Russia Sends Advanced Missiles to Syria, and Actively Protects Its Port There.

reply to post by LABTECH767


Every new system has kinks, it's why they have sea trials. I have no doubt that, in the end, it will be awesome. The Yanks are impressed by it and it is by far and away better than their new sub class, the Virginia.

And yes, I agree with your view of Whitehall, but what's changed there? It's always been run by idiots, but that never stopped us doing what needed to be done. Just look at what the idiots had done to the Fleet just prior to 1982...

reply to post by MrSpad

And this has nothing to do with Caspian sea and if Isreal wanted a war with the Arab world it should be supporting Assad because the Arabs are the rebels strongest supporters along with the Turks.

Why would Israel support Assad when Bashar al-Assad said in 2009:

"How can a state that was founded on illegal occupation and continues to murder the original inhabitants work toward peace? How can a country that has chosen the most extreme government in its history be a partner for peace?"

"We the Arab nations, and especially Syria will not change our view about peace as a strategic goal, including the full return of occupied lands."

Well, regardless of Russia's ability to directly intervene in this conflict, it is a damn shame that the US is being used to further the goals of the elite.

All of this has NOTHING to do with the well being of the Syrian people. This is all about gaining more power and wealth for a few.

Originally posted by snapperski
reply to post by MrSpad

 

And this has nothing to do with Caspian sea and if Isreal wanted a war with the Arab world it should be supporting Assad because the Arabs are the rebels strongest supporters along with the Turks.

Why would Israel support Assad when Bashar al-Assad said in 2009:

"How can a state that was founded on illegal occupation and continues to murder the original inhabitants work toward peace? How can a country that has chosen the most extreme government in its history be a partner for peace?"

"We the Arab nations, and especially Syria will not change our view about peace as a strategic goal, including the full return of occupied lands."

Well you said Isreal wanted a war with the Arabs. The Arabs hate Assad. As it happens the Israelis do not like him either so in this case the West, the Arabs and Israelis all agree. If the Israelis wanted a war with Arabs they should take the counter point but, since they do not they are all one big happy coalition.

Originally posted by MidnightTide
Well, regardless of Russia's ability to directly intervene in this conflict, it is a damn shame that the US is being used to further the goals of the elite.

What "goals of the Elite" would that be then, just out of curiosity?

You'd think if this was some master plan at work, we'd have concocted some contrived reason to invade 2 years ago, instead of wringing our hands on the side while thousands died?

reply to post by stumason




Take that as woo if you want but I do believe those criteria are the goal of the elite.

But do you believe that the US and their allies are doing this purely for "good intentions"?

wringing our hands on the side while thousands died

I honestly don't think they cared one bit.

reply to post by MidnightTide


The U.S. supports brutal dictatorships in Yemen, Bahrain, Saudi Arabia and Jordan, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Equatorial Guinea.

The safety and human rights of the Syrian people, doesn't interest them in the slightest.

reply to post by stumason


Not according to sources I've been reading. That Yasen is already launched and at sea testing, AND loaded out with Onyx missiles. Later variants allowed for the underwater launch platform. So other subs may have them too, in addition to the ships and surface based.

Here's one video supposedly showing the underwater launch, but I can't be sure that's an Onyx:
www.liveleak.com...

Originally posted by snapperski
reply to post by MidnightTide

 

The U.S. supports brutal dictatorships in Yemen, Bahrain, Saudi Arabia and Jordan, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Equatorial Guinea.

The safety and human rights of the Syrian people, doesn't interest them in the slightest.

No but when you start shooting your own people and cause a revolution that could end up with radicals hijacking the revolution that does interest the them. Also that list of countries makes no sense for a variety of reasons.

reply to post by stumason

What "goals of the Elite" would that be then, just out of curiosity?

Securing energy.

You'd think if this was some master plan at work, we'd have concocted some contrived reason to invade 2 years ago, instead of wringing our hands on the side while thousands died?

It's called trying to not get your hands dirty, worked in Libya, so they gave it a go in Syria, but it hasn't worked out like it did in Libya.

You can't be that naive to believe this is all about humanitarian issues and the west is doing this from the goodness of our hearts, surely Libya blow that myth apart.

Because if it was N,Korea, Yemen, Bahrain, Saudi Arabia, which are all worse then Syria would of been invaded years ago.

reply to post by TrueAmerican


It is still undergoing Sea trials, so isn't in service- it hasn't technically been completed and handed over. They don't expect to be in service until the end of 2013 at the earliest.

That video is old and grainy, and doesn't really tell us much. Yes, the Onyx can be launched from tubes in a sub, but as far as I can tell, it is only deployed on surface ships and coastal batteries.

Originally posted by stumason

Originally posted by MidnightTide
Well, regardless of Russia's ability to directly intervene in this conflict, it is a damn shame that the US is being used to further the goals of the elite.

What "goals of the Elite" would that be then, just out of curiosity?

You'd think if this was some master plan at work, we'd have concocted some contrived reason to invade 2 years ago, instead of wringing our hands on the side while thousands died?

Didn't the rebels only really start filtering into Syria a few years ago though?

Obviously discontent has always been there, but foreign aid and support was quite recent right?

Just a thought.

Originally posted by TrueAmerican
Yeah maybe, but you suppose the large Russian naval flotilla in the Mediterranean will just up and leave too if a no fly zone is imposed over Syria and missile strikes start?

Not wishing to burst your bubble of fantasy, but the Russian navy is a shadow of its Soviet past.

The Mediterranean is a sea run for, and on behalf of, NATO. The Russian naval presence in the Mediterranean would be outclassed numerically and technologically by NATO naval and air assets. If Syria became a no fly zone which was imposed by NATO then there is nothing Russia could do about it.

Regards

Originally posted by snapperski
Securing energy.

And what energy would that be?

Originally posted by snapperski
It's called trying to not get your hands dirty, worked in Libya, so they gave it a go in Syria, but it hasn't worked out like it did in Libya.

You can't be that naive to believe this is all about humanitarian issues and the west is doing this from the goodness of our hearts, surely Libya blow that myth apart.

How exactly has "Libya blown that myth apart"? Oil production there is much less than before the War and has actually declined recently owing to internal problems between different factions. If anything, the situation before Gaddafi was ousted was far more beneficial to Western interests as they had already signed contracts for Oil exploration - the War disrupted all of that.

Originally posted by snapperski
Because if it was N,Korea, Yemen, Bahrain, Saudi Arabia, which are all worse then Syria would of been invaded years ago.

NK aside, which would simply be a nightmare given the sheer size of their military and the damage that would be incurred on SK as a result, the others aren't even in the same boat as Syria. Yes, they are questionable regimes, but you cannot compare them to what has transpired in Syria.

reply to post by mr-lizard


Foreign aid for the rebels in Syria has been there since the start, just from the Qatari's and Saudi's, which is probably why we're now seeing so may more Jihadi elements within the rebels

Originally posted by MrSpad
Can we stop calling the one operarion pier Russia leases in Syria a port. Its a pier with a staff of 4. And its two small for any warships. Let us end the exageration that Russia has some huge naval base in Syria. If a conflict breaks out those 4 guys will get in a cab and leave.

True. Russians have already left. They pulled out early in this year when threat of NATO action became real.

Russians are not looking for a direct showdown in Syria.

The Syrian troops are demoralized and throwing 'advanced' missiles at them does not help. Odds are stacked against the Syrian army.

The Yakhont system is very effective but force protection is needed before such weapons can be used.

Originally posted by paraphi

Originally posted by TrueAmerican
Yeah maybe, but you suppose the large Russian naval flotilla in the Mediterranean will just up and leave too if a no fly zone is imposed over Syria and missile strikes start?

Not wishing to burst your bubble of fantasy, but the Russian navy is a shadow of its Soviet past.

The Mediterranean is a sea run for, and on behalf of, NATO. The Russian naval presence in the Mediterranean would be outclassed numerically and technologically by NATO naval and air assets. If Syria became a no fly zone which was imposed by NATO then there is nothing Russia could do about it.

Regards

Russian navy is no match for NATO navies. You are right that Russians cannot fight in the Med.

Russia can at best hope to bring down a few ships from a shore based battery. However this succeeds only if the shore installation is safe. Syria is a mess right now. I do not see how Syria can be effective in any big action against much larger NATO forces.

I'm delighted Russia is supporting Syria in it's struggle against Al-Qaeda, and this organizations U.S and British allies in the form of David Cameron and President Bush the 3rd. It is just a shame Russia did not supply more advanced weapons to fight Islamic cannibals and the pre-medieval organizations that support them.

Hopefully Britain & America will one day arm president Assad too (whenever policy stop supporting the deliberate destruction and general degradation of entire countries to serve very few, and for ultimately very little net gain).

reply to post by Liberal1984


It isn't as simple as describing this as Assad vs AQ affiliated Jihadis, just as it isn't as simple for others to describe it as Assad vs Democracy loving freedom fighters.

The rebellion isn't some unified group, but several different groups of varying ideological backgrounds fighting the Assad Government - some are secular and wanting true democracy, others still are barbaric Islamists seeking to take advantage - this is one of the main reasons behind the West's apparent inability to decide what to do... If we do bomb Assad, then which of the many rebel factions will fill the vacuum? The secular FSA, or the downright twisted Al Nusra Brigades?

I think it's just great how people have a problem with U.S. intervention in foreign affairs, yet have no problem at all living the lifestyle that intervention affords us as U.S. citizens.

I'd take this thread more seriously if the OP would denounce his citizenship and go live like a hermit on a mountain somewhere, or even go live in his beloved Mother Russia, but we both know that isn't going to happen. Oh well. Continue your hypocritical ranting all you want if it makes you feel better.