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 President Putin orders withdrawal of Russian forces from Syria

page: 9
13
<< 6  7  8    10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 21 2016 @ 03:02 AM
link   
a reply to: Xcathdra

Can I ask you :

#1 Where do you copy/paste that subjective point of view ?

#2 What it has to do with Syria ?

I will then debunk point-per-point that statement.

 


10 points ... Amateur !

Here are 1,179 well sourced examples of Obama’s lying, lawbreaking, corruption, cronyism, hypocrisy, waste, etc.


edit on 21-3-2016 by theultimatebelgianjoke because: Added link




posted on Mar, 21 2016 @ 03:26 AM
link   

originally posted by: ReadLeader

Putin orders withdraw of Russian forces, Syria

Well, holy crapola, this is definitely news! Curious if this will help or hinder Putin. Also curious who he is cutting his deals with over there and what they are collaborating? Me smells something fishy here- what says you ATS?




Russian President Vladimir Putin has ordered Defense Minister Sergey Shoigu to start the withdrawal of forces from Syria starting Tuesday.
“I consider the objectives that have been set for the Defense Ministry to be generally accomplished. That is why I order to start withdrawal of the main part of our military group from the territory of the Syrian Arab Republic starting from tomorrow,” Putin said on Monday during a meeting with Shoigu and Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov.

Moscow launched its anti-terror campaign in Syria on September 30 last year. Russia’s participation in the operation, according to a previous statement by Putin, has its basis in international law and has been conducted “in accordance with an official request from the president of the Syrian Arab Republic [Bashar Assad].”

The Russian Air Force has been carrying out airstrikes against Islamic State (IS, formerly ISIS/ISIL) and other terrorist targets in the region, eliminating military equipment, communication centers, vehicles, arms and fuel depots.




Here is another perspective you might find illuminating.


Having stripped the Islamic State of offensive capability and liberated Syria from the Washington-supported terrorists, Putin has now shifted to diplomacy. If peace fails in Syria, the failure cannot be blamed on Russia…….

…………….With ISIS beat down, there is less danger of Washington using a peace-seeking ceasefire to resurrect the Islamic State’s military capability…………………

……………….It is a big risk for Putin to trust the neocon-infested US government, but if ISIS renews the conflict with support from Washington, Putin’s retention of air and naval bases in Syria will allow Russia to resume military operations. Astute observers such as Professor Michel Chossudovsky at Global Research, Stephen Cohen, and The Saker have noted that the Russian withdrawal is really a time-out during which Putin’s diplomacy takes the place of Russian military capability…………………….


Link

It appears to me there may be a bigger game being played in town, Already, it seems the US has been dealt a blood nose by Russia in the Prestige stakes on the international stage in both the Ukraine and now Syria and perhaps even in he diplomatic arena.

Perhaps there is a message for Europe in this about just where the US sits.



posted on Mar, 21 2016 @ 08:53 AM
link   
a reply to: Azureblue

Thank you! That was hilarious! Putin gave America a bloody nose? You mean he is running away and calling it victory. Remember when ISIS was going to be destroyed in two weeks? ISIS is still there and Putin is throwing Assad under the bus.



posted on Mar, 21 2016 @ 09:16 AM
link   
Atlantic Council : Russia's Withdrawal from Syria is not a Defeat



The Russian (partial) withdrawal should therefore be analyzed in context. Russia’s two main objectives have been met: preventing the regime’s collapse and positioning Russia as the key power broker. From here on, Russia would be wise to focus on protecting those achievements, and appears to be doing so. That means withdrawing enough to communicate to the regime the limits of its patience and commitment, while retaining enough presence to preserve the military option against the insurgency and exercise leverage over Assad and the negotiation process. A resumption of large-scale hostilities would jeopardize these gains, and may occur regardless of Russia’s wishes. Still, Russia could simply resume its bombing campaign if that happens.

It is tempting to see weakness or hubris behind every Russian action. This probably stems from a failure to see things from an opponent’s point of view, including how they might define success. The United States has refused to intervene in Syria on the grounds that it would entail significant risks and the end state would likely be flawed. For Russia however, that is perfectly acceptable. Russia does not want to rebuild the old order in Syria, or impose its will over all of Syria’s territory and population. Nor does it imagine it will be able to create an entirely new, completely friendly political order there. Additionally (and contrary to this author’s past assumption) it does not even see completely eliminating the non-jihadist opposition as worth the effort or expense either. These are not the signs of a crude, clumsy, and doomed strategy. Compared to its rather unimpressive rivals and allies in Syria, Russia’s return on investment there has been quite high.



posted on Mar, 21 2016 @ 09:30 AM
link   
a reply to: theultimatebelgianjoke

Translation: Russia never intended to destroy ISIS. Okay, why did it say that was what it was going to do?



posted on Mar, 21 2016 @ 09:48 AM
link   

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: theultimatebelgianjoke

Translation: Russia never intended to destroy ISIS. Okay, why did it say that was what it was going to do?


Where do you got that from ?


It is tempting to see weakness or hubris behind every Russian action. This probably stems from a failure to see things from an opponent’s point of view, including how they might define success.


Which word didn't you understand in the above sentence ?

 


Meanwhile, in the fight against ISIS in Iraq :

Iraqi Shiite militias say US troops ‘forces of occupation,’ demand withdrawal




edit on 21-3-2016 by theultimatebelgianjoke because: Added link



posted on Mar, 21 2016 @ 09:53 AM
link   
a reply to: theultimatebelgianjoke


Russia’s two main objectives have been met: preventing the regime’s collapse and positioning Russia as the key power broker.


Which word did you not understand in that sentence?



posted on Mar, 21 2016 @ 09:55 AM
link   
a reply to: DJW001

None. I perfectly understand what this means :

Russia’s two main objectives have been met

Can you remind us what the US objectives interests were ?

Tip : Sectarian genocide could be a "positive" for Israel & The West.


edit on 21-3-2016 by theultimatebelgianjoke because: filled out



posted on Mar, 21 2016 @ 10:16 AM
link   
a reply to: theultimatebelgianjoke

So you admit that Russia was not interested in fighting ISIS, only propping up Assad?



posted on Mar, 21 2016 @ 10:23 AM
link   

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: theultimatebelgianjoke

So you admit that Russia was not interested in fighting ISIS, only propping up Assad?


I do not admit anything else than what I already stated.
Let me guess, YOU would have preferred that the Russians only focus on ISIS and not on other terror group as well in Syria because ...




posted on Mar, 21 2016 @ 10:27 AM
link   
a reply to: theultimatebelgianjoke

No, I would have preferred that Russia not get involved. The Syrian people deserve better than Assad. One dictator helped another. Sad.



posted on Mar, 21 2016 @ 10:32 AM
link   
a reply to: DJW001

So you would have preferred that ISIS destroyed completely Syria ?
I'm sure you don't.
Something had to be done. The US was theoretically busy bombing ISIS but, for almost five years, all we've seen is ISIS making progress in Syria and Iraq until the Russian kicked in. Strange isn't it ?



posted on Mar, 21 2016 @ 10:37 AM
link   
a reply to: theultimatebelgianjoke


So you would have preferred that ISIS destroyed completely Syria ?
I'm sure you don't.


Funny how Assad fighting ISIS never seemed to be an option.



posted on Mar, 21 2016 @ 10:51 AM
link   

originally posted by: DJW001
Funny how Assad fighting ISIS never seemed to be an option.


Funny how you systematically avoid considering US failures.
As if Assad and his troops were not actively fighting ISIS atm.
Until the Russians kicked in, Assad's troops were mostly clashing the FSA and other paramilitary groups that were until recently openly supported by US allies ...
Let's not forget that, the Russians didn't put any boots on the ground except a few instructors and observers.
You can hardly win a conflict with only an air bombing campaign.
The Iranians and the re-supplied Assad's army played a key role in the progress that were made against ISIS because of the involvement of their ground troops. If only the US had reliable allies in the region.



posted on Mar, 21 2016 @ 11:16 AM
link   
a reply to: theultimatebelgianjoke


Funny how you systematically avoid considering US failures.


Funny how you systematically support authoritarian regimes. The US was not fighting ISIS in Syria. It has been fighting ISIS in Iraq with very little success. The US should not be meddling in the affairs of that part of the world at all. It has no interests there. At least Russia has need of a Mediterranean port now that Erdogan has made Putin his puppy.


As if Assad and his troops were not actively fighting ISIS atm.


Actually, Assad viewed ISIS as an asset; they allowed him to make the case that the rebels were terrorists. The stronger ISIS grew, the better Assad looked. Meanwhile, Assad was happy to buy oil from them.

www.businessinsider.com...



posted on Mar, 21 2016 @ 01:27 PM
link   

originally posted by: DJW001

Funny how you systematically support authoritarian regimes. The US was not fighting ISIS in Syria. It has been fighting ISIS in Iraq with very little success. The US should not be meddling in the affairs of that part of the world at all. It has no interests there. At least Russia has need of a Mediterranean port now that Erdogan has made Putin his puppy.


Wait 'til Trump gets elected ... where are you gonna run to ?
Is there any objective criteria, beside primitive anti-russianism, to make you consider that Erdogan is better than Putin ? Or that Putin is the puppy of the Hitler praising Islamist caliph ?
You said you were against Russian intervention in Syria, and now you can't restrain to vilify them for giving a chance to diplomatic negotiations ... Maybe you just want them to wiped off the surface of earth.


originally posted by: DJW001
Actually, Assad viewed ISIS as an asset; they allowed him to make the case that the rebels were terrorists. The stronger ISIS grew, the better Assad looked. Meanwhile, Assad was happy to buy oil from them.


So you have the modesty to be certain of what Assad is thinking ?
And the intellectual dishonesty to consider only facts that match your pre-established convictions ...
No need to argue ...
For everybody else, sorry to repost what I already brought on page 6 of this thread :

Research Paper : ISIS - Turkey list

Or maybe you consider your claims make more sense : Assad buys oil he could have extracted himself from terrorist wagging war against him ... of course.


edit on 21-3-2016 by theultimatebelgianjoke because: filled out



posted on Mar, 21 2016 @ 04:12 PM
link   
a reply to: theultimatebelgianjoke




Iraqi Shiite militias say US troops ‘forces of occupation,’ demand withdrawal


Can you provide something that didn't come from the Kremlin mouthpiece, because they have shown there propensity to make things up regarding the US.



posted on Mar, 21 2016 @ 05:09 PM
link   
a reply to: tsurfer2000h

LOL. As if the Kremlin was not a genuine entity representing Russia.

I can provide you something from the WH or the pentagon if you want :



Slip of tongue or Freudian slip ?
For once that both agree it is worth mentioning.



posted on Mar, 21 2016 @ 05:40 PM
link   
a reply to: theultimatebelgianjoke


Wait 'til Trump gets elected ... where are you gonna run to ?


Canada, of course.


Is there any objective criteria, beside primitive anti-russianism, to make you consider that Erdogan is better than Putin ?


Where did I ever say that Erdogan is better than Putin? Erdogan is a gangster just like Putin.


Or that Putin is the puppy of the Hitler praising Islamist caliph ?


Erdogan called Putin's bluff by shooting down one of his airplanes, as promised. All of the Putinistas predicted that Russia would crush Turkey; instead, Putin is withdrawing his forces from the region. That's what makes Putin his "puppy."


You said you were against Russian intervention in Syria, and now you can't restrain to vilify them for giving a chance to diplomatic negotiations ... Maybe you just want them to wiped off the surface of earth.


Where do I vilify them for finally encouraging Assad to negotiate? It's about time they made it clear they would waste no more blood or treasure propping up a loser. You need to stop projecting your fantasies onto me. I want Russia to regain its rightful place on the world as a strong, peaceful, technological innovator. Putin has turned it into a war mongering casino. You, on the other hand, seem to have some fantasy that the collapse of the United States would be a good thing. I hope you never have to learn how dependent the rest of the world is on America's economy and good will.


So you have the modesty to be certain of what Assad is thinking ?


Can you think of another reason why he did nothing to stop ISIS, which is chiefly composed of foreigners, while concentrating his attacks on native Syrian rebels. Why would he buy oil from them if he didn't consider them to be an asset?


And the intellectual dishonesty to consider only facts that match your pre-established convictions ...


First you accuse me of being a mind reader, now you claim you can read my mind.


No need to argue ...


Then why do you? You know I'm not going to fall for the Kremlin's BS.


For everybody else, sorry to repost what I already brought on page 6 of this thread :

Research Paper : ISIS - Turkey list


So you are going to ignore the evidence that Assad is buying ISIS oil?


Or maybe you consider your claims make more sense : Assad buys oil he could have extracted himself from terrorist wagging war against him ... of course.


Extract, perhaps... if he had the men to man the infrastructure. Too bad they're all at war or fleeing the country. He certainly couldn't refine it.



www.indexmundi.com...

I know. Facts can be troublesome for you.

edit on 21-3-2016 by DJW001 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 21 2016 @ 06:52 PM
link   

originally posted by: DJW001
Where did I ever say that Erdogan is better than Putin? Erdogan is a gangster just like Putin.


But you'd rather blame Assad rather than consider embarrassing fact involving a NATO member.
You keep on pushing the 'Assad buy oil from ISIS scarecrow but carefully avoids any mention to the fact that Turkey is the major player in ISIS oil trade.


originally posted by: DJW001
Erdogan called Putin's bluff by shooting down one of his airplanes, as promised. All of the Putinistas predicted that Russia would crush Turkey; instead, Putin is withdrawing his forces from the region. That's what makes Putin his "puppy."


He was not bluffing. The Greeks are not complaining about the fact that since, the Turks stop violating their airspace. The next big firework may well involve Turkish planes and Russian S-400 should the Caliph ever ambition to behave in Syria like he does over Iraq.


originally posted by: DJW001
Where do I vilify them for finally encouraging Assad to negotiate? It's about time they made it clear they would waste no more blood or treasure propping up a loser. You need to stop projecting your fantasies onto me. I want Russia to regain its rightful place on the world as a strong, peaceful, technological innovator. Putin has turned it into a war mongering casino. You, on the other hand, seem to have some fantasy that the collapse of the United States would be a good thing. I hope you never have to learn how dependent the rest of the world is on America's economy and good will.


Here.
Pushing Assad under the bus. LOL.
Lending a hand can be indeed be interpreted by paranoiac people as an attempt at a slap in the face.
Putin has turned it into a war mongering casino.
When removinbg his troops in order to do in 5 months what the US screwed for 5 years.
The collapse of the United States ...
I hope you never have to learn how dependent the rest of the world is on America's economy and good will ...

Stop playing the contortionist to ... your own ... and face the fact that the US is one of the most hated country in the world. Not because of what it represent but because of how it behaves.


originally posted by: DJW001
Can you think of another reason why he did nothing to stop ISIS, which is chiefly composed of foreigners, while concentrating his attacks on native Syrian rebels. Why would he buy oil from them if he didn't consider them to be an asset?


In response to :
So you have the modesty to be certain of what Assad is thinking ?

I'd rather let someone speech by himself rather than pretending my superior knowledge of what someone might be thinking. That often shatter paradigms.




originally posted by: DJW001
First you accuse me of being a mind reader, now you claim you can read my mind.


Do I really to re-list once all the previous items you found not worth considering ?


originally posted by: DJW001
Then why do you? You know I'm not going to fall for the Kremlin's BS.


You prefer the US made one, I can understand. I am not blaming you for being a patriotic sheeple. I consider it is dangerous to support US policies that turn out to backfire against America and, I do that because I wish the best for the US. (If only these policies were followed in the name of American interests ...)


originally posted by: DJW001
So you are going to ignore the evidence that Assad is buying ISIS oil?


This is evidence of ‘Perception Management' imo. Are you looking for answers or reassuring claims when reading that ? What can you tell us about the author of the article you linked?



originally posted by: DJW001
Extract, perhaps... if he had the men to man the infrastructure. Too bad they're all at war or fleeing the country. He certainly couldn't refine it.


In response to : Or maybe you consider your claims make more sense : Assad buys oil he could have extracted himself from terrorist wagging war against him ... of course.
So because you - from an obviously distant point of view - wish to consider that he may not have the possibility to refine the oil (oil that he still extracts BTW as of your own graph), you gobble the fact that he is buying some from the guys is wagging war against ?
He may not be able to export oil anymore for sure. And get the money from it. But he is not oil-less. And should he comes short, he would imo try to get some from Iran given that the few supplies is still received before the Russian intervention were sourced from there.



edit on 21-3-2016 by theultimatebelgianjoke because: filled out



new topics

top topics



 
13
<< 6  7  8    10 >>

log in

join