Russia threatens permanent world war if Saudis add ground troops to U.S. coalition

Russian Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev speaking to Germany’s Handelsblatt newspaper said the following when asked about Saudi Arabia and other Arab Gulf states adding ground forces to the U.S. led coalition in Syria against the Islamic State, reported Yahoo.

“This is bad as a ground offensive usually turns the war into a permanent one. Just look at what happened in Afghanistan and many other countries. I don’t need to remind you what happened in poor Libya. The Americans and our Arab partners must think well: do they want a permanent war?” It would be impossible to win such a war quickly, he said according to a German translation of his words, “especially in the Arab world, where everybody is fighting against everybody. All sides must be compelled to sit at the negotiating table instead of unleashing a new world war.”
www.washingtontimes.com...

Best evidence of an impending WW3 yet?

ETA: The title of the article above may have been off. The following comments on the article explain the potential problem(s):

I just read Reuters report on the same interview of Prime Minister Medvedev only their headline read "Russia raised the spector of interminable or "world war" if Syria talks fail" whereas this article has Russia "Threatening permanant world war" There is a big difference between threatening world war and warning of the spector of a world war.

The Washington Times author and reuters both got the quotes right only where one author hears threats the other hears a warning. I re-read PM Medvedev's quotes and at no point did he threaten anything and IMHO he's right if we let this wound fester it's going to infect the region then the world. I don't really know why the American media want to inflame the situation with Russia and Syria but the last world war killed 60 million people and we've gotten WAY better at killing people since then. This time the USA won't be be spared like the the last two....weapons today have a global reach.

...

Leave it to the "Special Forces" guy to intentionally misrepresent a reasonable warning from Russia as a "threat" - all for the sake of propaganda. Why don't you tell the world about some of the dirty tricks that you guys pull around the planet, under direct order from the goons in the CIA? Let me guess, you still probably have yourself brainwashed into believing that any of that is actually done for the sake of "freedom".
www.washingtontimes.com...

Sounds like sound advice.

The only evidence of WW3 is how our western leaders are too dumb to realize this.

a reply to: Profusion

I think you're confused, the point of the article was that there was the threat of a permanent war.

a reply to: MALBOSIA

They have their underground bunkers all ready for them at Denver. Its us that are dumb for allowing them to send us to the slaughter.

a reply to: glend

Only if you're dumb enough to go.

a reply to: Wide-Eyes

I am not fighting in no war but when the crunch comes most do what they are told.

Dima is right.

It's a misleading headline, but Dima's right to say that there is a good potential for the war to just drag on and on and on, you see the beardy weirdy bomb types over in the Middle East want a war, they want troops to land on their soil

This isn't the sort of war that can be one in a few months, least not with modern strategies. It's the ideology that needs to be crushed.

Maybe if a coalition of Western countries joined forces and went all blitzkrieg on their arses in a full scale invasion, but war is a war crime according to the UN.

a reply to: glend

I have my home and I will protect it until my dying breath. That is all.

Russia made no such threat.

originally posted by: glend
a reply to: Wide-Eyes

I am not fighting in no war but when the crunch comes most do what they are told.

my reply is not to you.. but ultimately yes thats the reality.. what I don’t understand is that there cannot be war without people.. so ultimately isn’t the decision to engage in war entirely in our hands.. like if I ask any of you.. what would convince you to strike.. lets say you are the “first person” to attack.. i understand people in charge but ultimately there is a line where you are not “general” but “solder” how many solders under a general.. like if you can name the threat that would be good enough to engage you in war what would you accept as “ok I am now at war”..

That title mislead me immensely. You have a future in mainstream media.

Misleading title.

:/

originally posted by: mr-lizard
Misleading title.

:/

First sentence in OP

ETA: The title of the article above may have been off.

Now I am just confused what's people's point

originally posted by: serpentines

originally posted by: mr-lizard
Misleading title.

:/

First sentence in OP

ETA: The title of the article above may have been off.

Now I am just confused what's people's point

Click the link because of title expecting to read something shocking. Read something mundane. Disappointment ensues.

originally posted by: Zcustosmorum
a reply to: Profusion

I think you're confused, the point of the article was that there was the threat of a permanent war.

Russia having thrown down with Afghanistan only to abandon it, is clearly talking about the hydra the middle east can be with the every one against everyone on the ground... sounds like a sly pull em out and we will take all the bad press as we glass it from above... and coalition fighting is complex and hard to co-ordinate but economically? The US needs coalition if we are to lead the influence of power in the area... and at the start of the Syria business, Saudi Arabia offered to finance the whole thing if we got into it... this is when Russia got very interested in our interest as their economy depended on the Assad regime to remain stable.

But the more countries that get involved the more it will look like a world war... North Korea testing long range missiles, and China hiding economy woes from the buy US and local movements trying to reign in China sea to control trade with island building for an excuse to be patrolling the area as theirs and not international waters. So it all ties in tension wise and it is all about economics... and if it does happen? Expect hyper inflation, trade embargo leading to rationing and then lack of supply for huge demand despite hyper inflation getting worse from supply markets crashing except for necessity goods...

So yeah, adding more countries will escalate things and draw more into the mix... and putting them all on the ground? It would be everyone fighting everyone as it would be country after country being insurgents on each other with that whole area being host. I think it very wise too heed what Russia is saying as allies, but their interest in the Ukraine etc. looks like a cake and eat it too situation where Russia would top out from all the conflict economically, so not just about terror going on any more, as ISIS etc is looking like a street gang compared to local police, national guard, military, and military of other countries combined as a back drop.

So while, Russia is kinda like step back we got this... the US etc is like yeah but what do you get once its settled and new trade agreements are drawn? I think we should fall to back ground support and bring in the UN and co-ordinate with them since we are also taking an observational stance for some stabilization of large forces in the area... I dont see cold war coming out of this unless we over step tension and China starts making an advance on trade deals with Russia since they are economically hurting enough to say ok no more trading for today unless our stock goes up a couple of times.

So at this point is has much much less to do with ISIS as a ration for being involved as it has turned into economics... and futures in trading if it does get settled... so I agree best to start the diplomacy process if we want to avoid what no one can afford.

a reply to: Profusion

Well, I'll just say "go for it, Russia" ... whose going to miss the Saudi's? or Turks?

Roasted Turkey, next Christmas anyone?

a reply to: ExNihiloRed

Look, the OP copied the title they had access to at the time, and then noted that other agencies or reporters were giving a more balanced headline to their reports on the same matter. This does not appear to be a flagrant expression of sensationalist nonsense, but an error on the part of the reporter who devised the headline in the first place.

Members are constricted to copy the headline from a news story which forms the basis for their OP, and do not get much choice in the matter. If their basis article has a header, that is the one to which they must use. This is hardly the blatant nonsense peddling that I have seen here before, and I think it is worth giving the OP a break here.

a reply to: bjarneorn

Well, I'll just say "go for it, Russia" ... whose going to miss the Saudi's? or Turks?

Really, you have no problem with a world war, and are pushing Russia to go for it...totally amazing.

a reply to: Zcustosmorum

I think you're confused, the point of the article was that there was the threat of a permanent war.

Yes there was...by Russia.

And if your okay with that...there really is something wrong.

a reply to: Profusion
I had hoped that TPTB would back off and come to a peaceful agreement on the Syrian campaign.. Unfortunately it does not appear to be the case.
www.businessinsider.com...

'This is set to get worse': Saudi Arabia says it has made a 'final' decision to send troops into Syria