Russian, French warships off Syria, Iran, US drones over Iranian coast

Why is this stuff not reported by mainstream media in the U.S. much? This is dangerous stuff going on.
Like the world is out of sorts and is in a mess and disconnected to reailty and don't seem to understand what is going on around them.

Originally posted by victor7
Why does the world expect so much from Russia and give nothing in return. Libya was plush with $150B in investment assets all over the world but when it came to give Russia a contract for Tripoli Subway the Libyans asked the forgiveness of $4B Loan that they took from Russia. Gaddhafi had his nose way up the rear of Italy and France when it came to awarding contracts and soon he found himself in backstabbed s___ by the same darling western Europeans. Same with Algeria $4B forgiveness. Same with Syria, only thing is the figure was $10B in their case. While Russian weapons are not better than those of the US but they are around 80-90% as good. Further, US will never sell these countries such weapons fearing one day they will be turned on the source.

Bottomline is fanantics, mullahs and dictators should get their mindset in a stable platform. When it comes to awarding contracts they suck up to the west and the same west when turns on them, they expect Russia to come to their help. Russia is not the guarantor of the third world anymore and will help only those nations which did not prostitute themselves to the west at the time of convenience.

In simple terms the world expects so much from Russia, precisely because they know Russia to be good and generous.

When it comes to the West everyone knows they are crooks, but powerful crooks. These crooks don't believe in equitable trade and extract the most they can at the point of gun. When the USSR collapsed, all third world countries understood they cannot expect Russia to step into the shoes of USSR as a guarrantor of their security against Western aggression. So some of them tried to suck up to the West, as Libya did in the aftermath of the invasion of Iraq. But that doesn't save them is a different issue. They know that it is only a matter of time, but try to buy more time by succumbing to the West and its demands.

There is no reason for Russia to be generous in matters of trade and investment, especially since she can't afford it unlike the USSR. But in matters of security, Russia has to assess her involvement based on her own longterm security interests. The more third world countries that fall into the Western ambit the less secure Russia will be. The minimum Russia can do when the West tries to take by force ME states is to make the cost of the adventure extremely high.

reply to post by Observor


Russia commited a blunder by not putting in veto on Libyan UN resolution. It was not Putin but Medvedev who wanted to show the world the he is the president. Such mistakes should not be commited by leaders at that level as it can degrade the security and strategic situations immensely. However, after NATO declared a open war on Libya sending warplanes, special forces and all sorts of arms supplies to rebels, Russia should have stepped in and atleast supplied Gaddhaffi with arms and advises that would have made the war not 6 months but 6 years long for NATO. This would have also thwarted NATO from taking adventures elsewhere in the world.

From here on, Russia should keeps its allies and friends well armed with good weapons. Russia's friends like Iran, Venezuela, Algeria etc. are in good position to pay for these given high prices of oil and there is no need for any debt forgiveness and aid. One reason NATO has stayed away from Syria is they have S300 SAMs, Yahokhont anti-ship missiles and decent tank force to make any adventure very costly for the aggressor Recently Iran recieved the AvtoBaza electronic intelligence system from Russia and they successfully used it to capture the US drone. If any ally like Iraq 2003 is left all drained and dried from all sorts of sanctions, then it becomes a video game outing for NATO and US to go on a turkey shoot and capture nations and their resources. What would have happened if Iraqi ground forces had say 1000 Kornet anti tank missiles. They could have created a near havoc on the advancing M1-A1 tanks of US Army and other armored vehicles. Even few dozens that they had from illegal smuggling via China were able to kill or disable several tanks. What would have happened if Iraq had GPS jammers to deflect the bombs away from buildings and into the open farm area.

Keeping allies well armed and provided for is also good for the Russian arms industry. Sukhoi was kept alive from the government grants only during the 1990s but Mig company got reduced by more than half. Many of the top scientist left Russia or even changed their field of work just to keep food on the table. Russian government cannot leave crucial companies to go down as they are vital for the long term security of the federation.

reply to post by victor7

While it looks like Dmitry Anatolyevich and Vladimir Vladimirovich don't see eye to eye on many things, I strongly suspect the differences are a good-cop bad-cop routine so familiar to Westerners. It also helps to make everyone believe (whcih is also the truth) that Dmitry Anatolyevich is not a mere puppet of Vladimir Vladimirovich.

While painful as the decision of Russia to abandon Libya at the UN was, I believe it was taken, by consensus within Russia. I seriously doubt that Dmitry Anatolyevich would have taken a serious foreign policy decision without consulting and taking the consent of Vladimir Vladimirovich, who everyone knows will be taking over as the President shortly. Regardless of which way the vote went, the West was going to pound Libya, just as they did Iraq. Except that in the case of Iraq, certain Western states, like France, could pretend to be the good guys. By not holding out on Libya at the UN, Russia proved to the world that there aren't any serious national differences between the bandit states of the West when it comes to murdering and plundering non-Westerners.

An eventual showdown between the West and Russia is inevitable and Russia will have to act ruthlessly. It is important for the world to understand the true nature of the beasts Russia is dealing with, know that their actions are the only possible way Russia could have handled the psychopaths. It is only then that they can stand by Russia after the event, not out of fear but with respect, which is what Russia desires. Libya is certainly one step that helped the world understand the nature of the West.

reply to post by Observor


Y'all seem to forget that libyans en-masse were shrieking for an Intervention.
Gaddafi was a scumbag of monstrous proportions. good riddens

reply to post by rigel4


Libyans were decently if not royally taken care of by Gadhaffi. His mistake was $150B invested overseas. He should have invested atleast $20B or so to give Libyans some toys to play with and ofcourse given them more freedoms that would have made their lives more enjoyable.

Originally posted by victor7
reply to post by rigel4

 

Libyans were decently if not royally taken care of by Gadhaffi. His mistake was $150B invested overseas. He should have invested atleast $20B or so to give Libyans some toys to play with and ofcourse given them more freedoms that would have made their lives more enjoyable.

Thousands were 'disappeared'.

Am I right?

reply to post by Observor


What I heard was Medvedev called the UN Ambassador few hours before the vote to 'not veto' the resolution. This was his call and people like Putin were not consulted. After this 'ameaturish' act, atleast Medvedev should have made arrangements for G's forces to get arms and other support. He even refused him a political asylum.

A big risk to Russia is its own citizens. Ria Nivosti once had a news item where Medvedev himself declared that 20% of Russian Defense Budget vanishes in the corruption each single year. This is done by mostly Generals and other top guys. There was a point made by Alexander Lebed that Chechenya War in 1995 was started by Generals in order to show 'equiptment destruction' on paper, while real items were smuggled and sold to foreign parties and proceeds going to Swiss Bank accounts of these Generals. Russia needs to come real real hard on the corruption plague in the soceity, even if that means having a near martial law type situation when dealing with corrupt officials. Money saved will always be spent on people and increasing wages, benefits and economic infrastructure.

reply to post by rigel4


Yes thousand hostile treacherous folks who were the prostitutes of the west dissappeared. No regrets!

Btw, Libyans had the highest standard of living in the whole of Africa. Even higher than South Africa and Nigeria.

Do not split hairs here, look at the whole picture.

I would admit that G's sons sure did squander lots of state's money. Atleast 3, Saadi, Saif and Mutassim, each spent $2M a month on party and fun. Reduce this figure by $1.5M each and spent on various programs like Libraries, sports scholarships, food banks, various shelters for vulnerable etc. etc. and G would have gained much more goodwill from people.

Wait until Muslim Brotherhood takes to power in Egypt, Libya and region. Then West will be getting ready to send troops to face off Al Queda's new franchises in these countries. Tough!

Originally posted by ludwigvonmises003
reply to post by Camperguy

 

it does not say that the reactor was precisely for nuke weapons.

Well it sure in hell not a missle plant that Syria was saying it was. It was a secret nuclear reactor, what do you think they were going to use it for? Producing electricity? If it had a electrical substation and power distrubution lines , it might be believable but why in secret?

Bill

reply to post by ludwigvonmises003

This is absolutely off the mark. Russia would never want to engage in this type of warfare,especially with America. This is not in Russia's interest. Russia needs the West. Russia's main threats come from Asia...particularly China and the former southwest Asian Soviet Republics. Russia cares little for Iran,other than as a warm water port. Russia wouldn't give two hoots if the regime in Iran were to be toppled. Russia has been fighting against radical Islam for much longer than the U.S. has. At least Russia does not have pretenses about political correctness about the threat that radical Islam poses to the world.

reply to post by Observor


Russia abandoned Libya because Russia needs to align itself with the West to counter China's growing power and influence. Russia is China's next target and the Russian leadership knows this.

reply to post by irontyrant


imgur.com...
According to the link above the US is making deals to sell fighter jets and details on how to build them to China. India hacked their emails.

Originally posted by irontyrant
reply to post by Observor

 

Russia abandoned Libya because Russia needs to align itself with the West to counter China's growing power and influence. Russia is China's next target and the Russian leadership knows this.

Russia will never be allowed to align itself in equal standing with the AngloSaxon nations. Russians themselves know this although some idiots like Gorbochov, Medvedev etc. tend to ignore this 'hard but strong' fact. At best Russians will be treated as second or third rate partners with intentions to exploit and loot its resources and continuously degrade its strength.

In Europe, Russia needs to seek alliance with non English nations like Germany, France, Spain, Scandinavians etc. along with the 'image and intentions' that other central European nations have nothing to fear from Russia and its policies.

Russia needs to be only careful of China as in the event Russia fights the west, China might be more interested in gobbling the eastern part of Russia than in coming to Russia's support and alliance. China is still a commie nation and commie's are the most selfish and treacherous types.

reply to post by rigel4

 

Y'all seem to forget that libyans en-masse were shrieking for an Intervention.
Gaddafi was a scumbag of monstrous proportions.

No they were not and he was not. Yes there was a section of population which wanted Muammar out, but other than the West's paid agents no one was asking their country to be bombed.

reply to post by victor7

I know what the offcial version of the events is. However what I am describing is a conspiracy.

As for corruption, yes, that is a huge problem everywhere, including Russia. Some pilferage is to be expected and unavoidable. However, care should be taken that it doesn't become socially acceptable at a deeper level and hence requires to be contained. Admission by Dmitry Anatolyevich is signs that the political establishment has taken cognisance of it and is addressing it.

reply to post by irontyrant

 

Russia abandoned Libya because Russia needs to align itself with the West to counter China's growing power and influence. Russia is China's next target and the Russian leadership knows this.

That is definitely what Russia wants you to believe and if the Western governments believe as you do, I guess they are successful.

reply to post by Observor


Too true, I wish we in the West had not meddled in Libya. Qadaffi kept the radicals in line,as did Saddam. The world would be much safer if these two men were still in power instead of the riff-raff Islamic Brotherhood types that will be coming to power because of Western intervention. I like Qadaffi and I liked Saddam. They were both secular leaders and knew how to keep the radical masses in check while bringing peace to the Middle East. America made a huge mistake by invading Iraq back in 2003. Thar whole war was folly. We should have laid waste to Iran instead.

reply to post by victor7

The alliance you suggested, while certainly realistic in today's scenario, is sort of irnoical considering that the last two times the Russin mainland was attacked by Westerners, it was the French under Napolean and the Germans under Hitler. Neither considered Russians as equals.

That is not to dismiss your suggestions, but I would still be vary of the French.

ETA: You seem to be looking at China through the eyes of the Westerners. China has no territorial or imperial ambitions. Sure China had/has border disputes with neighbours, but they are not really territorial ambitions. Chinese are not communists, they are Chinese. They chose the socialist approach at a certain point in the past because they felt it was the most suitable approach to rapid industrialisation. They don't believe in "isms" only what works best for them at a given time.

Originally posted by irontyrant
We should have laid waste to Iran instead.

I don't have much to discuss with psychopaths always looking to lay waste to someone or the other.