It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Russian Moves in Syria Pose Concerns for U.S.

page: 2
7
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 6 2015 @ 07:53 AM
link   
a reply to: ufoorbhunter


Their economies and infrastructure and defence is run from Moscow.


In other words, they are Russian colonies. Funny, the US, UK, and France let the countries they have bases in run themselves. That's why they are not empires but Russia is.




posted on Sep, 6 2015 @ 08:01 AM
link   
Of course the USA is pissy if russia step in.

If the civil war ends they lose a cash cow.

Though chances are Russia will just scew it up even more with typical russian military incompetence and every country with a arms export industry will make a killing.



posted on Sep, 6 2015 @ 08:04 AM
link   
My country, US need to shut up and move out of the way. We had our chance.



posted on Sep, 6 2015 @ 08:09 AM
link   

originally posted by: tony9802
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..

They are out looking for WMD in Iraq and Setting up the next 911.



posted on Sep, 6 2015 @ 08:37 AM
link   

originally posted by: stumason
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"...


These post Soviet states aren't considered real countries by Moscow. Lets remember that Russia itself is not a normal functioning western style state, it is a mafia state. A mafia state where it's leaders are enormously wealthy. Those people make their wealth from the powerful industries within Russia, oil, metals, gas, engineering, armaments etc. They control the country and they control the wealth, they control it in Russia and they control it in the near abroad. There is no real independence for the big business in the near abroad, they are one and the same controlled by the mafia. Borders means nothing, it's all about control of the business that counts. Therefore these are not real countries with real independence. Mafia are in control of everything. The local man on the street matters for nothing in these states, they are cannon fodder for the mafia that control the former soviet union.



posted on Sep, 6 2015 @ 08:57 AM
link   

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. 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.


I agree with your analysis and we aren't alone!
See: www.huffingtonpost.com...

I say that however in ignorance about the strength of Assad's forces; I'd have to guess your correct in that they've been worn down.

So....I guess a solution to the Syrian civil war is a partition of Syria with ISIS getting the bulk of it for their Caliphate and Assad and his people getting a sliver along the coast being the Tarsus and Latakia Governates.



posted on Sep, 6 2015 @ 09:02 AM
link   

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.


The war was already ongoing when the US and others started action there, so there is absolutely no way in hell you can claim that any of our actions there made anything worse.

Assad was already carpet bombing his own citizens, after they followed other nations and began protesting against the authoritarian rule of his corrupt government.

When the US and others intervened (whatever you think of it) the civil war was already raging.

This knee-jerk condemnation of anything the US does is absolute nonsense. While there are a lot of things to criticize, this bs argument that the US is "always responsible for everything bad" is the most ridiculous argument too often repeated here for no reason other than almost automatic paranoia.

If any proof is needed of this, why do so many here instantly make a thread about Russian involvement in Syria about the US?
Why is it only the US accused ot destabilizing?
Why do you all ignore the possibility that Russia is doing exactly the same thing you accuse the US of?

The hypocrisy here is insane. If you want to claim that the big bad evil USA is behind the destabilization of countries then you HAVE TO make the same accusation when RUSSIA is seemingly being more nefarious and more secretive about its own involvement in Syria.

How about this... while you're all accusing the USA of being involved in the destabilizing of this country, it is a FACT that Russia has been supplying Assad, the man who unleashed bombing campaigns on his own population.

Enough with his biased bs. If you want to call out the USA based on nothing more than your inherent anti-Americanism, you need to cast the same accusations against Russia, which is actually PROVEN to have been destabilizing that country through its support of a violent despot.
edit on 6-9-2015 by Rocker2013 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 6 2015 @ 09:06 AM
link   

originally posted by: crazyewok
Of course the USA is pissy if russia step in.

If the civil war ends they lose a cash cow.



Russia is a military supplier to Assad, NOT the USA.
You might want to get the basics right before you start this nonsense.



posted on Sep, 6 2015 @ 09:09 AM
link   

originally posted by: elysiumfire
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.


And all of this plays out when the US has apparently decided to take a back seat and against the backdrop of the US 2016 election which, as usual, features a cast of no-talent and clueless candidates. Maybe that's for the best.



posted on Sep, 6 2015 @ 09:19 AM
link   

originally posted by: TonyS
So....I guess a solution to the Syrian civil war is a partition of Syria with ISIS getting the bulk of it for their Caliphate and Assad and his people getting a sliver along the coast being the Tarsus and Latakia Governates.


I disagree.
ISIS will never be happy with the formation of any state. This is not a people seeking a land to call their own, this is a cult, a death cult, hell bent on murder and destruction. It will never be happy with whatever it gets and its ambition is to inflict its own warped ideology on as many people as possible.

There is no placating a cult like this. You would not allow such a cult to have a state in the US to call its home and the same should not be permitted anywhere else - like Yemen for instance.

The solution to this is an uncomfortable one - we need an international coalition to throw everything we have at all ISIS positions in Syria, from Turkey, and then remove Assad and take over as an interim government. Most importantly, we need to get all of the Arab states on board to lead this.

We have a choice, we either deal with this now at great expense or we deal with this in ten years at even greater expense, after ISIS has grown into a real army, murdered hundreds of thousands of people, destroyed hundreds of historical sites, potentially spread to other countries, attacked us repeatedly on our own soil...

This is not going to stop unless we do more to stop it, and what we've done so far is no where near enough.



posted on Sep, 6 2015 @ 09:26 AM
link   
The only concerns the US might have here is Russia annexing the Tartus Port. Russia isn't going to make any significant difference there.



posted on Sep, 6 2015 @ 09:30 AM
link   

originally posted by: crazyewok
Of course the USA is pissy if russia step in.

If the civil war ends they lose a cash cow.

Though chances are Russia will just scew it up even more with typical russian military incompetence and every country with a arms export industry will make a killing.


Cash cow? How is the Syria conflict a "cash cow" for the US? I'd love to hear this one...

a reply to: ufoorbhunter

Quite, which is why I pointed out the irony in your statement about Western nations "meddling" - it pales in comparison to what Russia get's up to with it's neighbours.



posted on Sep, 6 2015 @ 09:38 AM
link   
a reply to: TonyS

I have had to laugh at the Telegraph's article as well as remembering that the journalist who wrote it obviously their own political agenda.

When did Tony Blair ask for permission to go into Iraq our government doesn't need any permission and neither does the American. So whats it all about really?

Its been about interfering in foreign countries on behalf of rich people's interests and devastating them. Its been about pipelines although why a pipeline should benefit the USA's Fracking industry is quite beyond me. The Saudi's are already killing that off yet not a peep from Obama. Its also about a literal God-given right to depose another country's leader because he won't play ball with American, British and our silent partners the Israeli's interests.

As far as the UK is concerned, for all the trouble cameron has taken to interfere in other countries, now he is literally getting bit on his fat arse because huge numbers of the peoples he has displaced and lives he has helped to ruin are turning up on the door step demanding entry.

We will soon be hearing people demand another general election because no one has any faith in our government which is now paying the price for its own actions. I do think Obama needs to step up the the plate and take a lot of these people also - he's more responsible than Cameron also included are a few other EU leaders who are keeping low profiles.

Its poetic justice. If the Russians are coming into Syria, good luck if they can destroy ISIS. They will clearly put a stop to whoever is dropping supplies to that mob and funding them.



posted on Sep, 6 2015 @ 09:41 AM
link   

originally posted by: stumason

originally posted by: crazyewok
Of course the USA is pissy if russia step in.

If the civil war ends they lose a cash cow.

Though chances are Russia will just scew it up even more with typical russian military incompetence and every country with a arms export industry will make a killing.


Cash cow? How is the Syria conflict a "cash cow" for the US? I'd love to hear this one...

a reply to: ufoorbhunter

Quite, which is why I pointed out the irony in your statement about Western nations "meddling" - it pales in comparison to what Russia get's up to with it's neighbours.



Not the government per se.

But come on guns and ammo dont appear out of thin air.

Some defence contractors funnling in weapons somehow even if indirectly . Plus every nation that borders Syria and is effected by isis like iraq want new toys to play with, hell allied arms sales in that region alone is worth billions.in fact even if US weapons manfactures are playing "good" and not selling to anyone in the civil war, those sales to neighbouring allies is likely still a HUGE gold mine.

Seeing as most US politicians not only are lobbied by these defence contractors , but own stock in them I highly doubt many of them are upset about the personal profit they and freinds might be makeing.

Hell i think the entire Iraq war was based on the fact a few greedy politicians wanted to expand there personal bank accounts.
So the idea that a few may be useing the syria conflict to make a few bucks highly surprises me.

edit on 6-9-2015 by crazyewok because: (no reason given)

edit on 6-9-2015 by crazyewok because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 6 2015 @ 09:43 AM
link   
a reply to: Rocker2013
There may be truth in that, but I don't think the "Arab" community is going to be very receptive to a European or US led coalition. They've already had enough of the "European" solutions to dividing up the Levant after WWI and WWII.

So, maybe a Pan-Arab coalition supported by European forces and US materiel would work. Otherwise, the only "force" sufficiently strong to deal with ISIS is Iran and they're too smart to go there.



posted on Sep, 6 2015 @ 10:17 AM
link   

originally posted by: Shiloh7
a reply to: TonyS

I have had to laugh at the Telegraph's article as well as remembering that the journalist who wrote it obviously their own political agenda.

When did Tony Blair ask for permission to go into Iraq our government doesn't need any permission and neither does the American. So whats it all about really?

Its been about interfering in foreign countries on behalf of rich people's interests and devastating them. Its been about pipelines although why a pipeline should benefit the USA's Fracking industry is quite beyond me. The Saudi's are already killing that off yet not a peep from Obama. Its also about a literal God-given right to depose another country's leader because he won't play ball with American, British and our silent partners the Israeli's interests.

As far as the UK is concerned, for all the trouble cameron has taken to interfere in other countries, now he is literally getting bit on his fat arse because huge numbers of the peoples he has displaced and lives he has helped to ruin are turning up on the door step demanding entry.

We will soon be hearing people demand another general election because no one has any faith in our government which is now paying the price for its own actions. I do think Obama needs to step up the the plate and take a lot of these people also - he's more responsible than Cameron also included are a few other EU leaders who are keeping low profiles.

Its poetic justice. If the Russians are coming into Syria, good luck if they can destroy ISIS. They will clearly put a stop to whoever is dropping supplies to that mob and funding them.


Well, you needn't worry about Obama stepping up to take in more refugees. He and his "party" are working quietly behind the scenes to bring in tens of thousands of the refugees. You just don't see it reported in the MSM because they fear stirring up the xenophobes in the US. You also don't hear about it because they've set up "Regulatory" authorities to handle refugee resettlement such that they can easily by-pass any "Immigration" laws that might slow them down so you don't hear about him having to petition Congress for any approvals.



posted on Sep, 6 2015 @ 10:20 AM
link   
The British Government has said that it's time to talk about military action against ISIS and Assad to address the migrant problem sweeping Europe. They'd like to address the issue at the core rather than just keep taking in more migrants.

If the Russians are supporting Assad, and NATO decides to go in full bore to take out Assad and ISIS, Syria could become the next boiling point.



posted on Sep, 6 2015 @ 10:24 AM
link   
I'm surprised that the far righties in the USA haven't been raising hell about why is the USA taking in refugees from Syria.

They may not realize that THOUSANDS of Muslims are about to be allowed into the USA at taxpayers' expense.

I personally don't think USA should be taking any of these migrants. Not because I'm bigoted against Muslims (I'm not, I couldn't care less what style of stupid hat religion you follow), but because it's not an American problem.

American leadership needs to be really, really careful. This sort of thing is what might just push the TEA Party into becoming the American National Front. They're not far away from this, and it wouldn't take much to tip them over the line.



posted on Sep, 6 2015 @ 11:26 AM
link   
a reply to: babybunnies it's a global problem. I could easily day it's not the uks problem, it doesn't make the refugee crisis go away. America is as responsible for destabilising the Middle East as any other and is stepping up to help. You won't even know they are there. They have come from a war zone and its Americas duty to help


edit on 6-9-2015 by woodwardjnr because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 6 2015 @ 11:50 AM
link   
Y A know i d liek Russia to Balkanize syria in exchange for helping assad.. Ask all th e ones in Donestk if they want to move to a better climate and actually have their own mini nation like Israel has.



new topics

top topics



 
7
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join