[RD] Is NATO a threat to Russia? If so, how?

[saamohod]

Russia is very big country

... that always needs more land.

Relevant to the topic of the thread.

 

[Remorseless1]

I'm sure if it was FSB warning Americans about possible terrorist attacks, and these attacks happened, this thread would be full of screams that FSB participated in organizing them.

Or the US could act on the FSB warning and prevented the attack. This may be hard to believe, but US intelligence services respect the competence of their counterparts in Russia.

I don't hear much in the way of "Putin's did it!" After 9/11 Americans started taking international terrorism seriously. Outside of Russia, the consensus opinion is was an Isis-K operation. The negative is that Putin ignored the US warning, which is somewhat inconclusive. The US issued the warning on March 7, specifying the attack would occur within the succeeding 48 hours. As I understand it, the FSB stopped several terror plots in the week after the warning was issued. However, given that several plots were disrupted in early March and Russian troops have engaged in gun battles with Islamic terror groups in the Caucasus region, it's a bit shocking security in Russia's capitol was apparently lax.

So it's a mixed bag.

 

[red_elk]

Or the US could act on the FSB warning and prevented the attack. This may be hard to believe, but US intelligence services respect the competence of their counterparts in Russia.

One doesn't exclude the other. I perfectly understand the difference between US intelligence and common folks.

I don't hear much in the way of "Putin's did it!" After 9/11 Americans started taking international terrorism seriously. Outside of Russia, the consensus opinion is was an Isis-K operation. The negative is that Putin ignored the US warning, which is somewhat inconclusive. The US issued the warning on March 7, specifying the attack would occur within the succeeding 48 hours. As I understand it, the FSB stopped several terror plots in the week after the warning was issued. However, given that several plots were disrupted in early March and Russian troops have engaged in gun battles with Islamic terror groups in the Caucasus region, it's a bit shocking security in Russia's capitol was apparently lax.

So it's a mixed bag.

In general agree, though Islamic terrorism in Caucasus has significantly subsided since 00-s. Back then large attacks were happening every year or two. This attack might be more linked to Syria rather than Caucasus.

 

[Sarin]

In general agree, though Islamic terrorism in Caucasus has significantly subsided since 00-s. Back then large attacks were happening every year or two. This attack might be more linked to Syria rather than Caucasus.

Or maybe they smell weakness and are trying to instigate resurgence of Chechen and Dagestani separatism.

 

[innonimatu]

13 US military personnel killed in attacks at Kabul airport

Bomb detonated at airport gate where US Marines were screening Afghan civilians, general says.

www.aljazeera.com

That was an attack primarily on the Taliban. I'm not saying ISIS are puppets, only that they are cultivated and shielded for use as offensive weapons against other states. They have a history of appearing where the US wants them to appear. When they do attack the US and its allies they often even apologize.
In that case of the widrawal from Afghanistan they were probably pissed at losing their protectors and hit also at the US troops intentionally, perhaps hoping that a shock attack might provide cause for them keeping a presence there. The use of insurgents and terrorists has uintented consequences. OBL anyone? Something very likely to keep happening in other places, with other actors.

 

[Kyriakos]

Yes, the instance where Isis apologized to Israel, should be seen as particularly revealing.
Agents of Goldstein.

 

[Gedemon]

So you're saying that now NATO is somehow controlling ISIS to attack Russia.

That's a whole new level.

 

[Kyriakos]

You think Isis apologizing to Israel is fitting the narrative of what Isis supposedly is?
I mean, "lol"?

 

[Gedemon]

I don't think about things I know nothing of.

 

[Kyriakos]

It's a very specific case. Surely it doesn't seem compatible with what we are told Isis is. One should be able at the very least to accept the most obvious facts.
You may also want to consider that Israel doesn't tend to leave people alone with a mere apology.

 

[Gedemon]

It's a very specific case. Surely it doesn't seem compatible with what we are told Isis is. One should be able at the very least to accept the most obvious facts.

Spell it for me please.

 

[Kyriakos]

Spelling it for you: Isis seems to be compromised, or there are more than the one.

 

[Gedemon]

Spelling it for you: Isis seems to be compromised, or there are more than the one.

and how's that related to NATO being a threat to Russia ?

 

[Kyriakos]

It is a discussion on a post by Inno...

Neither of us know (afaik) the complete physiology of an elephant. But if it has wings, we can trust it wasn't exactly an elephant.

 

[Zardnaar]

That was an attack primarily on the Taliban. I'm not saying ISIS are puppets, only that they are cultivated and shielded for use as offensive weapons against other states. They have a history of appearing where the US wants them to appear. When they do attack the US and its allies they often even apologize.
In that case of the widrawal from Afghanistan they were probably pissed at losing their protectors and hit also at the US troops intentionally, perhaps hoping that a shock attack might provide cause for them keeping a presence there. The use of insurgents and terrorists has uintented consequences. OBL anyone? Something very likely to keep happening in other places, with other actors.

USA cut deal with Taliban not ISIS. Would not be surprised if they retain assets in Afghanistan or back door channels with Taliban.

Taliban wanted Americans gone they could have made the withdrawal from Kabul extremely hard.

 

[Gedemon]

It is a discussion on a post by Inno...

which you seem to agree with. he's saying NATO is somehow controlling ISIS, do you agree ?

(how is that that every time I try to interact with you, I need 10 posts to understand what you are truly saying ? can't you just post what you're thinking honestly ?)

 

[Kyriakos]

which you seem to agree with. he's saying NATO is somehow controlling ISIS, do you agree ?

(how is that that every time I try to interact with you, I need 10 posts to understand what you are truly saying ? can't you just post what you're thinking honestly ?)

Because you think I am insinuating something that I am not?
My post was about Isis clearly not being (at least not all of it, or there are more than one groups) the barbarous and blindly anti-heretic organization we were told. The example given by Inno, and picked up by myself, should tell you as much surely.
From that, to who may control such as split or other Isis, there is a long way to go, but not at all a long way to argue that Isis is not the clear cut vehicle of muslim fundamentalism it serves to present it as - it can be useful for other things too.

Tldr, if you know something that has wings can't be an elephant, it still does not mean you know all there is to know about elephants - or wings. Spelling it out: that Isis is not what it is sold as, does not mean it is controlled by the US - but it means it is not what it is sold as being.

 

[Verbose]

USA cut deal with Taliban not ISIS. Would not be surprised if they retain assets in Afghanistan or back door channels with Taliban.

Taliban wanted Americans gone they could have made the withdrawal from Kabul extremely hard.

It's no mystery. The Taliban might have been somewhat better a running a country than expected – but they still clear a very low bar. The Taliban state has shaky control over various bits of Aghanistan, and ISIS generally pops up in parts of the world where the state is weak and they can operate in the margins. The Iraq and Syrian relative collapses allowed them to create a statelet of their own for a while – but they are in the margins of weak states in subsaharan Africa, in Somalia now that the US and everyone has decamped from there. And they are in Afghanistan, because the Talibans might hate them as well, but they can't effectively control Afghanistan to stop ISIS.

ISIS is finding opportunities now also becuase the US and Europe are busy with Russia, and to some extent China. It all comes with this kind of alternative cost, that the attention is relatively off of ISIS for now. While Russia is conversely busy with making trouble for the west – when it is not obsesses over hunting imaginary enemies, like Nazi Ukranians and gay people. (Which is easier, since they are imaginary, they can be foiled all the time...)

 

[Verbose]

Because you think I am insinuating something that I am not?
My post was about Isis clearly not being (at least not all of it, or there are more than one groups) the barbarous and blindly anti-heretic organization we were told. The example given by Inno, and picked up by myself, should tell you as much surely.
From that, to who may control such as split or other Isis, there is a long way to go, but not at all a long way to argue that Isis is not the clear cut vehicle of muslim fundamentalism it serves to present it as - it can be useful for other things too.

Tldr, if you know something that has wings can't be an elephant, it still does not mean you know all there is to know about elephants - or wings. Spelling it out: that Isis is not what it is sold as, does not mean it is controlled by the US - but it means it is not what it is sold as being.

What is ISIS "being sold as"?

I think that is the actual sticking point why communications seems glitchy now.

 

[Kyriakos]

I don't think so, Verbose. More so given I rather explicitly mentioned that it is being presented as a monolithic medieval anti-heretic group. Such sort of never would have apologized to Israel.