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.

 

Russia steps up military presence in Syria.

page: 4
13
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 25 2015 @ 08:10 PM
link   
Why do the russian combat aircraft have air to air missiles on them
the only air force they could be used on is the US military.

ISIS has no airpower.
The Kurds have no combat air craft.

I believe Russia Iran and Syria will first go after ISIS then they will attack the Kurds.
That will force the US to protect the Kurds or abandon them leaving the Christians and the other groups the Kurds have been protecting at the mercy of Iran and the remains of ISIS.

I hope the russians do not fire there AIR to AIR Missiles at US aircraft or they will find out how good the AIM-9X sidewinders we have are.




posted on Sep, 25 2015 @ 10:03 PM
link   
a reply to: ANNED

Yeah that same question has been asked as to why Ukraine would have surface to air missiles located in rebel controlled territory when MH17 was shot down.

If we had to guess about Syria it most likely has to do with Russia and the coalition not quite seeing eye to eye on operations just yet. Its probably one of the reasons Russia has deployed Surface to air missiles even though the rebels nor ISIS have aircraft.

Given how the NATO charter is set up I am curious what's going to happen if coalition aircraft are attacked by Russian forces.


edit on 25-9-2015 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 26 2015 @ 03:58 PM
link   

originally posted by: Xcathdra
Given how the NATO charter is set up I am curious what's going to happen if coalition aircraft are attacked by Russian forces.


If NATO aircraft are attacked over Syria, then it's not a clear Article 5 violation, but if NATO aircraft or ground were attacked in Turkey it would be.

My guess is that Russia might want to cleave off Turkey from the US and NATO, so Russia will attack Kurds (attack the victim) and not ISIS and make friends with Islamist Ergodan, and push ISIS to take over Iraq and Kurdistan instead of Syria.

They'll try to make a deal with ISIS: stop attacking Assad, continue with Kurds and Iraq, and we'll help you sell oil, protect you from NATO and Iraq military and Assad. ISIS will take the deal, take over northern Iraq, and then stab them in the back later.
edit on 26-9-2015 by mbkennel because: (no reason given)

edit on 26-9-2015 by mbkennel because: (no reason given)

edit on 26-9-2015 by mbkennel because: (no reason given)

edit on 26-9-2015 by mbkennel because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 27 2015 @ 03:31 AM
link   
Looks like the war in Syria is escalating, which may be the reason for the mass migration of refugees to Europe.



Russia escalates Syria involvement fearing 'imminent' Assad fall. EU foreign affairs chief tells Al Jazeera that Russia is boosting its involvement to halt "imminent" fall of government.



posted on Sep, 27 2015 @ 06:17 AM
link   
a reply to: FormOfTheLord

I worry about Syria. Assad seems like a reasonable man, he knows there is big trouble in his country and he is doing his best to stop it. One thing I will say is that I am really not sure that he is not lying about the barrel bombs though. But he is right in that this is not a conventional war between two armies out in a battlefield.




edit on 27-9-2015 by markosity1973 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 27 2015 @ 07:42 AM
link   
a reply to: mbkennel

Actually I don't think it would qualify as an article V violation for NATO. In this instance some countries that belong to NATO are involved on their own in Syria. Article V can only be invoked if they are attacked and in this instance, since they are involved as an aggressor I don't think it would qualify.

Secondly article V restricts it to attacks on European or north American soil. It does not cover the Middle East.



NATO Charter

Article 5

The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all and consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence recognised by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area.

Any such armed attack and all measures taken as a result thereof shall immediately be reported to the Security Council. Such measures shall be terminated when the Security Council has taken the measures necessary to restore and maintain international peace and security .



Article 6 (1)

For the purpose of Article 5, an armed attack on one or more of the Parties is deemed to include an armed attack:

•on the territory of any of the Parties in Europe or North America, on the Algerian Departments of France (2), on the territory of or on the Islands under the jurisdiction of any of the Parties in the North Atlantic area north of the Tropic of Cancer;
•on the forces, vessels, or aircraft of any of the Parties, when in or over these territories or any other area in Europe in which occupation forces of any of the Parties were stationed on the date when the Treaty entered into force or the Mediterranean Sea or the North Atlantic area north of the Tropic of Cancer.



While the bulk of the ME is north of the Tropic of Cancer they countries are no longer European colonies / territories. Of course I could be wrong but I don't think I am.

For Syria anyways...

As for Russia an argument might be able to be made if they attack Turkey directly. Again though since forces are in the air over Syria I don't know how it would be interpreted.
edit on 27-9-2015 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 27 2015 @ 07:48 AM
link   

originally posted by: markosity1973
a reply to: FormOfTheLord

I worry about Syria. Assad seems like a reasonable man, he knows there is big trouble in his country and he is doing his best to stop it. One thing I will say is that I am really not sure that he is not lying about the barrel bombs though. But he is right in that this is not a conventional war between two armies out in a battlefield.





What has he ever done to us zero.

Its just the global gansters attempting to topple him with a merc army.

Yeah he bombed the merc army, they claimed he is after innocent people, but I think he is fighting terrorists.



posted on Sep, 27 2015 @ 07:53 AM
link   
a reply to: FormOfTheLord

More than 220,000 civilians have been killed in the Syrian civil war. The rebels nor ISIS are responsible for all 220,000 deaths. Extra judicial killings by Assads army is documented. Along with torture, the intentional targeting of civilians / civil areas. The use of chemical weapons (by BOTH sides)...

What has Assad done?

He has ruled Syria as a dictator and only now "talks" about elections and rights now that he is hanging on to about 20% of the country. If he is so great why didn't he give the people what they wanted a long time ago? People like to bitch about the west and Russia taking Nazis at the end of WWII. People seem to ignore or just don't know that the Syrian government has also employed former Nazis. They were used to train Syrian interrogators on effective torture methods the SS / Gestapo developed during the war.



posted on Sep, 27 2015 @ 10:14 AM
link   
Well I think the FSA/ ISIL/ and various other terrorist groups are all going to be bombed to death sooner than later. There will always be new mercs to take there place. It may be a long war, or it may end soon, we have to wait and see.

I have zero sympathy for mercs and terrorists that do attrocities like ISIL has been bragging about to start thier caliphate.



posted on Sep, 27 2015 @ 05:28 PM
link   
a reply to: Xcathdra

I agree, it wouldn't be a clear Article V violation unless Russia attacked Turkey or its forces in Turkish territory.



posted on Sep, 28 2015 @ 01:32 PM
link   

originally posted by: mbkennel
a reply to: Xcathdra

I agree, it wouldn't be a clear Article V violation unless Russia attacked Turkey or its forces in Turkish territory.


With that said one could make an argument under article VII of the UN Charter.



posted on Sep, 28 2015 @ 05:44 PM
link   
a reply to: Xcathdra

You've seen how crazy these people get. This level of violence and bloodshed is not new at all for the middle east. Read the Bible or the Quran and you'll see it goes back for millennia.

Maybe it takes an iron fist to rule over them and keep a level of peace and national security.

I don't see Iraq or Libya being safer than they were for the everyday citizen now that they have been 'liberated' in fact I'd go as far as to say they are now a lot worse.



posted on Sep, 29 2015 @ 04:28 PM
link   

originally posted by: mbkennel
a reply to: Xcathdra

I agree, it wouldn't be a clear Article V violation unless Russia attacked Turkey or its forces in Turkish territory.


If the US/NATO cant stand up to Russia now, what makes you think NATO will stand up if Russia drop a bomb in Turkey?

I boubt that NATO/US would escalate such an event into a full out war, because NATO/US would not gain anything from it. It would eventually end up With MAD.

The Problem the US face now is that Russia is offishally on the ground in Syria to give Assad support against the IS.
The US either have to Accept it and help out, or pull out. The US cant confront Russia militarily, they are not strong enough to win a Nuclear war.

This is just like the situation in Georgia. The US were left on the sideline because the Russian went in first.



posted on Sep, 29 2015 @ 06:41 PM
link   
a reply to: spy66

Georgia was not a NATO member. Ukraine is not a NATO member.

Forgetting those facts while acting cocky are dangerous. If an incident occurs inside turkey, as has happened in the past, it becomes a NATO issue at that point.

Russia has stated no ground troops in Syria. Until that happens Russia is behind the curve consider the coalition has more combat resources deployed than Russia does.



posted on Sep, 29 2015 @ 09:55 PM
link   

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: spy66

Georgia was not a NATO member. Ukraine is not a NATO member.

Forgetting those facts while acting cocky are dangerous. If an incident occurs inside turkey, as has happened in the past, it becomes a NATO issue at that point.

Russia has stated no ground troops in Syria. Until that happens Russia is behind the curve consider the coalition has more combat resources deployed than Russia does.



My point was.... NATO wont act against Russia With military repsonds if Russia bombs targets in Turkey.
They just wont. That sacrifice would be to much.



posted on Sep, 29 2015 @ 11:01 PM
link   
a reply to: TheBoyKing

Iran ,who always used terrorist Catspaws.
edit on 29-9-2015 by cavtrooper7 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 29 2015 @ 11:08 PM
link   
a reply to: spy66

Considering NATO is a defensive alliance and its charter and self defense posture is based solely on self defense if Russia were to intentionally attack anything inside Turkey it would meet the charter requirements should Turkey choose to invoke article V.

Russia would be playing with complete destruction if it thinks it can attack a NATO country and not get a response from NATO.



posted on Sep, 30 2015 @ 12:06 AM
link   

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: spy66

Considering NATO is a defensive alliance and its charter and self defense posture is based solely on self defense if Russia were to intentionally attack anything inside Turkey it would meet the charter requirements should Turkey choose to invoke article V.

Russia would be playing with complete destruction if it thinks it can attack a NATO country and not get a response from NATO.



Those are Your Words.







 
13
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join