BREAKING: US enlists Britain's help to stop ship 'carrying Russian attack helicopters' to Syria

I perfectly understand the game that the US and Russia are playing when it comes to Syria, but the rather silly actions, or rather words by the US recently will result in it losing face internationally. Why make a ruckus about Russia selling arms and helicopters to Syria, if US knows that Russia will do it anyway and that you won't stop it? US is now almost downright threating Russia over this. But both Syria and Russia have already seen past US's strategy - US and its European allies will not get directly involved in Syria. That is very clear for Russia, and there are many reasons to support this. Assad's powerbase in Syria is significanly stronger than Khaddafi's was in Lybia. The Syrian rebels unlike Lybian rebels are receiving arms and helps mostly from the outside as opposed to getting it from the Syrian army - so this is seen as primarily a fight against external insurgency by the Assad supporters. The Syrian army and pro-government militias have not changed sides in masse, and this late in the game they likely won't. And finally, for Russia Syria's strategic importance is far greater than that of Lybia - it has been since the Soviet times. Russia has shown that it is committed to supporting Assad, and it will make a stand here unlike Lybia.


So what you are effectively left with a classic Civil war, where US's involvement will be limited to supplying arms and intel to the rebels, and bleating in the media about bloody genocide and big bad Assad and the like. US has assessed its capabilities and opportunities for direct involvement, and decided against it. Russia on the other hand called its bluff, and decided to stick close with the side that is likely to win. Russia simply has more vested in Assad's Syria than US has in the opposition. Assad may or may not survive politicially, but his "side" will likely prevail and the Baathists will retail most of power.

So the BS will the helicopter sales can stop now. No one is buying the threats by the US, and the sale and delivery will take place on schedule. And so will many other arms sales like it. US has other priorities, and Russia knows it. US will not ruin relations with Russia over Syria, even though they may play the game of words in the media. US is reliant on Russia for its continued mission in Afghanistan now, which will continue to be its priority. The fact is, that the US is not going to leave Afghanistan anytime soon. With Pakistan being in questionable status and being the location for much of the Al-Quida remnants, US will need to maintain military bases in close proximity.


What I am more interested in is the degree that other Arab countries and factions are involved in as far as helping the Syrian rebels. I would wager that Saudi Arabia has a more significant involvement than it seems, and the real polical game going on under the surface is between Syria/Iran and Saudi Arabia/UAE. The Saudis like to keep their militant dealings in the shade, and it will likely stay that way. In fact, Russia considers Saudi Arabia to be one of the biggest sources of financing for global terrorism Islamism, especially the terrorism that has hit Russia closest to home. Russia has long known that Saudi's and UAE are the biggest sponsors of the Chechen militants and terrorists responsible for attacks in Russia. I am certain that in the coming decades the face-off between Russia and Saudi Arabia will become more pronounced in conflicts in Middle East, even if it will stay strictly on a proxy basis.

Originally posted by CALGARIAN

Originally posted by purplemer
Syria is in the midsts of a regime change sponsored by the west

Yes because no one in Syria wants regime change.

"Sponsored by" doesnt mean 'entirely run by'.

What the west appears to be doing is 'sponsoring' locals wt money and weapons, likely lead by well-trained mercenaries. They use locals as fodder.

Can't say I blame the locals for going along with the plan to oust Assad. He hardly seems like a freind of his people. But his toppling will ultimately serve the US/UK. And we here in the west are being lied to about what is happening.

reply to post by maloy


Pretty good synopsis.

So I ask you, have you considered that perhaps this is all a big game tha6 Putin and the US play for ther own mutual and separate benefit?

Originally posted by QQXXw
reply to post by EarthCitizen07

 

The world elite do not need nuclear weapons. It is far easier to kill people off with poisoned food and water and soft sterilization (reduced sperm counts which are a FACT) as well as bio weapon. The truth is we are being killed off right now but we are doing nothing about it.

The luciferian bottom-feeders like to follow rituals. That is why they attend bohemian groove each summer, secret bilderberger meetings, plane crashes with 11-13-33-39, 9-11 being the emergency call number and date of the terrible genocide against americans, 666 is a by-product of 3 and 3 is the root of a triangle and pyramid.

Killing off people goes back to paganism. The mayans and aztecs did it as well. Ritual sacrfice. In many countries people kill chickens, goats, etc for good luck supposedly. In the old days they killed people in devotion "to the gods".

I wonder what the reptillian overlords will ORDER our bottom-feeder "leaders" to do next. You can never really stop getting amazed to THE MADNESS of this "haunted planet".

Originally posted by purplemer
reply to post by stanguilles7

 

Putin is likely itching for this conflict as much as the US/UK.

No he is trying to stop a conflict. Syria is in the midsts of a regime change sponsored by the west

Maybe. Or maybe he knows that a fight with the West will allow him to further consolidate power at a time when a lot of his country is demanding his resignation and free elections.

You need to look beyond the reactionary assumption that the 'west' is the only bad guy in the room. They are ALL bad guys.

The enemy of your enemy is often still your enemy, too.

Originally posted by ModernAcademia
These arms look more like tools to stop an invasion rather than domestic rebels

actually it is an invasion by western backed fighters..

Originally posted by detachedindividual
Like you, I am always suspicious. But I would rather trust the people on the ground who are independently reporting that they are being attacked by Assad.

People you see on tv or youtube are just as likely to be actors, or could be severly misinformed. Everyone believes what they want to believe, but the pragmatic approach when judging conflicts like this is professional skepticism - believe no one but look at underlying agendas in play.

Originally posted by detachedindividual
When I see footage of a mother screaming that Assad killed her children with mortar fire, I believe her over and above any sick media with a biased opinion.

Hollywood does that do you.

Originally posted by detachedindividual
The idea often raised on here that somehow an entire nation is being controlled by the CIA is, frankly, ridiculous!

Not an entire nation - just the opinion of one. And it is not necessary to get the CIA involved - the US Department of State does just as good of a job. They nearly perfected the "hey look over there where I am pointing, and don't mind anything else" technique.

Originally posted by detachedindividual
There are no doubt going to be national players in there somewhere, just as Russia is openly in there and playing their games too. This is about influencing something to go your way. But the resources needed for some massive operation like that are not in existence.

It is not just between Russia and the US. Saudi Arabia is likely playing a heavy hand, and they got plenty of money and religious influence to sway things. Saudi Arabia is one of the main proteges of the US and CIA proxy-war tactics developed decades ago. They likely now have more money and "assets" than CIA does in Middle East as well. They certainly have just as much discretion.

Originally posted by detachedindividual
And even though there are outside players in there, it doesn't mean that Assad is not a crazy despot murdering his own people.

There have been plenty of crazy despots murdering their own people who have been in bed with the US all their lives. That is one few ultimate truths of international politics and statehood - there will always be butchering despots, and everyone in the world will continue doing business with them. It is the ones that get defeated or make enemies in wrong places that get demonized the most.

Originally posted by detachedindividual
I hope we do stop this ship.

And how do you hope that would be achieved, without igniting a conflict far more massive than the one you are trying to resolve?

Originally posted by detachedindividual
Russia needs to be kicked in the ass one more time and reminded that they are not yet the global superpower.

Brilliant strategy. And if they kick back, and remind you that perhaps they already are?

Originally posted by detachedindividual
If they want to support a violent regime for their own benefit then they should expect to get slapped around the face for it.

Just like when US got slapped on 9/11?

Originally posted by fnpmitchreturns

Originally posted by ModernAcademia
These arms look more like tools to stop an invasion rather than domestic rebels

actually it is an invasion by western backed fighters..

Is it still an 'invasion' when the majority of fighters are locals? Even if their arms and money come from outside the country.

Pretending every single person with a gun in Syria is an 'outside instigator' is an Assad line It's no more true than the west's claims that they are all just innocent civilians.

reply to post by maloy


This is one of the problems when you emipre build in a never ending offensive war on rebellion or terrorism...

You will end up picking the winners or losers not the people of the country. But what if said country elects leaders which are not palatable to the US? We all know the US will not respect the elected governments which oppose them.

Originally posted by stanguilles7
So I ask you, have you considered that perhaps this is all a big game tha6 Putin and the US play for ther own mutual and separate benefit?

I certainly have considered that, and as I said I perfectly understand the game that the US and Russia are playing. Which is why I understand the side US is taking and its agenda, I just can't listen to Hillary with a straight face. It is not US's game, it is the delivery of its message that gets me. To pretend that you are on a moral highground, a pedestal above everyone else, and to voice it with such conviction. I get it that hundreds of millions of people buy that BS, but for everyone else it is see-through farce.

reply to post by stanguilles7


We know that there are alquacker fighters assisting the rebels and even the rebels have said this... that should automatically make them our enemy

unless you support sending arms to alquacker ?

I Don't... what would the US do if some country armed rebels here in the US? We both know how the US is about these policies ....

Once we (USA) armed Saddam with WMD ... another great move

I find it sad that the middle east is turning more and more conservative in terms of non-secularism and america is supporting that when george bush himself kept saying we need to fight religious extremism via the "the war on teror" line.

Israel is as right wing as it gets. America is also very right wing. America supports right wing governments one way or another. And everyone still hates each other. wow. amazing. assad, gaddafhi, saddam as sunni's were actually milder than the shiite muslim governments that want islamic republics. And they all gone, gone...well almost.

I just hope the muslim brotherhood is not religious as some people hint to them being. I still have some hope and if that is what the people want then I guess we should tolerate that. I just don't a small minority government impossing its will over the majority.

Originally posted by CALGARIAN

BREAKING: US enlists Britain's help to stop ship 'carrying Russian attack helicopters' to Syria

www.telegraph.co.uk

The US government has enlisted Britain's help in a bid to stop a ship suspected of carrying Russian attack helicopters and missiles to conflict-riven Syria, The Sunday Telegraph can reveal.

(visit the link for the full news article)

Wait! Poland is involved in this now, too?..
I love when lazy media editors use stock photos.

I dont think people understand how deadly attack choppers are.

Attack choppers are the absolute slaughter-horse of ground forces. If Syria starts using these in Mass , the rebels will be absolutely obliterated and collateral casualties to civilians will be reduced.

They can sit above the city , orbit at about 4000 feet , bye-bye rebels , these things can get any where , with high tech visuals , and you will be killed if they sight you in. You arent gonna make it.

However , my personal favorite.

----------------

Little off topic.

The AC-130 is an excellent fire support platform. With its extremely accurate fire control system, the AC-130 can place 105mm, 40mm and 25mm projetiles on target with first round accuracy , hell , yes.

Originally posted by EarthCitizen07
I find it sad that the middle east is turning more and more conservative in terms of non-secularism and america is supporting that when george bush himself kept saying we need to fight religious extremism via the "the war on teror" line.

Israel is as right wing as it gets. America is also very right wing. America supports right wing governments one way or another. And everyone still hates each other. wow. amazing. assad, gaddafhi, saddam as sunni's were actually milder than the shiite muslim governments that want islamic republics. And they all gone, gone...well almost.

The US believes that it can influence the direction of a country after the regime change, to prevent Islamization. Perhaps that is what it is doing in Egypt now with the help of the army, which is still very pro-secularism. US may see these regime changes as evolutions of secular statehoods. But it may just as well be very wrong in overestimating its influence, and it may get out of control. It got out of control in Afghanistan in the 80's and 90's after all - mind you that was still very different from the current situation.

Even Israel is very skeptical of what is going on now, as well as of the US's actions. Either the Obama administration is making a very big gamble, or they just developed a new strategy the results of which will manifest themselves in the next two decades or so. Someone is definitely cooking something, and we are all going to have to eat it soon.

Originally posted by EarthCitizen07
I just hope the muslim brotherhood is not religious as some people hint to them being. I still have some hope and if that is what the people want then I guess we should tolerate that. I just don't a small minority government impossing its will over the majority.

The Muslim Brotherhood in its current state cannot be a long-term partner with the West. It is far too infused with the fanatical demagogy, and it run by old men who will refuse to adapt to the changing world. If you can replace its leadership, you can sway it in a new direction. Perhaps if they get elected into an executive position, international politics will soften them and make them evolve. And yet, they are also still very unpredictable. That is what Israel is afraid of - Mubarak and Assad were predictable and easy to read - the Muslim Brotherhood not so much.

reply to post by milkyway12


Not if a certain someone supplies the rebels with Anti-Aircraft missiles.

Have we seen this somewhere before?

Wish the English government would stop #ss licking the american government. Its getting annoying now!

Originally posted by clay2 baraka


Wait! Poland is involved in this now, too?..
I love when lazy media editors use stock photos.

As pointed out earlier, that is the same model of helicopter which Russia is shipping to Syria. Yes, it's a stock photo of one with a Polish emblem. Obviously, they woudn't have images of the EXACT same ones.

reply to post by maloy


Israel never wanted Mubarak to be out of power and Israel never wanted Gaddahfi to be out of power. US still went ahead with pressure of sorts including direct military action to remove the regimes in power in those two nations. Now is it upto on Syria and next will be Iran.

US is upto something on macro basis and long term in its policies. It has military confidence that if ground matters are taken care of then mere air power will help change the regimes. That is why we do not see any statements calling for peace from both the sides. All the blame is labelled on Assad in Syria. Backdoor instigation is in full swing.

I believe the long term goal is the encirclement of Russia. Once Iran regime is changed then Tehran will be the platform to create problems in Russia's southern region. At that point when Russia cracks down on the rioting population in those regions, Moscow will be labelled as Assad is being labelled today. By that point Russia would have been totally encircled from West, South, partially from North and in east somewhat from Japan. In the WWII if Japan had followed Nazi request to create war with Russia, then history would have been much different as Russians would have not been able to handle the second front in the east.

Russians know what is going on and need to do something to break this circle closing on them. They recognized this way back in 1993 when the word 'Encirclement' was shouted many times from Moscow. It is time for Russia to break away from the SALT treaties and arm itself 5x more with nukes and missiles able to reach anywhere on earth. Worst case scenario, Russia will be on its own. Best case, it will have CSTO, China, India, North Korea for help.

It is time to water down some confidence in the west. By what means, that is the matter of military and political big wigs in Kremlin. Too much confidence leads to arrogance which leads to crimes on humanity.

Originally posted by victor7
Israel never wanted Mubarak to be out of power and Israel never wanted Gaddahfi to be out of power. US still went ahead with pressure of sorts including direct military action to remove the regimes in power in those two nations. Now is it upto on Syria and next will be Iran.

I realize that Israel does not buy into the US's strategy. Perhaps it is not because it opposes the objectives of this strategy, but it is just skeptical that it will work.

As for Syria and Iran - they are a different ball game. They are far larger and stronger, and there are also far more factors involved. In Syria a prolonged Civil War is now inevitable, and it will not be a quick turn-around ala Lybia. US and Europe will not directly intervene - that I am very confident of. They will watch from the sidelines and aid the rebels, but direct involvement will require getting your hands very dirty. Mere air-control is not going to do it, and if Russia is as dedicated as it says, it will send Syria the proper toys to make certain US does not come out unscathed. And as for Iran, US is not going to go far beyond poking it with a stick. Military intervention can be ruled out, and internal unheaval will require a lot of poking. A better bet with Iran is patiently watch is evolve from within, as I think the moderates can eventually gain support there without too much bloodshed.

Originally posted by victor7
US is upto something on macro basis and long term in its policies. It has military confidence that if ground matters are taken care of then mere air power will help change the regimes. That is why we do not see any statements calling for peace from both the sides. All the blame is labelled on Assad in Syria. Backdoor instigation is in full swing.

Lybia was child's play. Syria is going to test everyone's conviction to their strategy here. Personally I think US overstretched its goals, overestimated its capabilities, and underestimated the conviction of the other side. If you become too confident and too ambitious very quickly, you may find yourself in a place that you didn't expect and weren't ready for.

In either case I am sufficiently entertained.

Originally posted by victor7
I believe the long term goal is the encirclement of Russia. Once Iran regime is changed then Tehran will be the platform to create problems in Russia's southern region. At that point when Russia cracks down on the rioting population in those regions, Moscow will be labelled as Assad is being labelled today.

While I do agree that one of the strategic goals is encirclement of Russia, I do not think it will get as far as what you are prescribing. There are not going to be uprisings in that region of Russia - Russia knows its regions and internal geopolitics far better than US does. I know, because I lived in those regions. Russia is making extensive preparations too, and unlike US I do not think it is overstretched. Russia will continue to have internal upheavals - but these will be in Moscow and will not be bloody. US cannot subjugate Russia using its Middle East strategy - Russia is very different from any regime in the ME.

Originally posted by victor7
In the WWII if Japan had followed Nazi request to create war with Russia, then history would have been much different as Russians would have not been able to handle the second front in the east.

And you don't think that Japan's resources were already at near 100% capacity fighting in the Pacific by mid 1942? In fact Russia maintained a significant contingent of forces in the far East until late 1942, just in case of such a scenario. By late 1941 Russia received key intel from its spy in Japan Richard Sorge that Japan is not going to attack, and in 1942 it threw the forces into European front - but by then the Germans were already stopped and much of the fate of the war was decided. The movement of the forces to the Western front sped up the counterattacks, but they were not decisive and Russia did have contingency plans for a war in two fronts. In fact it itself successfully engaged the Japanese in Mongolia and Manchuria 1944.

I know it is not relevant to this thread, but just a little history tid bit.

Originally posted by victor7
Russians know what is going on and need to do something to break this circle closing on them. They recognized this way back in 1993 when the word 'Encirclement' was shouted many times from Moscow. It is time for Russia to break away from the SALT treaties and arm itself 5x more with nukes and missiles able to reach anywhere on earth.

That is what it is leading to. Russia is working hard on developing new MIRV technologies, that can be quickly refitted to the new generation of missiles that are currently fitted with only a single warhead. After the US exited the Anti-Ballistic Missile treaty, Russia has determined that this is the way to go. No doubt there is going to be a PR sh*t-storm in the Western media about it, but thats natural.

Originally posted by victor7
Worst case scenario, Russia will be on its own. Best case, it will have CSTO, China, India, North Korea for help.

With the way it's going you can't count Syria and Iran out yet. Kazakhstan and the other "stans" can't be discounted as significant players either. I do think it is going to be far less dramatic than a Cold-War type show-off though. And if anything, it will help strengthen the pro-Putin autocracy, which is why Russia is playing along right now.

Originally posted by victor7
It is time to water down some confidence in the west. By what means, that is the matter of military and political big wigs in Kremlin. Too much confidence leads to arrogance which leads to crimes on humanity

Russia has chosen what it terms as a "pragmatic" approach. It is not going to make rash or bravado moves, but instead the more patient and profitable approach. In fact one strategy may be to let US stretch its resources thinner and spend itself into sovereign-debt crisis, and then take advantage of an opportunity.