BREAKING: US enlists Britain's help to stop ship 'carrying Russian attack helicopters' to Syria

This could be simple also.

Dictators only last for so long.

The match that started this was within.
And been going on for some years.

Assad and his regime hate us either way.
He's a politician that you dont vote out.

Russia best hope play there cards right,huh?
Thats there 1 and only pea size naval base they got.

Iran knows they will loose a buddy soon also.
And have to understand what an "ARAB SPRING" is?
Re-write the books.

We wont win,but more anger towards Russia,China and Iran.

They do a good enuff job themselves at being piss ants...
Russia as well.

Originally posted by Xcathdra
Sure since it prompted the company to review the policy. The company opted to drop coverage because of the cargo. Last I check a private business can do business with whomever they choose yes?

Right. And a Russian insurance company can just as well issue coverage for the ship, allowing it to dock and refuel in European ports. The ship has not been physically stopped - it just can't dock in EU without insurance.

Originally posted by Xcathdra
Secondly the 2nd incident occured because it was an arms shipment to the government of Syria in violation of the UN arms embargo. So Cyprus was within its jurisdiction since the vessel was in their port at the time.

There is no UN arms embargo for Syria - you mean EU embargo. Cyprus cannot order the ship where it can or cannot go unless the ship belongs to a Cyprus company, it can simply choose to refuse to refuel it in its ports. If they chose to let it refuel, they still have no jusdiction to issue orders to it.

Originally posted by Xcathdra
3rd Russia wont retaliate against a country for a business decision. This mindset people have that Russia is going to let slip the dogs of war to save Syria are sorely mistaken.

I am not talking about dogs of war here, simply discrete political nods and gestures. Russia already has major issues with UK over the fact that UK harbors Russian terrorists and those who support them.

Originally posted by Xcathdra
If Russia really supported Assad he would not send 300 marines toi protect their military assets. They would have gone en masse to support the government - something they have not done.

Russia does not want to get militarily involved in this conflict directly, nor do they have a good reason to do it. Assad has enough manpower to hold out. And they are not supporting Assad in as much as they are opposed to whatever may potentially replace him. They are also opposed to the idea of forcing a sovereign government to change from the outside.

Originally posted by Xcathdra
Russia knows what we are up against and they have stated on numerous occasions that its in their best interest / national security to assist the US to create a stable enviornment in that country. What occurs in Afghanistan affects Russia a whole lot more than the US based solely on proximity.

It is no longer just about Afghanistan - now Pakistan is just as much of a concern, especially for the US. I agree with you that the situation in Afghanistan is complicated, and both sides are vested in the outcome. But whereas US is directly involved and bleeding money there, Russia is watching from the sidelines. If everything returns to status quo ala the 90's, Russia is prepared to deal with it. The Karzai regime has not been a blessing for Russia either, with increased Afghan heroin production being pumped into Russia.

Originally posted by Xcathdra
Russia is concerned about protecting their interest - the port in Syria and access to their Black Sea fleet to the med from it. Why is that important? Currently Turkey is not friendly towards Iran or Syria because of whats going on, and by extension Russia.

Turkey has been improving relations with Russia as of late, because of major economic and energy deals between the two. Turkey is pragmatic enough not to let its political idealogies jeopardize business. In addition to that it cannot violate the Montreux Convention, and must allow Russia naval vessels to pass.

Originally posted by maloy

Originally posted by Xcathdra


Secondly the 2nd incident occured because it was an arms shipment to the government of Syria in violation of the UN arms embargo. So Cyprus was within its jurisdiction since the vessel was in their port at the time.

There is no UN arms embargo for Syria - you mean EU embargo. Cyprus cannot order the ship where it can or cannot go unless the ship belongs to a Cyprus company, it can simply choose to refuse to refuel it in its ports. If they chose to let it refuel, they still have no jusdiction to issue orders to it.

you have a serious misunderstanding of the laws of the sea.

countries can impound ships for many reasons - for example the case recently of the Isle of Man flagged ship impounded in finland for carrying missiles for which the paperwork was not quite right that was extensively discussed here - www.abovetopsecret.com...

However, flag state enforcement is supplemented by what is known as Port State Control, whereby officials in any country which a ship may visit can inspect foreign flag ships to ensure that they comply with international requirements. Port State Control officers have the power to detain foreign ships in port if they do not conform to international standards. As a consequence, most IMO regulations are enforced on a more or less global basis.

- from here

the international memoradum on Port State control is here - which probably has more info if you wish to know more.

It is no longer just about Afghanistan - now Pakistan is just as much of a concern, especially for the US. I agree with you that the situation in Afghanistan is complicated, and both sides are vested in the outcome. But whereas US is directly involved and bleeding money there, Russia is watching from the sidelines. If everything returns to status quo ala the 90's, Russia is prepared to deal with it. The Karzai regime has not been a blessing for Russia either, with increased Afghan heroin production being pumped into Russia.

reply to post by maloy


60,000 Russians die each single year from the drugs majority of which are smuggled through Afghanistan. This alone is an act of war. US has invaded other countries for drug issues alone. Panama in 1989 and Colombia by sending special troops and DEA apparatus.

Russia's better chances are with Asia and non english speaking nations like France and Germany. US has developed Hitlerian arrogance and obsession with Russia. But unlike Hitler, US and NATO are not declaring war over the 1000 mile front. They are trying to chop the big animal a piece and an ally at a time. Russia had to draw the line somewhere and it seems Syria is where the front has come alive atleast in diplomatic and geopolitical terms for now.

Russia and friends should indirectly confront US poodles in the ME region and furthermore if needed, up the ante against the US interests in places like Afghanistan, Pakistan and Iraq. Mere $25M of aid in form of even basic weapons like AKs, landmines, RPGs, anti-material sniper rifles etc. can really heat up scenarios for US and NATO troops. As to what the similar aid to anti regime forces in Saudi and UAE would do is only a matter sitting back and watching the Shieks with grim faces on TV and calling Washington and crying for 'Mommy'.

Russian hackers should get on the act also and screw up the operating systems of Saudi Arabia's biggest oil drilling machines. That will surely have the 'Towel Negros' begging around for a time out.

Originally posted by maloy
Right. And a Russian insurance company can just as well issue coverage for the ship, allowing it to dock and refuel in European ports. The ship has not been physically stopped - it just can't dock in EU without insurance.

I thought the insurance was required to enter any major ports around the world. Without access to a port it has no choice but to stop.

Originally posted by maloy
There is no UN arms embargo for Syria - you mean EU embargo. Cyprus cannot order the ship where it can or cannot go unless the ship belongs to a Cyprus company, it can simply choose to refuse to refuel it in its ports. If they chose to let it refuel, they still have no jusdiction to issue orders to it.

My appologies you are correct on the EU embargo.

The vessel put into a Cyprus port due to bad weather and customs officals found ammunitions etc heading to Syria. I think in exchange for allowing the vessel to leave cypriot waters it was suppose to head back to Russia, which it did not. The exchange was to prevent the cargo from bein seized for violating Cyrpus law.

Originally posted by maloy
I am not talking about dogs of war here, simply discrete political nods and gestures. Russia already has major issues with UK over the fact that UK harbors Russian terrorists and those who support them.

And Russia does the same, coming down the other side of the road. However the UK did not take the action, the business did. Also now that I think of it I am curious if that business (press club) violated the EU embargo for being involved with a business doing business with Syria in the weapons area.

Originally posted by maloy
Russia does not want to get militarily involved in this conflict directly, nor do they have a good reason to do it. Assad has enough manpower to hold out. And they are not supporting Assad in as much as they are opposed to whatever may potentially replace him. They are also opposed to the idea of forcing a sovereign government to change from the outside.

Except this is coming from within Syria and not outside. As I stated Russias only concern is access to the port and the med and nothing more.

Originally posted by maloy
It is no longer just about Afghanistan - now Pakistan is just as much of a concern, especially for the US. I agree with you that the situation in Afghanistan is complicated, and both sides are vested in the outcome. But whereas US is directly involved and bleeding money there, Russia is watching from the sidelines. If everything returns to status quo ala the 90's, Russia is prepared to deal with it. The Karzai regime has not been a blessing for Russia either, with increased Afghan heroin production being pumped into Russia.

The result of non cooperation between the US and Russia on Afghanistan is worse. It would force the US to withdrawal, leaving a mess that will spill over their borders and well as Pakistan. The fact Pakistan has nukes and the fact terrorists were able to briefly control a major military base should be en0ough to give Russia pause. The groups who did that action are linked to the tribal regions along the border.

Trying to link actions on Syria to the situation in Afghanistan would be a disaster for Russia. While the 2 countries disagree on Syria we seem to be in lock step on Afghanistan.

Originally posted by maloy
Turkey has been improving relations with Russia as of late, because of major economic and energy deals between the two. Turkey is pragmatic enough not to let its political idealogies jeopardize business. In addition to that it cannot violate the Montreux Convention, and must allow Russia naval vessels to pass.

The doctrine only applies to civilian vessels with civilian cargo. Military transit can be restricted by Turkey and civilian traffic can as well in times of war. Back in April of this year Syrian military units on the border of turkey launched artillery shells into Turkey (link). That action prompted Turkey to hold discussion with NATO about the possibility of invoking Article 4 of the NATO treaty. If Syria for some reason causes another issue on the border, and Turkey invokes article 4 (self defense only) it places Russia into the position of choosing sides, which in the end, I would wager, they would lose access to the straights because of the cargo and its destination.


Source

In April 1982, the Convention was amended to allow Turkey to close the Straits at its discretion in peacetime as well as during wartime.[23]

The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), which entered into force in November 1994, has prompted calls for the Montreux Convention to be revised and adapted to make it compatible with UNCLOS's regime governing straits used for international navigation. However, Turkey's long-standing refusal to sign UNCLOS has meant that Montreux remains in force without further amendments.[24]

All the more reason to resolve the situation now rather than later when it could spiral out of control.

Originally posted by victor7
60,000 Russians die each single year from the drugs majority of which are smuggled through Afghanistan. This alone is an act of war.

Can you link to your source with those stats. I would like to read up on it.

As for the rest Russia is not going to risk an all out war to save Assad.

reply to post by Xcathdra

It would force the US to withdrawal, leaving a mess that will spill over their borders and well as Pakistan.

Buddy, do you know what happened the last time there was a coordinated 'Mullah Mess Get together' in both Afghan and Pakistan. Some small event in September of 2001.................Oh sorry, I forgot the exact date.......please help!

Originally posted by victor7
reply to post by Xcathdra

 

It would force the US to withdrawal, leaving a mess that will spill over their borders and well as Pakistan.

Buddy, do you know what happened the last time there was a coordinated 'Mullah Mess Get together' in both Afghan and Pakistan. Some small event in September of 2001.................Oh sorry, I forgot the exact date.......please help!

If we cant supply our troops then we need to withdraw them and allow Pakistan and Russia to deal with the mess. Not an ideal situation for either country since they both were affected long before the US was involved.

also -

Originally posted by victor7
60,000 Russians die each single year from the drugs majority of which are smuggled through Afghanistan. This alone is an act of war.

Can you link to your source with those stats. I would like to read up on it.

Originally posted by Xcathdra

Originally posted by victor7
60,000 Russians die each single year from the drugs majority of which are smuggled through Afghanistan. This alone is an act of war.

Can you link to your source with those stats. I would like to read up on it.

As for the rest Russia is not going to risk an all out war to save Assad.

I will once I come across it again. Infact the number might even be more than 60K.

Russia does not need to have all out war for Syria. Just $25M type aid here or there will keep the 'best of the friends' on their tip toes.

reply to post by victor7


You are ignoring the fact Russia is no longer the Soviet Union. They have elections now so the support Assad has now might not be there in the future. The Russian people may not be in support of Russia being involved in Syria should things go south.

Putin has to worry about public opinion as well as international reaction.

Originally posted by Xcathdra
reply to post by victor7

 

You are ignoring the fact Russia is no longer the Soviet Union. They have elections now so the support Assad has now might not be there in the future. The Russian people may not be in support of Russia being involved in Syria should things go south.

Putin has to worry about public opinion as well as international reaction.

What would US just flying out of Afghan in droves one fine morning................like in Vietnam............what would this stupid move do to the AQ/Talibian/Mullah fanatic recruitment drive all across the globe? More than a million fanatics will join the cause in just one week. That would Vietnam x10 defeat for US war on terrorism. Very Unwise!

Russian elections are over, Putin has been 'put in' Kremlin for another 6 years Russia is a Kleptocracy and after elections are over, no one cares for what a common Russian thinks. Sad but true and that is why Russia is a backward country in comparison with even near West like Scandinavia or Central Europe let alone true west like US, UK or Germany.

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul
you have a serious misunderstanding of the laws of the sea.

countries can impound ships for many reasons - for example the case recently of the Isle of Man flagged ship impounded in finland for carrying missiles for which the paperwork was not quite right that was extensively discussed here - www.abovetopsecret.com...

Your example is about a ship being in violation of international regulations. EU sanctions do not qualify as "international regulation" - it is a close-ended agreement between specific countries with each other. Thus an EU country cannot impound a foreign ship and its cargo because it violates their sanctions. They can try to turn the ship back, not allow it in their territorial waters, and they can attempt to use force if necessary - but the later wouldn't be wise with a Russian ship.

You seem to be giving too much credit to the EU sanctions. They concern nobody except the parties directly involved, and they certainly have no enforcement over anyone outside the EU.

reply to post by maloy


Of course the EU sanctions are "interntional" - you are grasping at straws here!

and any state has the right to implement them if it has subscribed to them - you saying it were otherwise is jsut wishful thinking to support your pet theory

Originally posted by Xcathdra
I thought the insurance was required to enter any major ports around the world. Without access to a port it has no choice but to stop.

So if a Russian insurance company issues insurance to that ship, it is alright. Of course individual ports may refuse to accept it.

Originally posted by maloy
The vessel put into a Cyprus port due to bad weather and customs officals found ammunitions etc heading to Syria. I think in exchange for allowing the vessel to leave cypriot waters it was suppose to head back to Russia, which it did not. The exchange was to prevent the cargo from bein seized for violating Cyrpus law.

I don't think Cyprus had the legal ability to impound that vessel and prevent it from leaving, as it was not violation any international laws. If it tried to prevent it from leaving, it could run into legal problems with its parent company and Russia. Again - EU sanctions cannot apply to actions done by foreign countries and companies.

Originally posted by maloy
Also now that I think of it I am curious if that business (press club) violated the EU embargo for being involved with a business doing business with Syria in the weapons area.

That is the issue you get with limited sanctions like those by the EU. It is hard to decipher who is allowed to do what, and what exactly they are violating. It is like the arguement about Israel's sanction/blockade of Gaza, except Gaza is internationally recognized as part of its territory. Syria is not part of EU territory, and sanction enforcement even in EU territorial waters is a big legal question.

Originally posted by maloy
Except this is coming from within Syria and not outside.

Coming from within, but fueled from the outside.

Originally posted by maloy
The result of non cooperation between the US and Russia on Afghanistan is worse. It would force the US to withdrawal, leaving a mess that will spill over their borders and well as Pakistan.

Russia already faced that problem in the 90's, with incursions by Mujahedeen militants into Tajikistan and Uzbekistan, which still had operational Russian border posts. With the help of Tajik and Uzbek forces, Russia was able to repel them successful, alas with some losses. Those border posts are still staffed by Russian troops/contractors and have been significantly reinforced by Tajik and Uzbek forces. If Taliban regains control in Afghanistan, I doubt that their primary focus after being bombed and chased around the mountains by the US for decade would be to attack CIS republics in the north. If anything they will want to lay low and deal with internal affairs. As for individual militants and insurgents funneling into Russia from the South - that never really stopped. In fact most of them make their way through Turkey. Not that Turkey supports it, but that border is largely unguarded.

So I don't think Russia will be in as perilous situation if US exits Afghanistan as you describe. Russia did just fine before, it will manage just fine after. It knows the Taliban and its tactics no worse than US. As for Pakistan, Russia is not particularly worried either. India is allied with Russia, and significantly stronger right now than Pakistan (conventional arms). So Pakistan will really be India's burden. That does not mean Russia is not interested in partnering with US to a degree in Afghanistan - it is, and it can make a profit on selling surplus arms to the new army there, which is what it is doing.

Originally posted by maloy
The doctrine only applies to civilian vessels with civilian cargo. Military transit can be restricted by Turkey and civilian traffic can as well in times of war. Back in April of this year Syrian military units on the border of turkey launched artillery shells into Turkey

Turkey can restrict Russian navy vessels, but that will be a very serious move that will have significant political and economic consequences. The Bosphorous has always been a touchy subject between Russia and Turkey, and even during the Cold War Turkey did not dare put restrictions in place. Any such restriction now, will likely lead to an arms build-up in the Black Sea, with Russia boosting its Black Sea fleet and placing missile installations close to Turkey's border (perhaps in Armenia). This is certainly now what Turkey wants - and most definitely it will not risk it over Syria.

I think you are overestimating Turkey's conviction when it comes to Syria. Turkey will be involved as a proxy as long as it is not risking anything - just like when it strikes the Kurds in Iraq. But it knows better than to let things escalate. Turkey went a bit nuts with whole issue over Israel's blockade of Gaza a couple of years ago, and I think they are regretting such hot-headed approach.

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul
Of course the EU sanctions are "interntional" - you are grasping at straws here!

But they do not qualify as international "laws". In fact undue enforcement efforts by the EU against ships of other countries may violate international maritime laws.

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul
and any state has the right to implement them if it has subscribed to them - you saying it were otherwise is jsut wishful thinking to support your pet theory

Yes, they have a right to implement their own sanctions within their borders, as they see fit. And Russia has a right to declare that it has sanctions on all Cypriot property and persons within Russia's borders, and confiscate/detain them. A country can certainly introduce any sanctions it wants, and try to enforce them - but they better have major international political sway and military power if they try to enforce them against anyone else. If a country has the right to do something, it does not necessary mean it is a good idea to do it. You think Cyprus didn't know that that ship would continue on to Syria when they "released" it? I am certain they had a very good idea about it. They just didn't consider it important enough to test potential response from Russia. And it is not like EU will do anything to Cyprus because of it - EU is run by the same bureaucrats as everywhere else, and they will weigh the consequences and priorities. I can tell you that Syria is far from being EU's #1 priority. It may be close to being US's #1, but what is that to EU?

That is just the thing - to what measure is EU going to go to enforce their sanctions? So they may find ways to block this ship. Russia will definitely find alternate means to deliver the cargo. Or are you going to tell me that EU will try and stop Russian Navy ships from reaching Syria because they are in violation of EU sanctions?

Even if the helis make it to syria the cia would probably arm the rebels with shoulder launched sams....hit and run guerilla tactics......so pretty much useless.

America and europe should back out of the middle east as there is NOTHING to gain anymore. Pissing off russia and china means sending the west back to the stone age if nukes get launched. America launches its own and bang depopulation.

Just protect israel and saudi arabia!

I feel confident that the rockefellers and rothschild scumbags are behind this...as with everything else....and the royal elites...and the rich billionare luciferian masons. I can't say what I feel about them without getting instantly banned from the site........so lets just say I hate them quite a bit! I am sure others feel the same way though.

Originally posted by maloy

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul
Of course the EU sanctions are "interntional" - you are grasping at straws here!

But they do not qualify as international "laws". In fact undue enforcement efforts by the EU against ships of other countries may violate international maritime laws.

Only in your wish list.

they are essentially laws in the EU - perhaps not technically law, but as regulations and conditions of use or anything else they are certainly enforceable, nd states have a right to do so.

Yes, they have a right to implement their own sanctions within their borders, as they see fit.

And Russia has a right to declare that it has sanctions on all Cypriot property and persons within Russia's borders, and confiscate/detain them.

and they did not do so.....

So the US keeps sticking its nose in the middle of Syria's sovereign, internal problems knowing that they are an ally of Russia, and now the political scum in DC want to make a big deal about Russia returning helo's that they serviced and repaired?

Well maybe if the morons in DC would realize that they are there to serve the AMERICAN PEOPLE and quit sticking their noses in every other country's affairs they wouldn't be worried over issues such as these.

If the roles were reversed and Russia was getting itself involved in a sovereign, internal matter within the British government or any other of our allies we wouldn't like it either.

These lunatics we have in DC aren't going to stop until we are in a full scale war and millions are dead. They need to do the job that they are prescribed to do, address issues affecting American citizens and, not to sound uncaring but let the rest of the world fend for themselves.

Actually if that happened the world would probably be a much better place because the biggest problems facingthe world today were created as a direct result of our own foreign policy. Most of the countries and people that hate America today do so because our politicians feel that they have to force our ways on others. We are facing our own dire social, cultural, and economic issues, we are losing our freedoms more and more everyday yet the hypocrites in DC invade other nations to "promote freedom and democracy".

America, home of the biggest group of hypocrites the world has ever seen.

Originally posted by maloy
So if a Russian insurance company issues insurance to that ship, it is alright. Of course individual ports may refuse to accept it.

Ports can refuse any vessel they want without reason. As far as insurance goes I dont understand whythey werent using Russian firms. Does anyone know if Russia has those types of business in operation?

Originally posted by maloy
I don't think Cyprus had the legal ability to impound that vessel and prevent it from leaving, as it was not violation any international laws. If it tried to prevent it from leaving, it could run into legal problems with its parent company and Russia. Again - EU sanctions cannot apply to actions done by foreign countries and companies.

It was a violation of Cyprus laws, which are in effect in territorial waters.

Originally posted by maloy
Syria is not part of EU territory, and sanction enforcement even in EU territorial waters is a big legal question.

There is a difference between sanctions and an embargo. The sanctions in place apply to those countries involved and businesses in those countries. When it comes to territorial waters a countries domestic law applies.

Originally posted by maloy
Coming from within, but fueled from the outside.

From both sides of the fence.

Originally posted by maloy
Russia already faced that problem in the 90's, with incursions by Mujahedeen ...snipped for room.

Russia has faced their own internal issues with extremists / fundamentalist terrorism over the last decade. From the school hostages, to the airport suicide bombers etc etc. Russia is not the Soviet Union and their mindset is different from the Soviet Union. Russia has a lot more borders now and with their economy on the rise I cant see them picking a military fight anytime soon on a large scale (Iran / Syria / the west etc etc).

Originally posted by maloy
So I don't think Russia will be in as.... snipped for room

Russia is very much concerned about Afghanistan and its internal stability. The issues in Afghanistan that affect Russia are more than just drugs.. Islamic fundamentalists is another huge concern, going back to my comments just above.

Originally posted by maloy
Turkey can restrict Russian navy vessels, but that will be a very .... snipped for room

Turkey, if they closed the straight, would be within their rights and would also be within international treaties. The straights were one of the main reasons Turkey ended up joining Nato. With the restriction on how many naval vessels can be in the straight at any given time, the Soviet Union made a point of stationing one of their vessels in the immediate area and any time a foreign vessel was to tranist they would enter, which would max the limit of foreign vessels, forcing the vessels to head back to the med.

I dont see Turkey taking that action now but if things go south with Turkey and Syria I can see it happening, more so with the shipment of military supplies to Syria from Russia.

This is one of the issues I was talking about. Russia has a lot more to lose than what Syria or even Iran does. I do not see Russia recklessly jeopardizing the gains they have made and will make to save a regime. Russia is also trying to gain entrance into the WTO, which Obama just announced the US will assist in that endeavor (we were blocking it due to disagreements on the criteria (like what occured with China and how their economic system works and what parts need to be changed to comply with the international agreement). We gave in on it which makes me think somtime down the road we might see Russia completely back away from Syria / Iran.

Agreeing now and waiting till later people wont make the connection of the quid pro quo, dropping objections to gain support later on with Iran / Syria.

Originally posted by maloy
I think you are overestimating Turkey's conviction when it comes to Syria. Turkey will be involved as a proxy as long as it is not risking anything - just like when it strikes the Kurds in Iraq. But it knows better than to let things escalate. Turkey went a bit nuts with whole issue over Israel's blockade of Gaza a couple of years ago, and I think they are regretting such hot-headed approach.

Syria has violated Turkeys territory with weapons and artilley which has torques Turkey off. They have told the Syrian government what their "red line" is. Turkey is discussing invoking article IV of NATO and if something direct occurs they can invoke article v, so in terms of conviction and resolve I think its present and I dont see turkey blinking on this issue.

As far as the Floatilla goes I had a thread on that. Turkey announced the head of the group that organized that particular floatilla is under investigation for ties to terrorist groups. So far its an invesitgation so they are innocent till proven guilty on that one however if it turns out to be true then yes it places Turkey into an even worse position.

The other reason I dont think Russia will become militarily involved on either side (remain neutral) is because of the Georgian conflict and their status as a candidate for NATO membership, not to mention the pick and choose of regions to recognize as independent countries aligned with Russia.

The west was not willing to go to war with Russia over that mess and I dont see Russia willing to go to war to save Assad. I think if a guarantee or alternative base options becomes available and acceptable to Russia then I see them backing away from their current position. Russia has also stated Assad needs to go, however the transition and how that works is still a sticking point.

Hopefully cooler heads prevail on all sides...

If the education system of any country or region is not advanced then any kind of Arab Spring or American Summer will mostly result in choas and confused direction in the society.

Arab countries have low educational standards in comparison to nations like China, India or even South America. Hence any kind of new freedoms etc. will result in abuse and power concentrations into the hands of few........bringing them back to the full circle.

All this American investment of efforts and politics into Arab Spring is proving to be the waste Ex: Egypt, Libya and other Arab states.