Russia responds by sending S400 SAMs to Syria

a reply to: penroc3

Missed replying for this part.

We already have tactical nukes in theater. The Incirlik Air Base has 60+ American tactical nukes housed there. In some senses, the lines are hard drawn already.

a reply to: anzha


i was talking about the Russians bring a few to the party

originally posted by: buster2010
a reply to: nwtrucker

Perhaps we should revisit deploying the ABM system in eastern Europe?

Perhaps we should just get the hell out of the region and start minding our own business. Haven't we already done enough damage over there? What happens in Syria has nothing to do with our national security.

Damn right!

originally posted by: nwtrucker

originally posted by: PublicOpinion
a reply to: nwtrucker

No defense weapon whatsoever, that's the legendary (alleged) carrier-killer.

Russia plans to have 28 S-400 regiments by 2020, each comprising two or three battalions with four systems each, mainly in maritime and border areas

wiki

Double ouch! Then there HAS to be a response. A strong one.

Not another US-mandate, please... *facepalm*

a reply to: penroc3

They may. They don't require it though. They probably have a few in the Russian Caucasus.

originally posted by: angeldoll

originally posted by: buster2010
a reply to: nwtrucker

Perhaps we should revisit deploying the ABM system in eastern Europe?

Perhaps we should just get the hell out of the region and start minding our own business. Haven't we already done enough damage over there? What happens in Syria has nothing to do with our national security.

Damn right!

Sadly the bloodthirsty neocons will never stop crying for even more war. They just want to prove how tough they are by sending others to get killed in the wars they want because they don't have the balls to do the fighting themselves.

originally posted by: anzha

originally posted by: nwtrucker
Putin's 'toe hold' in Syria is now more than a toe hold. It's larger than any U.S. sphere of control via a land base.

Thoughts?

1. He already had SAMs in place for some time. In fact, there have been geolocated pix of S-400s for a week before the shoot down.

2. He already has significant ground troops in Syria. Artillery is acknowledged, but at least a small number of motorized rifle brigades. Der Spiegel has an article in German about this. They are highlighting the trajectory Putin is following: its pretty close to what he did in Ukraine. Deny everything and anything just to obscure the situation and allow the willfully blind to claim what is happening is not.

3. Yeah, we're not going to be able to dig him out without either fighting a direct war or a proxy war. The former will not happen. The former would need for us being willing to risk weapons getting into the IS/Daesh hands that could be a significant problem (*cough*MANPADS*cough*). We have been flooding some factions with TOW missiles and they have been really useful. However...

Having reflected a bit more on this information, especially the S400s being in Syria at least a week before the shoot-down of the SU-24, and assuming both NATO and the U.S. were fully aware of that fact, several things become obvious:

1. It becomes far more likely that Russia may be behind setting up the shoot-down. Be it directly or otherwise.
2. The west is down-playing the overall situation, not embellishing it.
3. Assad will never request or allow the Russian presence to leave Syria as long as he's in power.
4. Syria becomes the big dog in the ME, not Iran! (After the 'rebels' are defeated, of course.)

originally posted by: buster2010

originally posted by: angeldoll

originally posted by: buster2010
a reply to: nwtrucker

Perhaps we should revisit deploying the ABM system in eastern Europe?

Perhaps we should just get the hell out of the region and start minding our own business. Haven't we already done enough damage over there? What happens in Syria has nothing to do with our national security.

Damn right!

Sadly the bloodthirsty neocons will never stop crying for even more war. They just want to prove how tough they are by sending others to get killed in the wars they want because they don't have the balls to do the fighting themselves.

Same old template. You should just copy and paste them...it would save you time....

originally posted by: nwtrucker
Having reflected a bit more on this information, especially the S400s being in Syria at least a week before the shoot-down of the SU-24, and assuming both NATO and the U.S. were fully aware of that fact, several things become obvious:

1. It becomes far more likely that Russia may be behind setting up the shoot-down. Be it directly or otherwise.

Not really. If you look at the track of the Su-24 it was a small tongue of territory that was crossed. Its entirely possible the Su-24 was slightly off course from where it thought it was and just got unlucky. The Su-24 com system might have been on the fritz, so they really may not have heard the Turkish F-16 warnings. Do not assume malice when stupidty works just fine.

2. The west is down-playing the overall situation, not embellishing it.

yes.

3. Assad will never request or allow the Russian presence to leave Syria as long as he's in power.

Putin is likely to not want to leave unless he has to. Remember, most Soviet overseas bases were scrapped. Russia doesn't have such things anymore and Syria will be providing one. An important one.

4. Syria becomes the big dog in the ME, not Iran! (After the 'rebels' are defeated, of course.)

No. It will have been too torn up with its patrons (Russia & Iran) are not wealthy enough to build it up again.

Iran will be the center pole of the Middle East with the Saudi led alliance offsetting it. Remember, Iran is allying itself with Russia and it will get the same benefits from Russia that Syria will but will not have the devastation of war.

originally posted by: Xtrozero

originally posted by: nwtrucker

Might have actually worked....before he went into Kuwait. But then again, he turned down his own Island and all the money and broads he'd ever need if he'd abdicate.....

I never understood that. He could have gone anywhere and put 100 billion in banks around the world and he and his sick sons could live in total luxury the rest of their lives.

Actually, he supposedly asked if he could keep $1 billion if he left. They turned him down. I believe that's what the "Bush–Aznar memo" controversy was all about.

a reply to: anzha

Russian and Eastern European pilots don't normally monitor Guard. The warnings were on Guard.

a reply to: anzha

As far as I saw the pictures were of the RADAR not the full battery. The radar can self deploy.

originally posted by: anzha

originally posted by: nwtrucker
Having reflected a bit more on this information, especially the S400s being in Syria at least a week before the shoot-down of the SU-24, and assuming both NATO and the U.S. were fully aware of that fact, several things become obvious:

1. It becomes far more likely that Russia may be behind setting up the shoot-down. Be it directly or otherwise.

Not really. If you look at the track of the Su-24 it was a small tongue of territory that was crossed. Its entirely possible the Su-24 was slightly off course from where it thought it was and just got unlucky. The Su-24 com system might have been on the fritz, so they really may not have heard the Turkish F-16 warnings. Do not assume malice when stupidty works just fine.

2. The west is down-playing the overall situation, not embellishing it.

yes.

3. Assad will never request or allow the Russian presence to leave Syria as long as he's in power.

Putin is likely to not want to leave unless he has to. Remember, most Soviet overseas bases were scrapped. Russia doesn't have such things anymore and Syria will be providing one. An important one.

4. Syria becomes the big dog in the ME, not Iran! (After the 'rebels' are defeated, of course.)

No. It will have been too torn up with its patrons (Russia & Iran) are not wealthy enough to build it up again.

Iran will be the center pole of the Middle East with the Saudi led alliance offsetting it. Remember, Iran is allying itself with Russia and it will get the same benefits from Russia that Syria will but will not have the devastation of war.

Perhaps 'stupidity', perhaps not. Putin's track record says loudly one should not discount the possibility that it was 'cleverness' rather than stupidity.

As far as Iran goes, does Russia really want an Iran with nuclear weapon potential as a neighbor? Under the control of Imams? With their own agendas complete with Hamas and Hezbollah mess things up internationally? Still 'allies'? Sure. Syria would almost be a vassal state. Ground troops and S400s? Even Iran doesn't have them. A definite possibility that Syria trumps Iran. Economic considerations are trumped by the military ones. Ask the U.S. or the old Soviet Union....

P.S. Syria becomes not unlike the relationship between Cuba and the Soviet union. A state that cannot survive on it's own, hence 'vassal'. Iran an 'ally'.

originally posted by: enlightenedservant

originally posted by: Xtrozero

originally posted by: nwtrucker

Might have actually worked....before he went into Kuwait. But then again, he turned down his own Island and all the money and broads he'd ever need if he'd abdicate.....

I never understood that. He could have gone anywhere and put 100 billion in banks around the world and he and his sick sons could live in total luxury the rest of their lives.

Actually, he supposedly asked if he could keep $1 billion if he left. They turned him down. I believe that's what the "Bush–Aznar memo" controversy was all about.

I wasn't aware of that one. Thanks.

a reply to: nwtrucker

No problem. I wish they would've let him take it & run. They could've always settled their personal grudges afterwards.

originally posted by: enlightenedservant
a reply to: nwtrucker

No problem. I wish they would've let him take it & run. They could've always settled their personal grudges afterwards.

Six foot-wide rear view mirrors...agreed.

Israel has been awefully quiet lately, haven`t they?

I seem to remember that Russia wanted to sell Syria some S-300 anti-aircraft missiles and that caused a big protest from Israel and the U.S.
They have even better missiles in Syria now and I bet they will stay there even after this isis thing is finished, somebody screwed up big time.

5/28/2013
Israel's defense chief said Tuesday a Russian plan to supply sophisticated anti-aircraft missiles to Syria was a "threat" and signaled that Israel is prepared to use force to stop the delivery.

The warning by Defense Minister Moshe Yaalon ratcheted up tensions with Moscow over the planned sale of S-300 air-defense missiles to Syria.

www.huffingtonpost.com...

With those S-400 missiles in Syria I don`t expect we`ll be seeing anymore headlines like this one:

July 12,2013
US Officials: Israel Behind Recent Syria Attack
Strikes Targeted Coastal Base in Latakia
It’s the fourth confirmed Israeli attack on Syria in the past six months, though Israel hasn’t officially commented on any of them and seems contented to just strike at will and forget about it.

news.antiwar.com...

originally posted by: nwtrucker

Perhaps 'stupidity', perhaps not. Putin's track record says loudly one should not discount the possibility that it was 'cleverness' rather than stupidity.

Having watched eastern ukraine and received personal communiques about it from friends resident in the cities now part the DNR and LNR, sometimes overly clever can be stupid. He's created a large body of lawless, dangerous men who will be returning to Russia and he'll have to deal with them. They won't deal with easily.

As far as Iran goes, does Russia really want an Iran with nuclear weapon potential as a neighbor?

1. Nuclear armed countries don't fight overt wars. That suits Russia just fine with Iran. No matter what Iran does within a lifetime, Russia will be more fearsome.

2. A Nuclear Iran will be an obsession by the US. That's good for Russia since it divides our attention.

3. He doesn't need to control them. he just needs for them to understand they need him and, therefore, ought not bother him.

4. Putin's not nearly as clever as he thinks he is. The Chinese are using him to help distract the US back to Europe. Don't you think the timing of the Ukrainian crisis, etc., isn't very interesting since Obama's pivot to asia was supposed to happen? And now we have a European distraction? Putin thinks he's using the Chinese, but they are playing on his cultural prejudices very, very effectively.

Under the control of Imams? With their own agendas complete with Hamas and Hezbollah mess things up internationally?

Where can you identify they would clash?

Still 'allies'? Sure. Syria would almost be a vassal state. Ground troops and S400s? Even Iran doesn't have them.

There are far more Iranian ground troops in Syrian than Russian. Russian cannot supply a major army there. Part of what horrified the world, a lesser part to be sure, about the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq was the speed at which we did take down those countries and then supplied our forces there in a sustained manner.

Russia cannot do that. Not remotely. Please do not confuse them with being a peer nation in terms of military power.

Additionally, all the SAMs in the world won't help if the ground is overrun by troops.

A definite possibility that Syria trumps Iran. Economic considerations are trumped by the military ones. Ask the U.S. or the old Soviet Union....

Yup. Iran will be on a far, far better position once the sanctions are ended than Syria will be when the war is over.

a reply to: Zaphod58

I could have sworn I saw some with the launcher as well.

Interesting to note about the GUARD frequency.

a reply to: Tardacus

Syria isn't much of a threat to Israel these days. Matter of fact, they don't have any neighbors giving them a rough time.

Actually, unless Russia decides to mess with them, things couldn't be looking better for Israel. Egypt is cool, Jordan has been far a while, Syria has their own issues. Even the Saudis are working with the Israelis...

Even 'Palestine' has taken a back seat to the Syrian situation.