"Russia will not support use of force on Syria": Medvedev, "Libya a meaningless military operatio

page: 1
6
<<   2 >>

log in

join

posted on Jun, 19 2011 @ 11:10 PM
link   

Russia will not support use of force on Syria: Medvedev, calls Libya a meaningless military operation


www.dawn.com

MOSCOW: Russian President Dmitry Medvedev said on Monday Russia will not support the use of force against Syria at the United Nations, speaking about President Bashar al-Assad in sympathetic terms.

“What I am not ready to support is a resolution (similar to the one) on Libya because it is my deep conviction that a good resolution has been turned into a piece of paper that is being used to provide cover for a meaningless military operation,” he said.

(visit the link for the full news article)

edit on 6/19/2011 by Nspekta because: title




posted on Jun, 19 2011 @ 11:11 PM
link   
Is Syria going to be the line in the sand? Russia is sick of the Libya BS and does not want to see the Syrian conflict turn into the same sort of military operation! IMO, this is preramblings towards something big and China will most likely follow the Russians as they too are sick of the NWO/UN 'humanitarian' cover for resource grabbing.

www.dawn.com
(visit the link for the full news article)



posted on Jun, 19 2011 @ 11:11 PM
link   
My question is this

Why the double standard for Syria?



posted on Jun, 19 2011 @ 11:18 PM
link   
Of course they won't. Russia has a naval base in Syria.



posted on Jun, 19 2011 @ 11:25 PM
link   
reply to post by Jepic
 


Didn't know that.. and yeah, if thats the case, obviously Russia is going to say no!
Thx



posted on Jun, 19 2011 @ 11:40 PM
link   


www.youtube.com...


They're getting louder.
edit on 19-6-2011 by emberscott because: (no reason given)
edit on 19-6-2011 by emberscott because: (no reason given)
edit on 19-6-2011 by emberscott because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 19 2011 @ 11:45 PM
link   
WWIII here we come!


Probably not, but it's good Russia is standing up to the NATO bullies.



posted on Jun, 20 2011 @ 12:31 AM
link   
reply to post by Nspekta
 





Is Syria going to be the line in the sand?


Short answer? Yes. I have been following the Russian-U.S. relations closely since the "Arab Spring" started and all conclusions lead to both Russia and Iran at taking a stand with Syria. My thesis is in the opening posts of this thread:

Why Russia will back Syria if there is U.N. action



posted on Jun, 20 2011 @ 03:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by muse7
My question is this

Why the double standard for Syria?


And bahrain- We should stay out of other business - as the western goverments makes things worse



posted on Jun, 20 2011 @ 03:37 AM
link   
reply to post by TREASONFX
 


Bahrains royal family have been cushty with the UK royal family for ages havent they ? I believe thats why were not in bahrain.



posted on Jun, 20 2011 @ 03:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by Skerrako
reply to post by Nspekta
 





Is Syria going to be the line in the sand?


Short answer? Yes. I have been following the Russian-U.S. relations closely since the "Arab Spring" started and all conclusions lead to both Russia and Iran at taking a stand with Syria. My thesis is in the opening posts of this thread:

Why Russia will back Syria if there is U.N. action


And i've been following Russia's world relations for the past 20 years and they do this in many conflicts. They huff and puff but that's about it. Russia is in absolutely no position to go to war unless they just plan on firing their nukes off.

Russia's military is nowhere near capable of a sustained conflict and they neither have the money or the desire to switch over to full military production to start a war with NATO so they can draw as many lines in the sand as they want but it doesn't mean anything.



posted on Jun, 20 2011 @ 04:10 AM
link   
Russia and China have expressed their opinion on Syria.




UN atomic board reports Syria to Security Council: Russia and China veto, what next?


The UN nuclear watchdog board decided on Thursday to report Syria to the Security Council for covert atomic work, a US-led move coinciding with Western condemnation of Damascus' crackdown on opposition protests. Russia and China voted against the proposal at the UN International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), highlighting big power divisions on the issue.
answers.yahoo.com...




David Cameron warns against Syria UN veto


However they face potential opposition from Moscow and China who have indicated they are prepared to use their vetoes as permanent members of the 15-strong Security Council to block the move.
www.independent.co.uk...





Russia, China hint at possible veto of Syria draft


Russia and China dislike the idea of any council discussion of Syria and have suggested they might use their veto power to kill the resolution. Lebanon, India, Brazil and South Africa have also said they have problems with the text.
www.yourbdnews.com...


I can't really blame China and Russia for backing their ally. We did it with Israel countless times.



posted on Jun, 20 2011 @ 04:13 AM
link   
reply to post by BiGGz
 


I agree with you and they've backed people we've opposed throughout history but it's never led to another world war as the op suggests. This is not nearly as big as some of the other times we've been on opposite sides either. Look at the cold war and all the back and forth we did with Russia during that time and nothing came of it so this is nothing to worry about at all.



posted on Jun, 20 2011 @ 07:51 AM
link   
reply to post by Nspekta
 


I think it has more to do with Syria being a close ally of Russia, where as Libya was not.



posted on Jun, 20 2011 @ 08:01 AM
link   
Forgive my ignorance of the "Un" policies, but,

if the U.S. could "prove" Syria attacked them first, wouldn't Russia be obligated to support another "Un" member if they were attacked?

Or is that a NATO thing?



posted on Jun, 20 2011 @ 08:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by kro32
Russia is in absolutely no position to go to war unless they just plan on firing their nukes off.

THIS is what keeps me awake. What if they know this and decide to go through with the launches anyways just because they feel that it would be better than what American is doing? I don't see Russia antagonizing war in this scenario, but I can see them defending what they deem the right way of life and wanting to stop the world's police from operating in their backyard.



posted on Jun, 20 2011 @ 08:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by kro32

Originally posted by Skerrako
reply to post by Nspekta
 





Is Syria going to be the line in the sand?


Short answer? Yes. I have been following the Russian-U.S. relations closely since the "Arab Spring" started and all conclusions lead to both Russia and Iran at taking a stand with Syria. My thesis is in the opening posts of this thread:

Why Russia will back Syria if there is U.N. action


And i've been following Russia's world relations for the past 20 years and they do this in many conflicts. They huff and puff but that's about it. Russia is in absolutely no position to go to war unless they just plan on firing their nukes off.

Russia's military is nowhere near capable of a sustained conflict and they neither have the money or the desire to switch over to full military production to start a war with NATO so they can draw as many lines in the sand as they want but it doesn't mean anything.


I agree that Russia keep huffing and puffing like North Korea, however...

Russia' military and her men and woman are easily capable of sustained conflict with anyone on the planet. To think otherwise is ignorent.
edit on 20-6-2011 by aRogue because: (no reason given)
edit on 20-6-2011 by aRogue because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 20 2011 @ 08:46 AM
link   
I believe Russia are doing the same thing that I think China are doing.

Announcing disagreement with the globalists actions ever increasingly in order to sow the seeds for an intervention based on the rights of the people. When this happens it will be funnily similar to the way NATO spreads globalism, only this time it'll end in WW3.
edit on 26/10/2010 by TechUnique because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 20 2011 @ 08:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by TechUnique
I believe Russia are doing the same thing that I think China are doing.

Announcing disagreement with the globalists actions ever increasingly in order to sow the seeds for an intervention based on the rights of the people. When this happens it will be funnily similar to the way NATO spreads globalism, only this time it'll end in WW3.
edit on 26/10/2010 by TechUnique because: (no reason given)

Sadly, I think you're on the right track. How much longer 'till SHTF?
Could Syria really be the tipping point?



posted on Jun, 20 2011 @ 09:24 AM
link   
''Russia will...bla bla bla and BLA''.

No, Syria is not the line in the sand.Russia and China talk and that is all.There are ways to intervene in Syria even if there is no UN resolution because Russia will veto it.
If the number of refugees at Turkey border will grow to a number that will be unsustainable for Turkey or pose a security threat to Turkey (because, to be honest, couple dozens of extremists can infiltrate 10k refugees only to enter in Turkey, not to mention other criminal elements) this will trigger Turkey intervention and the creation of a buffer zone INSIDE Syria to acomodate the refugess and protect them against syrian troops.

This is all the rebels need in order to feel secured and restart large scale attacks against syrian army and security troops / building.There is absolutely no need for NATO to intervene EVEN if, lets say, syrian troops will attack the refugee camps protected by turkish army.

The rebels will do the job destabilizing Syria and people to stage mass ralies all over the country.

It will be a snowball effect.ANd anyway, i still keep my bet that Syria will start a war with Israel before any UN resolution or any NATO intervention.
A war with Israel is Assad's best bet.





new topics
top topics
 
6
<<   2 >>

log in

join