Russian Moves in Syria Pose Concerns for U.S.

So this is an article in the New York Times that apparently confirms Russian engagement in Syria; while there were uncofirmed reports earlier to any Russian movement, this article seems to offer new developments and information:

www.nytimes.com...



WASHINGTON — "Russia has sent a military advance team to Syria and is taking other steps the United States fears may signal that President Vladimir V. Putin is planning to vastly expand his military support for President Bashar al-Assad of Syria, administration officials said Friday.

The Russian moves, including the recent transport of prefabricated housing units for hundreds of people to a Syrian airfield and the delivery of a portable air traffic control station there, are another complicating factor in Secretary of State John Kerry’s repeated efforts to enlist Mr. Putin’s support for a diplomatic solution to the bloody conflict in Syria."

Please continue reading news article here:
www.nytimes.com...


In continuance the article states the following:

“There are some worrisome movements — logistical, preparatory types of things,” said an administration official, " So, it seems as though reports concerning Russian movement are indeed genuine..Please add links and articles of your own for further exposure..

a reply to: tony9802

Moscow has only one military base (Britain, USA and France please note lol) outside of Russia, this being in Syria. The Russians probably know it's only a matter of time before the Syrian regime caves in, I read the other day how Assad is struggling as there aren't enough soldiers, they're dead or just not staying on side or emigrating as we see in Europe right now. To preserve his alahwhte people Assad is probably planning to create a mini state around Latakia, protected by Moscow. This means Assad lives on in his mini kingdom, his minority alawyte people will not be massacred by the Isis and Russia maintains its miltary base in the Middle East. Win win to all these interests.

let's face it, US engagement in this region was a huge disaster. nothing got better for the people over there and the world isn't safer either.

let's see how the russians deal with it.

a reply to: tony9802

I think it would eqully or more so, important to say Americians Moves in Syria Pose Concerns for U.S.

Look at a map of the area and one will see that on one side of syria is oil rich arab lands. On the other side is eastern, central and western europe, the market.

The US is desperate to install another govt in Syria, one that is more friendly to US instests in the area. Such a govt would invite the US to build a pipline across the arabain sea, through Syria and on into Europe.

This would enable them stymie Russian oil sales to europe plus have the advantage of being able use economic, financial, and diplomatic weapons against their vassal states (partners) in europe to buy their oil from them and not Russia. At the sime they can use these weapons to force their vassal states in equope to agree to always use the US dollaer as their reservce currencies for ever and a day.

This would save the US arse economically, finanically and preserve them as a superpower.

Checkmate to Russia, gotcha.

originally posted by: anticitizen
let's face it, US engagement in this region was a huge disaster. nothing got better for the people over there and the world isn't safer either.

let's see how the russians deal with it.

Not just US - let me get this straight, I am not Mr USA, am English, why does it always have to be America? Its on our doorsteps, the EU could have stepped in through the UN (have I got enough acronyms in?).

All we western (non US) do is sit on our arse and wait for 'merica then criticize them if they do/if they do not.

Ive never got over Yugoslavia or even Somalia - the world stood and watched.....

No offense to you anticitizen, but I wish the UK had some more "minerals" to at least say well if your not in, we are going to do something...instead we wait on the USA and then certain members of our country jump on and bash them.

Your damned if you do, your damned if you do not.

The NYTimes has the main article claiming this.

RT's reply saying that Kerry’s concerns were fueled by the article:

Western media organizations have recently been making strong claims about Russia’s alleged military involvement in Syria, to the point that US Secretary of State John Kerry started calling Russian FM Sergey Lavrov, sharing his concerns and adding more fuel to speculations.

The media frenzy around the suspected Russian military involvement in Syria reignited after President Putin’s answer was taken out of context when he was asked to clarify whether Russia is ready to take part in military operations against the Islamic State militants in Syria.

RT

originally posted by: anticitizen
let's see how the russians deal with it.

Also - this could possibly the worst thing for Russia - if they go all in, its like another Afghanistan for them, they cant even win in Ukraine, now they might be fighting on two fronts....well that doesn't usually come off well.

So whats the prognosis - how many Russian conscripts does it take to defend one Russian Naval Base? They cannot save Assad, I just dont think there are enough troops or support on the ground. Perhaps they will dismantle all their bases and fly back home to Russia with Assad then strike a deal with Iran for a base?

a reply to: Forensick

European countries need to consoilate their power, become decision makers, and take decisive action.. they should not have to wait for the US or anyone else to do something in the region.. there is now more serious discussion about how to take action in the ME but how quickly promptly the reaction and response will be, remains to be seen-

It just seems as though the EU has a difficult time taking charge or being in charge; the EU now looks more like the United States of Europe, rather than free individual sovereign nation states; each country no longer seems to have initiatory power, and all of them seem to wait for someone else to do something..is everyone waiting for Germany to make decisions on this one as well?

Ultimately, I think France and the UK should be able to muster up some type of plan..

My understanding is that Russia is specifically targeting Daesh, because of its involvement in Central Asian terror. Assad is on his own.

a reply to: dreamingawake

So, US leaders receive their intelligence information from MSM reports? And MSM reports determine the action US leaders and European leaders will take? (Reiterating the comment make by Dragan Radulovic, in the comments section of the RT article..)


Where are the intelligence agencies during all of this fear worry and concern..

originally posted by: ufoorbhunter
a reply to: tony9802

Moscow has only one military base (Britain, USA and France please note lol) outside of Russia, this being in Syria.

Apart from the bases they have in Armenia, Belarus, Georgia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgystan. Moldova, Tajikistan, Ukraine and Vietnam.

originally posted by: ufoorbhunter
The Russians probably know it's only a matter of time before the Syrian regime caves in, I read the other day how Assad is struggling as there aren't enough soldiers, they're dead or just not staying on side or emigrating as we see in Europe right now. To preserve his alahwhte people Assad is probably planning to create a mini state around Latakia, protected by Moscow. This means Assad lives on in his mini kingdom, his minority alawyte people will not be massacred by the Isis and Russia maintains its miltary base in the Middle East. Win win to all these interests.

Sounds pretty much like it is now, Assad controls bugger all outside the capital and few enclaves here and there. Their army is spent, but fortunately for them, the rebels are so disjointed, splintered and ineffective they can't capitalise on it.

ufoorbhunter:

I read the other day how Assad is struggling as there aren't enough soldiers, they're dead or just not staying on side or emigrating as we see in Europe right now. To preserve his alahwhte people Assad is probably planning to create a mini state around Latakia, protected by Moscow. This means Assad lives on in his mini kingdom, his minority alawyte people will not be massacred by the Isis and Russia maintains its miltary base in the Middle East. Win win to all these interests.

This has a direct impact on Europe and Britain. I don't agree that Putin intends to aid Assad in creating a mini-kingdom protectorate, although I do agree the idea isn't without it's merit for helping to alleviate the mass migrations of people from Syria. Of course, Russia already has a naval base in Syria at Tartus, which Western media refer to as being of Soviet-era, to give Western peoples a view that it is a somewhat ramshackle port, and not up to speck. Howevr, it is a favourite holiday spot with Syrians, having compounds with excellent and quality hotels.

The Telegraph has an article today about it....

www.telegraph.co.uk...

There are a number of interconnected dynamics at play with regard to Syria and Lybia which are of concern to the West, but for Europe and Britain, the main concern are the migrating peoples, which include both refugees and economic migrants from other areas of Afica. You will remember a few years ago, The British Prime Minister Cameron tried to get a sanction for military intervention in Syria, but got knocked back. There is no doubt in my mind that he did this on behalf of Obama who wants to see Assad removed as part of America's hegemonic globalist agenda. Anyway, Cameron failed to secure the sanction from British politicians and the British people. An alternative was required to remove the ideological obstacles to military intervention in Syria. Something was needed that would gain both sanction and compliance for Western intervention from the European and British people.

In order to gain a sanction and compliance from the American people to a seconf Gulf War, and to remove Saddam Hosein in Iraq, and to secure oil interests, the attacks of 9/11, although known to security forces in America, were allowed to play out. Bush was deliberately nowhere near any of the intended attack sites, and security was relaxed on that day, nor were the security forces allowed to function at optimal awareness and capability. The attacks happened, many people died and important assets of the financial world (particularly people and records) were destroyed, and the American government got its long-hoped for 2nd 'Pearl Harbour' which secured the American people's compliance and sanction.

This is where the mass migrating people moving into Europe emerges. This is what Cameron needs for him to gain compliance and sanction from European and British people for military intervention in Syria. The cure to the source of the problem for the migrating people, particularly those fleeing Syria, is in Syria itself. The country needs to be stabilised, and that can only occur through military intervention and the removal of Assad, and the complete and utter destruction of ISIS. The plight and tragic deaths of a number of the people migrating will (and is) having the same effect as that of the 9/11 attacks had on the American people. It is all being allowed to turn into a tragedy, purposefully and deliberately, to remove ideological obstacles to military intervention.

Firstly, a hard-headed approach to the migrants by Britain, counterpointed by a soft-headed approach by Germany so that it can be seen as a humanitarian turnaround by Cameron, will help to gain the sanction and compliance. It is working. The media have done nothing but drum beat the migrant crisis, and have even used the death by drowning of a three year old boy on a beach in Turkey to symbolise the crisis. This is where we are at now.

Along comes Putin, who is not ignorant of the psychological and moral pressures being brought to bear on the European and British people. He knows what is going down. He knows Western governments (including America - because the migrant crisis is a world crisis) are after their compliance and sanction for military intervention in Syria from the people's of Europe and Britain. So, he is fortifying his interests in Syria, and he knows Russian presence, interest, and intentions remain a stumbling block for intervention, unless he joins the cause at the cost of relaxing economic sanctions against his country?

Putin's interests in Syria run slightly parallel with the West's (i.e., the stabilising of the country by defeating ISIS, and also the rebels), but the difference is that Putin wants Assad to remain in power...the West does not.

It remains to be seen how this will play out? Military intervention by the West in Syria could bring Russia and Nato into conflict, and by that association, America, too.

a reply to: Forensick
Truer words were never spoken . Reminds me of that song by a Canadian back in the 70s or early 80s.How the US is always the FIRST to step in in times of strife and trouble in the rest of the world. No matter who or where it is.Even in times of peace in natural disasters the SAC C-130s are prepared to haul food and medicine around the world when need be even in hot LZs . The Canadian may have been right .It may be time for the US to "snub our noses" and say to hell with the rest of the world.

a reply to: Forensick

Iran can't give them a Mediterranean base.

a reply to: tony9802

If Russia captures ISIS leaders in Syria, analyse any tech they possess, they may find the links right back to the Pentagon/CIA. Harder to ignore Intel from Russia than it is from the Syrians

a reply to: CitizenNum287119327

US tech captured in Iraq.

originally posted by: elysiumfire ufoorbhunter:

Along comes Putin, who is not ignorant of the psychological and moral pressures being brought to bear on the European and British people. He knows what is going down. He knows Western governments (including America - because the migrant crisis is a world crisis) are after their compliance and sanction for military intervention in Syria from the people's of Europe and Britain. So, he is fortifying his interests in Syria, and he knows Russian presence, interest, and intentions remain a stumbling block for intervention, unless he joins the cause at the cost of relaxing economic sanctions against his country?

Putin's interests in Syria run slightly parallel with the West's (i.e., the stabilising of the country by defeating ISIS, and also the rebels), but the difference is that Putin wants Assad to remain in power...the West does not.

It remains to be seen how this will play out? Military intervention by the West in Syria could bring Russia and Nato into conflict, and by that association, America, too.

I am under the impression that military intervention by both NATO and Ruxia will occur. The conflict between these is desired, because it will be what can start WWIII: the ultimate war between US Ruxia and Xhina, (the West and Ruxia-Xhina). Ruxian and Xhinese submarine movement and Naval operations are said to be already taking place off of Alaska, and the East Coast; ruxians are already in the US, so how those in charge choose to go about organizing all of this, or if what appears will wind up being some sort of spontaneous conflict will be interesting to observe; What remains certain though is that Ruxia and Xhina will be at war with the US and perhaps the Occident as well..Syria seems to be the opportunity cataclysm..

a reply to: stumason

All those places you list are not real countries. Their economies and infrastructure and defence is run from Moscow. They are Russia's near abroad as they call it. Vietnam, well there is a base there bu it's only for logistics. Compare the base in Syria, throw in Vietnam if you wish, compare it to where we, the French and the USA have bases to meddle and interfere with the affairs of others.

originally posted by: elysiumfire
I don't agree that Putin intends to aid Assad in creating a mini-kingdom protectorate, although I do agree the idea isn't without it's merit for helping to alleviate the mass migrations of people from Syria. Of course, Russia already has a naval base in Syria at Tartus, which Western media refer to as being of Soviet-era, to give Western peoples a view that it is a somewhat ramshackle port, and not up to speck.

Russian foreign policy for hundreds of years has been obsessed by having warm water bases. The ides that Russia will give up its base in Syria, well I just can't believe they will go down that route and what we are seeing now (as you spotted in the Telegraph) is possibly the beginning of direct intervention. It's ironic as Osbourne was just on BBC saying we will have to consider intervention ourselves, a very coincidental time for this back track on policy just as Moscow is going in. There may well now be a race on to get in there first. With the Middle East infested with British and American military presence I just can't see Moscow giving up its one and only base.

a reply to: ufoorbhunter

Not real countries? I bet the locals would beg to differ! A base is a base, you can't move the goalposts to fit your definition. Or, if you wish to use your definition, we don't have any bases abroad apart from Germany, as they're just "logistical" outfits....

It's also ironic you accuse the west of "meddling and interference" while dismissing the Russian bases because they're not real countries as "their economies and infrastructure and defence is run from Moscow"...