korea would have shared the same fate as Syria, Iraq etc

 

[Ocean]

Chinese President Xi Jinping visited US and spent time with Donald Trump: https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/projects/cp/reporters-notebook/xi-jinping-visit

Purpose of this visit was to convey Donald Trump the Chinese side of story in regards to various issues and reach a settlement. They are on good terms since.

.

Did you read ur own link? Where it states Chinese president met Trump?

 

[LeGenD]

Did you read ur own link? Where it states Chinese president met Trump?

My bad.

This meeting took place in China: http://edition.cnn.com/2017/11/09/asia/donald-trump-china-xi-jinping/index.html

 

[Ocean]

My bad.

This meeting took place in China: http://edition.cnn.com/2017/11/09/asia/donald-trump-china-xi-jinping/index.html

Did you again read your link?
It is about Xi jinping visiting trump its about Trump visiting China.

And as of your claim : "Chinese President Xi Jinping visited US and spent time with Donald Trump"

Then from your own link:

"Unlike previous stops in Japan and South Korea -- where Trump boasted of US military strength, instructed the country's leaders how many weapons they were to buy, and received ebullient praise from them in return -- the China trip was much more a meeting of equals"

"But once tough language on China's role in the crisis -- Beijing remains Pyongyang's only real ally and multiple US administrations have called on it to do more to rein in its neighbor -- has been replaced by a more conciliatory, bridge-building approach"

 

[LeGenD]

Did you again read your link?
It is about Xi jinping visiting trump its about Trump visiting China.

And as of your claim : "Chinese President Xi Jinping visited US and spent time with Donald Trump"

Then from your own link:

"Unlike previous stops in Japan and South Korea -- where Trump boasted of US military strength, instructed the country's leaders how many weapons they were to buy, and received ebullient praise from them in return -- the China trip was much more a meeting of equals"

"But once tough language on China's role in the crisis -- Beijing remains Pyongyang's only real ally and multiple US administrations have called on it to do more to rein in its neighbor -- has been replaced by a more conciliatory, bridge-building approach"

Trump and Xi have met 3 times till now.

First meeting took place in the US (April 7, 2017 - April 9, 2017): https://www.reuters.com/article/us-...rade-north-korea-progress-cited-idUSKBN1792KA

Then, Chinese leader Xi invited Trump to China for another meeting* (November 8, 2017 - November 8, 2017): http://www.fmprc.gov.cn/mfa_eng/zxxx_662805/t1506736.shtml

*Chinese gave POTUS Donald Trump an excellent welcome, and excel in the matters of diplomacy unlike us. FYI: http://www.businessinsider.com/trump-in-china-xi-jinping-spectacular-display-of-diplomacy-2017-11

Third meeting took place in Europe.

My argument is in regards to competency in the matters of "diplomacy." An area in which Pakistan is terribly lacking.