It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.


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


Syria put its jets under Russian protection

page: 3
<< 1  2   >>

log in


posted on Apr, 21 2017 @ 03:45 PM
a reply to: Vroomfondel

Curious...I wonder who RUSSIA is putting THEIR jets under the protection of?

posted on Apr, 21 2017 @ 04:36 PM
Syria is Russia's turf since the 1970s. If America wants it, then war it is. Let's see if the American public has the stomach for casualties.

posted on Apr, 21 2017 @ 04:40 PM
a reply to: mysterioustranger

S-400 and Pantsir-S2 air defense and Su-35S and Su-30SM fighter jets are at the Latakia base.

edit on 21-4-2017 by allsee4eye because: (no reason given)

posted on Apr, 21 2017 @ 07:41 PM
a reply to: Wide-Eyes

People are criticizing Trump but at least he's targeting actual military strongholds.

To bad the media have stopped Reporting on whats going on in Mosul in Northern Iraq.

posted on Apr, 21 2017 @ 08:42 PM
a reply to: allsee4eye

So who looks after the Great Bear? They know we'd all be dead...both sides. Just like I dont think the US should be the world-police....I dont think the Russians should be either.

So who looks out for them and us then?

posted on Apr, 21 2017 @ 10:05 PM
a reply to: allsee4eye

Can be defeated by ground skimming missiles if need be. Tomohawks arent ground skimmers. Or NOE aspect missiles.

posted on Apr, 22 2017 @ 09:26 AM
a reply to: several

The US is perpetually the bad guy in the court of public opinion. But its a rigged court. If we intervene (read 'interfere') then we are the bad guy. If we don't act when there is suffering or human rights violations then we are the bad guy. It is literally a "damned if we do - damned if we don't" scenario on a global scale. There is always someone ready to point an accusing finger at us regardless of what we did or didn't do.

Some people think this is about oil. With all the wars that we supposedly fought for oil it begs the question, "Where is it?" If we really wanted oil so badly that we were willing to fight a war over it we would just take it lock, stock, and barrel (no pun intended). But we didn't.

Some think this is about strategic troop/hardware placement. To a degree I agree with that. But I also believe the next big war we fight will be more with missiles and drones than boots on the ground. As such, bases are secondary to the effort since the actual battle can be waged from hundreds if not thousands of miles away. Once an area is secure we can send in troops to start the clean-up sweep and fortify.

The US bombs Syria because - ISIS. Russia also bombed Syria because - ISIS. So protecting ISIS is not Russia's goal. If Russia is willing to fight over Syria but against ISIS then the logical assumption is Russia wants Syria under their control and no one else's. The problem I have with this is Russia could have done this any time they wanted to. They did not need to create an impression of US aggression to accomplish this goal. In fact, that is actually counterproductive since they will now have to combat both Syria and the US. Had they acted sooner it would have put the US in a position of having to choose between confrontation and diplomatic solutions. Especially with obama in office, it would have been almost guaranteed that the action would have been met with a nasty glare and appeasement.

I see and understand the arguments people are making but when I line it all up there are still pieces missing. There is more to this picture...

posted on Apr, 22 2017 @ 10:16 AM

originally posted by: spy66

PS. WHat happened to the 36 US missiles that didnt Reach their targets. Did Russia shoot them Down?
Only 23 missiles reached their targets.

Did they really? Do you not think that the Russian MoD spokesman, Major-General Igor Konashenkov, would be sent out to spin a story that downplayed the airstrike? It is classic propaganda. They make no claims of shootdowns but simply let pro-Russian armchair warriors do the rest. There are more strikes on that base that the "23".

ISI commercial sat imagery analysis of Shayrat

The 23 hit claim by Major-General Igor Konashenkov is as ridiculous as his claim that the US failed to hit aircraft parked out on Shayrat airfield.

Maj Gen who claims at 4 minutes and 19 seconds.

Both parking places and aircraft were not damaged

Those aircraft the Major-General Igor Konashenkov is making reference to have been there in the exact same positon for over 10 years! The aircraft that you see in the Russian UAV video are old obsolete types placed out on the airfield as target decoys. No US planner is going to waste a missile on such junk and especially as the types are a MiG-17 and Sukhoi 7. Both types have been out of service with the Syrians for decades.

Imagery from 29th January 2007. Check out the historical imagery on Google Earth at the following coordinates 34 29 23.43N 36 55 07.42E

Select "View" from the menu and scroll down and select "Historical Imagery"

These are the very same aircraft imaged by Russian media post strike.

The question arises with this type of propaganda is why do they never think that they will be found out? The "23 only hits" plus the claim of "missed aircraft" is utterly ridiculous. I do genuinely feel embarassed for the Russian Major General who has to spin this non-sense.

posted on Apr, 22 2017 @ 10:28 AM

originally posted by: Wide-Eyes

Yes, they have defenses in place. The ones that didn't hit were destroyed. Russia is deploying stronger air defense.

Stop falling for propaganda non-sense. The "23" claim by Major-General Igor Konashenkov is classic propaganda. If the Russians have been shooting them down then they would be crowing about it and showing the evidence. Even hi-resolution commercial satellite imagery show that the "23" claim from the Russians is non-sense. It is a classic mindset from the Russian MoD to spin for all they are worth and let the armchair warriors do the rest. They will fill in all the blanks with claims of everything from hi-tech air defences to electronic jamming. The good Major-General goes away laughing from the press conference that he has done his job of downplaying the airstrike. It is his job!

posted on Apr, 22 2017 @ 10:58 AM
a reply to: tommyjo

Lol. Thanks for that.

I missed it, sorry bud.
edit on 22-4-2017 by Wide-Eyes because: (no reason given)

posted on Apr, 22 2017 @ 11:01 AM
a reply to: tommyjo

That probably deserves it's own thread tbh.

posted on Apr, 22 2017 @ 06:04 PM
a reply to: Xcathdra

f Russia is going to protect a regime that uses chemical weapons on its own people then they get what they have coming. plain and simple.........

Sounds a bit like Israel and the USA... lol

posted on Apr, 23 2017 @ 10:58 AM

originally posted by: Vroomfondel
If we don't act when there is suffering or human rights violations

This is what you need to get a grasp of, there are no interventions on humanitarian grounds, NOT A SINGLE ONE . The closest last realistic example was Somalia in 1993. But the UN screwed it all up, we had a nasty incident, and did what was necessary, we left. They don't want our help, allow them to suffer.

There was zero humanitarian intent to intervention in Libya, or Syria, or Iraq. The first thing you have to do is question the official narrative when this is the excuse being peddled. Because empires don't make military maneuvers to be nice and help. Military maneuvers are always done in the interest of resource acquisition or to gain control of taxable land and market penetration historically and today in the modern world.

We can live with a lack of intervention, because the consequences and suffering will be on the hands of the indigenous. When we become involved, the blood is on our hands. People have to be left to prosper, or destroy themselves. If one cannot accept the reality of what every and ALL military action is historically and in the modern world, it becomes difficult to have the discussion because one party is completely ignoring the factual and historical basis of an empires actions when using violent military force.

It would be nice if there could be actual humanitarian interventions. But history shows, especially modern history, these validations for action lend themselves to significantly worse humanitarian crises in the aftermath. And the only positive gains end up in the form of expanded military logistic capability (air bases/naval ports), access to resources and preferred market access to the companies of the invaders, or the acquisition of land where taxes can be gained from every person, product, and service which will conduct itself within that land.

Or to make it quick and simple, the moment you hear "we need to intervene for this humanitarian crisis", its safe to call bull# and start researching what historically this belligerent has not been yielding to in trade negotiations, financial demands, infrastructure deals or air space treaties and such. This applies to all parties.

Russia did not become involved because the people were suffering, they became involved because their financial and strategic interests in the country became threatened. Same for Crimea. We can be honest about that, but we have to be honest as to why we become involved all over the world as well. Otherwise we are just playing pretend with reality.

posted on Apr, 23 2017 @ 02:44 PM
a reply to: worldstarcountry

Then let me rephrase: when there is a perception of suffering or human rights violations...

It doesn't matter if they are real or not. When the court of public opinion decides there is something we either should be involved in or shouldn't they have already found us guilty of whatever we did or didn't do.

On a side note, I think a case can be made for many instances of suffering or human rights violation. But as I just said, there are also cases that we do not respond to. Damned if we do and damned if we don't.

top topics

<< 1  2   >>

log in