Russia: We will never agree to foreign intervention in Syria

www.cnn.com...

After days of international shuttling on what to do with the troubling situation in Syria, Russia's foreign minister said Saturday his country will never agree to foreign intervention. Despite warnings of Syria spiraling into a civil war, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said at a televised briefing in Moscow there was no alternative other than implementing Special Envoy Kofi Annan's peace plan, despite its failures.

Well there it is. Russia will remain with Assad on this situation and will not allow NATO interference with Syria in any way shape or form. Earlier it was posted that they were having talks on another thread, and now this is the final outcome.



Plus Russia and China and a few other nations have signed an allegiance with Syria:

Russia, along with China and four Central Asian nations, has signed a joint declaration rejecting armed intervention in Syria and reiterating support for Annan's peace plan.

reply to post by THE_PROFESSIONAL


Funny that the communist states are the ones who end up having to defend democracy

reply to post by HumanCondition


Indeed, but I would not call Assad a democracy. He is a dictator, but he is much better than a NATO strike and the rebel terrorists running the country and ruining it like they did in Libya.

After the NATO strikes happend in Libya, did the western MSM show you this:



Or NATO killing children:



Before and After NATO bombs in Misrata:



And then the expected blowback:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Exactly why 911 happened. Oh why do the middle eastern people hate us...Oh why do they bomb our embassies....

Of course, there is foreign intervention in Syria in the form of the UN.

If half the posts on these very Boards contain any truth then at least ten other nations are involved in Syria - arms from Iran, soldiers from Iran, agitators from the CIA, military advisors and kit from Russia, plastic toys from China not to mention the involvement from Saudi Arabia and half of the Middle East who want an end to Assad, not because he’s a nasty piece of work, but because he’s the wrong type of Muslim.

Russia is a stuck record. They are struck to the despot, Mr Assad, who likes buying their arms. Russia is backing the wrong horse and the more they bleat on about it the more apparent it is.

Russia knows NATO won't intervene without UN agreement and that won't happen.

Regards

Sounds like an SAS wet job to me.Maybe he might commit suicide like Abu Nidal.

reply to post by paraphi

They are struck to the despot, Mr Assad, who likes buying their arms. Russia is backing the wrong horse and the more they bleat on about it the more apparent it is.

No Russia is correct in Backing Assad. Why should they back another NATO intervention?

reply to post by THE_PROFESSIONAL


Geopolitics. Right and wrong does not enter into any equation for any nation. It's all about serving ones' own interests.

Russia has no problem interfering in other nations when it sees fit. Nor does China.

In this case Syria is a good customer and a nice pal to have in just the right geographic locale.

How much effort have any of you ever seen the U.S. expend on a truly pure humanitarian effort? Some cargo, maybe some military trainers, perhaps even a battalian of marines. The U.S. isn't in this for the right cause and neither is Russia. They're each just serving what they perceive as their own interests.

I apologize. This comment was not meant to be in reply to any previous comment. I miss-clicked.

reply to post by THE_PROFESSIONAL


I am not saying Russia should back a NATO intervention. I am saying that they are choosing to back a brutal dictatorship. Put aside the current turmoil and look at the past e.g. the 1982 Hama Massacre or just do the general www.shrc.org...

However, it is expected that the autocracies support each other - even though they are a dying breed.

Regards

The last legitimate engagement by the US military was when we helped Kuwait.

Everything since then has been an embarrassment.

We don't belong in Iraq or Afghanistan or Iran or Syria.

Let them solve their own damn problems.

reply to post by rtyfx


I thought the early work in Afghanistan was justified. That was when we had a couple of thousand guys on the ground helping out the rebels against the Taliban. After that it just got stupid.

I'm glad Russia speaks up. The people do not want what happened to Libya and Egypt to be their country next, with the SS Fourth Reict's Brotherhood and Sharia.

They've all been CIA/Mossad/black op instituted violent uprisings. Its sickening. They want that whole area owned and women wearing burka's.

Originally posted by THE_PROFESSIONAL

Plus Russia and China and a few other nations have signed an allegiance with Syria:

Well that statement is deceitful. There is no "allegiance with Syria"


Your source

Russia, along with China and four Central Asian nations, has signed a joint declaration rejecting armed intervention in Syria and reiterating support for Annan's peace plan.

See, that right there is why you lose credibility in some of your threads...


Spin Spin Spin...

reply to post by Erectus

How much effort have any of you ever seen the U.S. expend on a truly pure humanitarian effort? Some cargo, maybe some military trainers, perhaps even a battalian of marines. The U.S. isn't in this for the right cause and neither is Russia. They're each just serving what they perceive as their own interests.

The US has a history of perhaps the most military interventions of any nation. Russia not so much. While Russia does intervene when it sees fit and necessary for its own good, they do not carry out the imperialistic practices of the USA and bring hate upon themselves as the USA has brought.

Russia has its naval base and weapons and business deals with sryia and has a strategic interest to support Assad.

What does the USA get out of it?

reply to post by SLAYER69


Oh well are you discarding this entire thread as uncredible? I am sorry that I do not know the difference between the words allegiance and a united declartion..

Perhaps you could suggest a dictionary function for us unedumakted folks...

reply to post by paraphi

I am not saying Russia should back a NATO intervention. I am saying that they are choosing to back a brutal dictatorship

And that dictatorship is better than what we at NATO install, not to mention the accompanying 911 style blowback.

The 1979 Iran hostage situation was the result of our CIA sponsored regime change.

This is what is happening right now.

reply to post by THE_PROFESSIONAL


What does the USA get out of it?

Nothing, but you know about those two blue lines on our bestest friend's flag, right? That's paramount.

Whoa with Russia sticking close to Syria and now Panchetta threatening Pakistan:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Although I would hardly call it a threat because there is already a war on the Pakis...

The USA would have a multiple front war if this situation got even worse...

So let's get this straight it is ok for Russia,China,Turkey,Saudi,Pakistan,Qatar, and Iran to get involved in Syria but no one else can?

Is that about right?

Russia has already agreed to foreign intervention with Russian advisors on the ground in Syria.

Discussion between Hilary and Vladimir

Clinton: We should invade Syria ASAP

Putin : Niet Souka



Probably excatly what he said to her in response

reply to post by neo96


Assad is supported by these nations and always has, but the NATO countries are trying to stir the nest and perform a coup for some unknown reason out of the blue. Russia has maintained a base in Syria a long time and any intervention upon syria would be an act of aggression upon its own troops.

Why did we all of a sudden get the the urge to save 'syrian civilians' so suddenly? Assad has been ruling for years.

Also there are lots of civilians being killed in China, why are you not asking for NATO intervention in China?