Sorry but there was NO understanding btw Russia and USA. The deal signed later when US completely failed to hit Asad regime because of Russian backing. The US realized they can't achieve its objectives after Russian intervention. At the end, US kne down and no option left or accept Russian and the deal signed....
Since when was US reluctant to take on a Russian/Soviet-backed regime anywhere?
Your narrative is baseless while I have provided evidence of a deal between US and Russia which averted American threat to Syrian regime in 2013:
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-23876085
Another aspect of negotiations between Russia and US was that the latter would intervene only to counter ISIS in Syria and Russia would facilitate US in this endeavor. Are you aware of "deconflicting collaboration" between Russia and US in Syria?
FYI:
https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/oct/5/us-russia-use-military-deconfliction-phone-20-time/
Syrian Civil War began in 2011 and Russia stood by and watched the situation until 2015 because Russians were anticipating a Libya-style intervention in Syria from NATO. However, this intervention did not materialize in part due to reluctance of Obama administration and also due to Russian diplomacy.
Scores of members here are clueless about what happens behind-the-scenes in Syria.
I knw the power of Kuwaitiz and their Army even today. I am really surprised that you're completely underestimate today's Paksitan conventional and non-conventional warfare capabilities especially the destruction WMD weapons. What do you think if Pakistan doesn't have any capability like as you want to convince us, India will spare Pakistan? oh comeon... Americans completely failed in Afghanistan, Vietnam and Iraq. They used France as a front in Libya along with AlQaida and here they will go for direct confrontation with Pakistan?
I do not underestimate Pakistan but I am well aware of American military might and technological superiority vis-a-vis Pakistan. I am not oblivious to Pakistani military capabilities (and options) but I also understand its limitations. Do you think Pervez Musharraf was a fool?
Pakistan is a near-peer adversary to India but not to US.
US completely failed in Afghanistan? This is horseshit and I will tell you why. I vividly recall the fact that US wiped out [much of] original Taliban in a span of 2 months in 2001 (i.e. Operation Enduring Freedom). Pounding was so intense that a large number of terrorists slipped into Pakistan in order to escape certain death. Tommy Franks was a competent commander and POTUS Bush meant Business. Afghanistan remained peaceful for like 2 straight years since.
However, US was not thinking long-term in regards to managing Afghan politics, brought Northern Alliance based elements to power and was willing to victimize Afghan Pashtun on their behest because they had supported original Taliban earlier; scores of Pashtun families were assassinated (some belonging to so-called Haqqani Network). Not surprisingly, Pashtun struck back and a new Taliban emerged from the ashes. The (resurgent) Taliban was much smarter than the original; this was an elusive enemy that avoided pitched battles with the US army and went for soft targets such as civilians and US-backed regime. Conversely, US shifted it attention to Iraq in 2003 and Afghanistan became secondary.
US-led armies took over Iraq in 2003 in a span of 21 days only (i.e. Operation Iraqi Freedom); a remarkable demonstration of blitzkrieg that surprised many, and closed the chapter of Saddam Hussein in the region. In contrast, do you recall Iran-Iraq war which lasted 8 years and ended in stalemate?
In 2004, Iraqi militias regrouped in Fallujah and turned this city into a bastion of resistance. However, US marines smashed this resistance in a remarkable demonstration of combat prowess in an urban environment (i.e. Operation Phantom Fury).
Now, Saddam Hussein was bad but a necessary evil for the region; he had stabilized Iraq via his strong-arm tactics and considerable support base. However, with Saddam and his support base out of the picture, it was just a matter of time when Iraq would slide into sectarian strife and an ugly 'civil war' broke out in 2006 in which thousands of Iraqi perished. US-led armies managed to stabilize Iraq in 2008 [with great difficulty] and were withdrawn from the country in 2011 consequently. However, thanks in part to
ill-advised politics of Iraqi PM Nouri al-Maliki, ISIS emerged in Iraq in 2013 and occupied vast swaths of lands across Iraq and Syria by 2014. In response to this development, US commenced Operation Inherent Resolve in 2014 and it took US-led armies 3 years to eradicate this threat across Iraq and Syria; Operation Inherent Resolve ended in 2017 consequently. Iraq has returned to normalcy once again and hopefully stay this way for long.
Point is that an army can achieve victory in the battlefield but a sound political solution is necessary to ensure complete victory in a contested region. Otherwise, new bouts of conflicts will continue to break out from time-to-time as witnessed in Afghanistan and Iraq.
Intervention in Libya was planned and executed very well. However, you are giving French too much credit here; US brought its surveillance, communication and coordination capabilities to bear in Libya in order to ensure that every airstrike will be meaningful and effective, and also contributed to operations on the ground. Without such assistance, European countries would not have accomplished much.
Yes, US failed in Vietnam but reasons are multiple. Vietcong was armed to the teeth with Soviet weaponry and had defeated the French earlier. Conversely, Vietnamese territory nullified any advantage US enjoyed over Vietcong in military context. On top, racial tensions in the US had a trickle-down effect on the cohesion of US troops in Vietnam. Moreover, US commanders were politically restricted in their actions on the ground because this war was not popular back in home. However, much has changed since.
Numerous operations such as Desert Storm, Enduring Freedom, Iraqi Freedom, Phantom Fury and Inherent Resolve demonstrate the fact that US is willing to act and hit its opponents hard at times.
In-fact, just look at the war-fighting capacity of the US; they are conducting operations across the world since 2001 and they are nowhere close to fatigue. In contrast, Pakistan army is on the brink of exhaustion by conducting operations in just Waziristan and adjoining areas since 2004. Now keep in mind that US softened resistance of TTP to Pakistan army to great extent by assassinating its notable commanders and scores of its operatives via drones over the course of years. American assistance notwithstanding, Pakistan army is operating in its home-turf with ample support from the public.
---
Now, I am not asserting that US will attack Pakistan; I hope not. However, who made this thread?
May be you have not study our nuclear option, dont compare us with Iraq, why amrica cant finish North Korea which is millions of years behinde us !
I don't live in a cave.
Perhaps you are not aware of the fact that Pakistani nukes are kept in underground storage compounds, away from ballistic missiles due to security reasons and cost-related considerations; and it takes time to mate them.
Not only
that but you [should] expect US to have mapped out the entire territory of Pakistan by now, and both apparent and suspected sites are marked for strikes. Reason is that American surveillance is a constant feature from sea, air and space; invisible to naked eye. In-fact, whenever a ballistic missile or cruise missile is launched from any part of the world, American surveillance networks are able to track it in real-time and relay its position to concerned sources. In case of hostilities (God forbid), expect suitable countermeasures to be deployed near and around Pakistan.
Conversely, American ICBMs are kept mated with nuclear warheads and in strike mode on 24/7 basis. You do not threaten US with a nuclear strike, my friend.
---
North Korea is much ahead of Pakistan in developing missiles actually. In-fact, North Korea is rumored to have developed much bigger nukes as well. Perhaps you are not aware but North Korea is credited for advancing Pakistani missile development program.
