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.

 

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

page: 9
19
<< 6  7  8    10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 19 2012 @ 07:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by victor7
It will take only 1 week mere 7 days mere 168 hours of closing of the NDN supply route. Russia should close this supply route for 7 days in retaliation to the ship insurance incident. After 7 days, double the prices of each container crossing the RF territory and instruct the other CSTO members to do the same. US/EU/NATO all will come into a line.


In all honesty Russia is not going to do this right now. If things escalate nothing is out of the question, but it hasn't reached that threshold yet. My guess is that US and EU will back off a bit, and Russia will deliver the arms through alternate means. However if for whatever idiotic reason US and EU suddenly decide that they want to stage air strikes on Syria, Russia may step up its game. Again the way to make it hurt here is not necessarily with Aghanistan, but with selling Assad more advanced anti-air and anti-ship technology. The main reason why Russia is not doing that yet, is because they made a deal on the side with Israel.




posted on Jun, 19 2012 @ 07:49 PM
link   
reply to post by maloy
 


Once the air strikes have begin, Russia would not be able to smuggle even a mouse let alone an elephant.



posted on Jun, 19 2012 @ 08:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by Xcathdra
It matters a great deal as to what role we played. Trying to ingore it or water it down so you can lump everything together does not work.


Maybe as far as you are concerned it matters. To me it seems trivial, because NATO appears to be alive and well. As far as Russian foreign policy is concerned, the lines between US and NATO and its constituents appear to be becoming more blurred in certain actions. It is much the same with the US Anti-Ballistic Missiles being placed in Eastern Europe, and with the whole fiasco in Serbia and Kosovo. NATO members, be they acting individually or as a group, appear to have a common agenda.



Originally posted by Xcathdra
You are lost I see and hell bent on comparing apples to zebras.. Please explain to everyone what grounds Russia has against the government of the UK for a private business that operates out of the UK, which is required to comply with EU laws, for yanking insurance from a private Russian company.


I'll counter that with "please explain what grounds NATO had to bomb Libya"? Anyone can make up "grounds" for anything they want, with an intelligently worded justification. Russia may have no legal grounds, but it has political grounds - because those are what you make them. If you think someone pissed in your cheerios, you can find excuses to piss in theirs. If I am comparing apples to zebras, it is only because both a moot point here.



Originally posted by Xcathdra
While your at it please explaimn how that action has anything at all to do with Libya, I mean other than your attempt to confuse and obfuscate those who arent paying attention?


The actions of US/NATO against Syria are an extention of their strategy against Libya. You may not see this, but I do.




Originally posted by Xcathdra
Yet here you and others are, stating the company had no right to take that action, while at the same time using the term british instead of private british company.


Alright - the British company is acting at the behest of the decisions made by the British government, which includes passing sanctions. If it were not for those decisions, chances are the insurance would not have been revoked simply for business reasons (i.e. profit).



Originally posted by Xcathdra
again pay attention and quit trying to obfuscate. A private British company decided to end their business arrangement with a private Russian company. The governments of each country have nothing to do with the decision.


The British government had nothing to do with passing sanctions, and pointing out to the said company that the given ship is carrying arms, after the policy has already been issued? If it was solely left to the companies with no regulators or political influences getting in the way - the only factor would be profits.



Originally posted by Xcathdra
Since the Assad regime controls the media I dont have an answer for you. I know there are enough Syrians who are tired of his rule that they are present in suffificent numbers to cause him serious issues.


There are enough people in Saudi Arabia who are tires of the Sheikh's rule. Will you or the US support them if they take the weapons that Russia or China buys for them, and try to topple the regime, with everyone realizing that US's main source of its life-blood petrol is gone? Did the West threaten Bahrain when it shop up the unarmed protesters?

To say that Assad is slaugheting the people of Syria is extremely biased. The armed factions in Syria are slaughetring each other and civilians. Assad is fighting to maintain his power, just as most other similar regimes would do in a given situation.



Originally posted by Xcathdra
You are ignoring the fact Russia is ignoring the actions of the Assad regime towards the Syrian people based solely on use and access to the port and the med.


I am not ignoring that, I am just saying that access to the port is not the sole purpose. Just as well US is ignoring the actions of the rebels that result in the death of civilians and massive unrest, based on its intentions to bring about a more US-friendly regime in Syria.



Originally posted by Xcathdra
That wont sit well with the Syrian people, and based on information coming out of Syria, its a factor.


Again, neither will the actions and threats of the US. It depends on which Syrian people you are talking about.


Originally posted by Xcathdra
The days of a single person rule are coming to an end as well, especially in traditioonal dictatorial countries in the ME and Asia..


Boy, we have heard that one before. That is what many people think the case would be every time there is a revolution throughout history (Russia, China, Iran, Georgia, Yemen, Laos, Pakistan, etc.).



posted on Jun, 19 2012 @ 08:19 PM
link   
reply to post by victor7
 


Not unless Russia already has a secured point of entry into Syria, which they know US/NATO will not dare touch if they can harm Russian armed forces. Why do you think Russia keeps continuously rotating a small number of troops in Tartus?
edit on 19-6-2012 by maloy because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 19 2012 @ 08:26 PM
link   
Why sail past Scotland to a country you border with?



posted on Jun, 19 2012 @ 08:30 PM
link   
reply to post by Beavers
 


Russia borders with Syria? Superb! I guess it's all solved now.



posted on Jun, 19 2012 @ 08:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by Beavers
Why sail past Scotland to a country you border with?


Ah.. You must have been sick during grade 5 geography.



posted on Jun, 19 2012 @ 09:40 PM
link   
reply to post by Xcathdra
 





Please explain to everyone what grounds Russia has against the government of the UK for a private business that operates out of the UK, which is required to comply with EU laws, for yanking insurance from a private Russian company.


The laws made or passed by EU have political bias and are in cahoots with foreign policies of the NATO nations. You can make or pass laws to choke any small third world nation till the time that nation is ready to comply to your predatory demands. In any ways, if your laws are going to interfere with the business operations of the Russian Federation then Russia has all right and responsibility to react forcefully and effectively to that interference.

You all think that we are kids out of the junior grade schools. Do not make such comments again as they offers no sensible logic but sure do aggravate the discussion.

Who the hell is US to tell China or India to stop buying oil from Iran, just because US does not like Iran developing nuclear capabilities. You guys are stretching the buck way too far. In the end it will make things difficult for you as soon other countries will start acting in the manner that you do and global political climate will become full of hatred and poison.



posted on Jun, 20 2012 @ 02:21 AM
link   
reply to post by victor7
 


Yet those countries are still buying oil from Iran so im not sure where your argument is going. As far as treating you like a school kid my advice would be to stop acting like one and you wont be treated like one.

As far as your issues and lack of understanding about the oil you should do more research to better understand it

Once done feel free to join back into the conversation. The topic is the british company yanking the insurance from the russian ship since you seem to have forgot.
edit on 20-6-2012 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 20 2012 @ 02:21 AM
link   

edit on 20-6-2012 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 20 2012 @ 05:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by victor7
reply to post by Xcathdra
 





Please explain to everyone what grounds Russia has against the government of the UK for a private business that operates out of the UK, which is required to comply with EU laws, for yanking insurance from a private Russian company.


The laws made or passed by EU have political bias


And, say, Russian laws do not??


Or if not Russian - what laws do you think do not have political bias??


and are in cahoots with foreign policies of the NATO nations.


Since the same countries make up the bulk of the membership of both organisations why is this in the least bit remarkable??



You can make or pass laws to choke any small third world nation till the time that nation is ready to comply to your predatory demands. In any ways, if your laws are going to interfere with the business operations of the Russian Federation then Russia has all right and responsibility to react forcefully and effectively to that interference.


Since when was the Russian Federation a "small third world country"?


You all think that we are kids out of the junior grade schools. Do not make such comments again as they offers no sensible logic but sure do aggravate the discussion.


You are telling someone to show logic?? After you've just complained that EU policies line up with NATO ones?? Really??



Who the hell is US to tell China or India to stop buying oil from Iran, just because US does not like Iran developing nuclear capabilities.


The US is the US - other countries do not have to do what the US says - and the US does not have to trade with other countries - it cuts both ways. The US is perfectly free to tell other countries "if you buy oil from Iran then we are going to do (whatever)"

And other countries are perfectly entitled to make decisions of their own on the matter taking into account all the pressures that exist.

No country exists in isolation - China just snubbed ministerial meetings with the UK because of the Dalai Lama - who is China to tell the UK the DL can't visit? Russia is telling Poland, the Czech Rep, & the USA (IIRC those are the 2 countries - if not then whoever) they cannot deploy missiles - who is Russia to tell those countries what they can and cannot do.

Get real!


You guys are stretching the buck way too far. In the end it will make things difficult for you as soon other countries will start acting in the manner that you do and global political climate will become full of hatred and poison.


lol - you should study a bit more history if you think that is something that is in the future!!

edit on 20-6-2012 by Aloysius the Gaul because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 20 2012 @ 09:35 AM
link   


Russia is telling Poland, the Czech Rep, & the USA (IIRC those are the 2 countries - if not then whoever) they cannot deploy missiles - who is Russia to tell those countries what they can and cannot do.
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul
 


On that logic, Russia will redeploy nuke tipped missiles in Cuba and US will have no right to cry like an infant.




The US is the US - other countries do not have to do what the US says - and the US does not have to trade with other countries - it cuts both ways. The US is perfectly free to tell other countries "if you buy oil from Iran then we are going to do (whatever)"


That can work with some small country but not with nations of the size of China, India, S. Korea. That's why US has come to exemption for 11 such countries. The US is taking another one on the nose in Pakistan. A nation 50-100 times small in terms of economy and military has blocked your babies from getting fresh milk. If even 25% of the world takes the Pak route of dealing with US, it will be much more peaceful as US will eventually change its belligerent demeanor.

Also, regarding showing finger on trade, remember largest imports to US are crude oil, cars, electronics, medicines, computers and related. So prices of these items will further go up as US decides to produce them at home will result in you having only a slice of bread a day to chew and somehow breathe.



edit on 20-6-2012 by victor7 because: (no reason given)

edit on 20-6-2012 by victor7 because: (no reason given)

edit on 20-6-2012 by victor7 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 21 2012 @ 11:03 AM
link   


Russia has confirmed that the cargo ship forced to turn back from British waters this week was carrying attack helicopters for Syria, and that it will now sail under the Russian flag.


www.telegraph.co.uk...



posted on Jul, 9 2012 @ 10:46 PM
link   
So... has it arrived in Syria yet? It went back on the water a week after it was returned.

Anyone have any updates? I cannot find much on Google.



posted on Jul, 10 2012 @ 04:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by victor7


Russia is telling Poland, the Czech Rep, & the USA (IIRC those are the 2 countries - if not then whoever) they cannot deploy missiles - who is Russia to tell those countries what they can and cannot do.
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul
 


On that logic, Russia will redeploy nuke tipped missiles in Cuba and US will have no right to cry like an infant.


The irony is weak in this one

edit on 10-7-2012 by Aloysius the Gaul because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 10 2012 @ 09:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by CALGARIAN
So... has it arrived in Syria yet? It went back on the water a week after it was returned.

Anyone have any updates? I cannot find much on Google.


The M/V Alaed hasn't moved apparently since it returned to the Northern Russian port. Any movements of M/V Alaed would be all over the media if it attempted to transit south and into the Mediterranean.

www.marinetraffic.com...

The Russians are likely to use the planned routine deployment from the Northern and Baltic fleets to deliver the helicopters. Either M/V Alaed will tag along or the helicopters are on one of the auxiliary vessels accompanying the deployment.


Russian warships are sent to Syria Northern Fleet (NF) destroyer Admiral Chabanenko and three Russian amphibious assault ships left NF Main Base Severomorsk on July 10. The high official from Russian Ministry of Defence told Central Navy Portal. Three amphibious assault ships transport Marine Corps submits on-board. Baltic Fleet guard frigat Yaroslav Mudry and auxiliary ships, based in Baltiysk, will join Admiral Chabanenko later. According to information available to Central Navy Portal, naval ships move into the Mediterranean Sea, into Syria water area. À crew member from one of the ships confirmed the information. He also noticed, that the three-months mission in the Mediterranean Sea for Admiral Chabanenko and three Russain amphibious assault ships was planned in advance. Recall that in 2012 Russian warships called at Tartus port many times. To replenish supplies, destroyer Admiral Chabanenko, frigate Ladny, and tanker Lena, being deployed with the Russian Navy's carrier group in the Mediterranean, visited the port in Jan 2012. Aircraft-carrying cruiser Admiral Kuznetsov and rescue tug Nikolai Chiker were anchored off the Tartus port then.


rusnavy.com...



posted on Jul, 13 2012 @ 08:43 AM
link   
The ship carrying the Mi-25 Hinds is apparently underway. M/V Alaed.

blog.heritage.org...



posted on Jul, 13 2012 @ 02:06 PM
link   
M/V Alaed is under way

Position Recorded on:
2012-07-12T10:17:00 (UTC)

Lat/Lon: 69.65979 / 14.40417
Speed/Course: 13.3 kn / 228°

From

www.marinetraffic.com...

www.marinetraffic.com...



posted on Jul, 13 2012 @ 02:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by tommyjo
M/V Alaed is under way

Position Recorded on:
2012-07-12T10:17:00 (UTC)

Lat/Lon: 69.65979 / 14.40417
Speed/Course: 13.3 kn / 228°

From

www.marinetraffic.com...

www.marinetraffic.com...


Cool site, thanks for the link.
I had a feeling they would wait for the deployment before heading back out. This will deter any interference by other nations.



posted on Jul, 13 2012 @ 02:38 PM
link   
I believe this is just grandstanding at the moment. If Russia wishes to get supplies to Syria they can always send a few war ships to ensure it gets through. Oh, wait a minute, they did send a few warships


This Syria situation, IMO, is going to get ugly very fast, the reason being, the UK and US government need a war to divert attention away from thier own crimes and those of the bankers. Like I stated in a previous thread tonight, the UK government has become nothing short of an organised crime syndicate and they have the police working for them.
edit on 13-7-2012 by TheMindWar because: Typos



new topics

top topics



 
19
<< 6  7  8    10 >>

log in

join