Putin 'does not rule out' approving Syria strike with evidence Assad used poison gas

reply to post by all2human


I fully agree. This applies to all players in the game. But this is not really what Mr. Tinfoil was trying to say. Right now, we have a very bizarre situation with Putin being the only 'voice of reason', saying no action should be taken before it is not absolutely clear who carried out this attack. The move is entirely political, what will come out of it, we'll have to wait and see.

Originally posted by talklikeapirat
reply to post by TinfoilTP

 

Interesting. So you are arguing that Putin is only protecting an ally and trade partner from unilateral military action. He would probably agree with you on that part, and he would probably also point out to you that his memory is not as short as yours.

Russia’s intention in all of this is to avoid making the same mistake it made with Libya, said Klimov, who has traveled to Syria during the civil war there to assess Russia’s options. In 2011, the Kremlin — then led by Putin’s more liberal protégé Dmitri Medvedev — was a lot more sympathetic to the international outrage against Libyan dictator Muammar Gaddafi, who was then trying to crush his own violent rebellion. The U.S. and its allies convinced Medvedev not to block a U.N. resolution against Gaddafi, allowing it to pass a vote in the U.N. Security Council.

As Putin sees it, that resolution was taken way beyond its stated purpose of imposing a no-fly zone over Libya — it also opened the door for a full-scale military intervention. Under the U.N. mandate, the U.S. and NATO began flying bombing raids against Gaddafi’s military convoys, which were then moving toward the rebel-held city of Benghazi with the express aim of “cleansing” its revolutionary populace. After fending off that assault, NATO airpower continued to provide the rebels with a clear military advantage.

Within weeks, Gaddafi’s army was routed, his convoy was bombed from the air while fleeing the Libyan capital, and the dictator himself was captured hiding in a drainpipe in his hometown. A video of rebels beating, insulting and finally killing Gaddafi soon appeared on YouTube. Putin was furious over this turn of events — seeing it as a blatant violation of Libyan sovereignty and a betrayal of Russia’s willingness to trust the West’s intentions. He has not gotten over the slight. “What we really do not want is to allow the same mistake as with Libya,” Klimov said, “when we believed we were getting one thing and got something totally different.”

Read more: world.time.com...

Yes, Putin does not like coming out looking like he was on the losing side. That is what happened to him in Libya. He is going to come out on the winning side this time around, he just needs time to maneuver an opening to join the US strikes this time around.

What I see happening is a limited US attack by Obama, with Putin maneuvering a UN vote so he can get in on the main action coming down the line.
If Obama only takes a limited action this time around, it will allow Putin to come on board by seeing the US didn't go all out for regime change like in Libya.
This will smooth over US Russian relations and Putin can do what he does best, stride around the deck of his missile cruiser bare chested declaring victory for the cameras in joint Russian US action against Assad.

reply to post by talklikeapirat


He's just messing with Obama. Causing a stir and makibg people think. He knows that we don't have evidence and that it was likely rebels. Obama is going to strike, Russia won't react, but they are sending in muscle in case Israel tries to take this war to Iran (which Israel wants too do).

reply to post by TinfoilTP


You are like a non sense machine. Russia would never join in a strike on Syria. They are asking for evidence because they know there isn't any. You are underestimating Russia either because you are naive or its intentional. They are there for one reason and one reason only, to back Iran.

reply to post by talklikeapirat


God help me but I agree with Putin. After all, it was Franklin Roosevelt who coined the term the "United Nations" and it was the United States and 4 other countries (the USSR, France, UK and China) that formed the Security Council of the UN. The United Nations, in its founding was "committed to maintaining international peace and security, developing friendly relations among nations and promoting social progress, better living standards and human rights." The primary purpose being an attempt to delay or prevent another World War. However, if we dismiss the UN's own purpose despite our country's role in its formation, then we basically once again undermine the existence of the UN or deem ourselves as being outside of the UN's jurisdiction despite our nation's leader having signed the charter or being a permanent member of the Security Council. If we don't respect it, why should any other country?

Correct me if I'm wrong but was it not the United Nations that was the vehicle for the international laws pertaining to chemical weapons in the form of the Geneva Convention and the Chemical Weapons Convention? That makes it almost a hypocrisy, in that, while citing a convention facilitated by the UN as a cause of "military intervention", that we would also break international law ourselves in engaging in such actions without UN authorization. If we expect one country to respect our international laws, then so should we.

I'm pretty sure all the UN is going to do is confirm that gas was used in Syria. They have said they will not go as far as to say which side used it. Putin knows this! He is well versed in espionage and would very much like to have a look at our intelligence.

Not going to happen.

I actually hope that Prime Min. Putin,, remembers, Chechnya,,,the school kids,,,and says,, "Too Avenge the Children, and the Motherland,,,lets go take Iran Ourselves,, dos navanya? lol,, saddle up boys
they surprised the world once,, in Chechslovakia,,long time ago.

MSM is putting this spin on it now, it's not any different than what he has said all along. IF there's proof he might back a UN resolution, if the US attacks before then or in spite of... then he is prepared to take action to protect Russian interest. His words are right there in every article, how dumb do they think we are to swallow this BS as anything but a warning?

Gotta love all this posturing too.
American interest
Russian Interest
Chinese interest....

How about Syrian interest?

reply to post by Kali74


Lavrov said Russia wouldn't be drawn into a war over Syria. This is just Putin stirrinf it up by calling us out for not actually having proof. We aren't going to Syria over chemical weapons and everyone with half a brain knows it.

reply to post by GogoVicMorrow


I hope you are right.

Originally posted by Catacomb
Russia said what it said, because they know there is no such evidence. They are calling Obama's bluff.

Setting all that aside.
I still wouldn't be so cocked sure. Russia isn't about to risks millions of lives over a tin pot dictator. Putin is many things but stupid isn't one of them. He may just go along simply to get this mess over with.

You just never know...

reply to post by RAY1990


Yeah, but you can't fix the country by bombing the # out of it. USA will help civilians by killing few thousands of them. What about negotiations?

P.S.: and by helping rebels without 'foot on the ground' there is a big chance that terrorists would get huge stash of chemical weapons to play with

reply to post by talklikeapirat


I'm inclined to agree with Putin if he means that. I don't think it will ever happen though because I doubt the existence of real evidence. The U.S. will probably just go to war anyway and open a big can of worms. It's retarded and predictable or perhaps I'm just jaded. Although, in this case, I doubt I'm wrong.

Source

The vote marked the first time lawmakers have voted to authorize military action since the October 2002 votes giving President George W. Bush the authority to invade Iraq.

Bombs away

Here's an alternative possibility that I think should be explored - Putin knows the gas was sued and knows that Assad's troops used it, and doesn't want to be shown to be an idiot if the US administration does release proof.

After all Russia is Assad's ally - it probably has BETTER evidence than the US - it has more people on the ground and better contacts in the Syrian military.

so I reckon they've been calling the US's bluff with "show us the evidence", and they think that the US is about to call their bluff.

reply to post by Kali74


It won't matter if I'm right. Russia will join in when Israel drags Iran in.

reply to post by GogoVicMorrow


Other than few Topols and Bulavas, Russia has little that can fight the US-NATO. Their best hope is that the ICBMs are able to find holes in the missile defense and reach the targets. Air Force wise both offense and defense, Russia is in shambles. Once Air Force is negated, then that means a CHECK MATE in most of the other areas. Don't put too much value into S-300s or S-400s to be able to stop F-22s and B-2 bombers. Israelis already have tools to jamm or cancel out the S-300s and that is why Russia is not sending them to Syria. As an example: In 2008 Georgia war, Russian bomber T-22 was shot down by Buk-M1 system given to Tblisi by Ukraine. This means Russians could not even jamm their own missile system. Electronic warfare matters, Russian abilities plain simple suck !!!!!!!!! I would term Iranian electronic capabilities to be much more solid in proportion.

Technological gap has widened too much in US favor. Russian men have been very drunk in the last 20 years hoping that wives out there toiling in work bring home enough to carry the expenses.

Russians are lucky that they are dealing with the US as the opponent. If it was Germany or UK or Chinese, by now we would have had WW3 already.

reply to post by victor7


You are underestimating Russia. They have hyper sonic missiles. The giant destroyer (subs in tow) Russia put in the Med today only had rockets that do mach 2 or 3 (that we know of..), but they are a bigger strength than you know.

Also, you don't know what Russia has, no one does. As I said Russia won't strike over Syria, but will over Iran. It blows my mind that you don't think it would be ww3 if we (with Israel) were up against Russia and Iran (and Syria, and other hostile groups). It would be a nightmare. Also China could decide to take advantage of the situation.

The missiles you listed are far fron Russias peak technology. Those are just what they sold to Syria. You are waaaay off on this.

Originally posted by GogoVicMorrow
reply to post by TinfoilTP

 

You are like a non sense machine. Russia would never join in a strike on Syria. They are asking for evidence because they know there isn't any. You are underestimating Russia either because you are naive or its intentional. They are there for one reason and one reason only, to back Iran.

More likely the Russians know the Assad ordered the strikes and when it become public they can simply say they were waiting proof so they do not look isolated again. Everything Russia has done has been either talk or symbolic they have taken no real action to protect Syria or try and stop the West. An small task force that would be isolated and trapped surrounded by vastly superior NATO and Arab forces is a cleat sign they are going to avoid any conflict. You do not send a chuck of you fleet a place where it faces certain death over night if you see a chance for war coming. Russia will turn on Syria as soon as it looks like it might cost it something.

reply to post by MrSpad


i still think they turned on Germany
when they invaded Polland,, first,,remember,,
(sorry Russia,,)
So ya gotta watch those Russian's they play well in real time.