Russia warns West against 'Libya scenario' in Syria

Russia warns West against 'Libya scenario' in Syria

www.breitbart.com

Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov on Friday warned against foreign intervention in Syria, calling on the Syrian opposition not to seek a repeat of the "Libya scenario".

Lavrov's comments, on a visit to the central Asian nation of Kazakhstan, underlined growing Russian concern that Western powers have overstepped the mark in Libya and the situation in Syria may also spill out of control.

(visit the link for the full news article)

Though I agree on one point, that intervention perpetrated by the USG is out of control. And is rather abusive on so many levels its not even imaginable.

But my question is this?

What is Russia ultimately going to do? I mean since the 60's they are a country of " force ".

Interesting regardless though.

www.breitbart.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

Why don't Russia intervene for a change, they hardly ever show their military power, aparty from that one time with Georgia, but wow Georgia me and the OP could walk in with two M16's and walk out with anything valuable.

Russia sure does talk alot these days too, maybe the Libya involvement was a starting point for a Syrian involvement and kick off the 3rd world war??

god knows whatevers going on ....

Not much they can do except perhaps use their veto in the UN Security Council.
But it wouldn't be the first time the US and company ignore a UN resolution...

like i said...


wait for it...wait for it...and go...!

reply to post by Realms


I like the Russians on this one. I know that the whole Libya thing is a creation of western economic forces who used a relatively small group of local malcontents to create the appearance of a popular uprising. Ive known that since the beginning. But the only people who really seem to see it like I do, or who are willing to go on record saying that, seem to be the Russians.

Russia will say and do nothing positive. Syria will burn to a crisp and Russia will still be negative. The problem with countries like Russia and China is that they also have a very agitated population and so they will want to avoid any possibility of calls for change in their country or UN precedants for intervention..

reply to post by R3N3G4D3


Thats the point. Russia DOESN'T intervene. They're concerned with themselves and the nations on their borders. Our governments try to police the world when they can barely police their own nation.

Originally posted by lifeissacred
reply to post by R3N3G4D3

 

Thats the point. Russia DOESN'T intervene. They're concerned with themselves and the nations on their borders. Our governments try and police the world when they can barely police their own nation.

Perhaps you missed the huge diplomatic endless nights that transpired when Poland announced it would host nato medium range missiles.

reply to post by lifeissacred


Thank you. I find it so curious that someone would be offended that another country did not intervene to skew the results of internal conflict. Especially Americans. We EXIST as a nation because of internal conflict, and while France did lend a hand, how would we have liked it if England had managed to get a bunch of allies together to take us down? I dont think we would have liked that. Nor, do I think we would have liked it if a group of nations decided to intervene and skew the Civil war to their economic ends.

Unless there is genocide occurring, we are supposed to butt the hell out and let people sort out their own issues. We should have been on the ground in Darfur, and we werent, we didnt have ANY reason to intervene it Libya and we did.

reply to post by tristar


I do agree that Russia cares a lot more when its closer to home. AND, I do suspect them of offing the Polish government.

Just my opinion.

Surprised this hasn't been mentioned yet, but Russia has significant interests in Syria:

Russia's naval supply and maintenance site near Syria's Mediterranean port of Tartus will be modernized to accommodate heavy warships after 2012, the Russian Navy chief said on Monday.

"Tartus will be developed as a naval base. The first stage of development and modernization will be completed in 2012," Adm. Vladimir Vysotsky said, adding it could then serve as a base for guided-missile cruisers and even aircraft carriers.

source

and this article gives a very good background insight:

Russia fighting to save arms sales to the Middle East

and:

Russia risks losing $10 bn' arms sales from Arab unrest

reply to post by Mdv2


Of course they have interests there. I dont believe Russia is sainted. But sometimes even someone who is a jerk has the motive to tell the truth about other jerks. Like in Libya and Syria.

Originally posted by Mdv2
Surprised this hasn't been mentioned yet, but Russia has significant interests in Syria:

Russia's naval supply and maintenance site near Syria's Mediterranean port of Tartus will be modernized to accommodate heavy warships after 2012, the Russian Navy chief said on Monday.

"Tartus will be developed as a naval base. The first stage of development and modernization will be completed in 2012," Adm. Vladimir Vysotsky said, adding it could then serve as a base for guided-missile cruisers and even aircraft carriers.

source

It was mentioned, but people simply do not pay attention. I went out of my way earlier within another thread referring to a rus naval base to be its satellite base for early warning, but as always it flew below the radar. Nice to see someone is on the ball.

reply to post by tristar


Russia's foreign policy tends to deal with countries that pose an immediate threat to Russia and their immediate interests (though not always the case), our foreign policy tends to pick on the weak and be more about approval ratings and profit than it does about genuine national security interests. Hey I'm not gonna defend either government though, our involvement in other peoples' business is what caused half of this mess anyway.

Originally posted by Illusionsaregrander
reply to post by Mdv2

 

Of course they have interests there. I dont believe Russia is sainted. But sometimes even someone who is a jerk has the motive to tell the truth about other jerks. Like in Libya and Syria.

Why alert the obvious, there is a change in geopolitics on a global scale within the mediterranean. It is simply far more convenient to send you messages to another nation through the media without creating undue attraction.

Originally posted by lifeissacred
reply to post by tristar

 

That is very different to invading sovereign nations and installing puppet governments. I'm not trying to say Russia has a perfect or friendly foreign policy, but they aren't tied up occupying countries that are half way around the world.
Russia's foreign policy tends to deal with countries that pose an immediate threat to Russia (though not always the case), our foreign policy tends to pick on the weak and be more about approval ratings and profit than it does about genuine national security interests.

One might refer to it as the the snail pace, inch by inch, but eventually it reaches its destination. This all to clear to rus as they seen the georgian conflict well over two years before it hit the media and the obvious failure of nato to embed itself upon rus doorstep. Sadly, the georgian nation is suffering and its suffering big time regardless of the fact that no media covers the internal aspect of its day to day life and economy.

reply to post by tristar


I've no doubt that Russia holds sway over smaller nations just like any super power. However I also see a fundamental difference in Russia getting into a ruckus on it's border and our country's getting involved in multiple warzones around the world.

Russia is obviously looking after their own interests by sticking up for Syria but their warnings do raise an important alternative issue which needs to be answered sooner or later by our governments, why is it ok for us to invade Libya? Why not help the proteters in Bahrain or the protesters in Syria? What right have we got to interfere on matters that are strictly internal?

Originally posted by lifeissacred
reply to post by tristar

 

I've no doubt that Russia bullies smaller nations just like any super power. However I also see a fundamental difference in Russia getting into a ruckus on it's border and our country's getting involved in multiple warzones around the world.

Russia is obviously looking after their own interests by sticking up for Syria but their warnings do raise an important alternative issue which needs to be answered sooner or later by our governments, why is it ok for us to invade Libya? Why not help the proteters in Bahrain or the protesters in Syria? What right have we got to interfere on matters that are strictly internal?

To begin with, the U.S. did not invade Libya. NATO was invited to move in for obvious reasons, and since NATO is primarily funded by the U.S. and others, its stands to reason that you would mention the U.S.

However, the U.S. are far from being active to its ability with Libya for if it was, then the outcome would have been similar to Iraq. As for Bahrain and Syria, well...i assume they will be next along with other bordering nations until the trigger nation is hit. What is a trigger nation, well that is a nation that will combine an ideology regardless of borders into a full blown conflict thus paving the way for the final piece to fall into place.

reply to post by tristar


I wasn't referring specifically to the US. I was refering to the general alliance of western nations as a whole. Regarding Libya the USA seems pretty distant this time, but that doesn't negate the point that 'western' nations are inevitably involved in pseudo-imperialistic military adventures almost constantly. It's no wonder the rest of the world views us with a certain amount of mistrust and disdain.