Breaking: Russia Sends sends missile cruiser to Mediterranean - Interfax

Breaking: Russia Sends sends missile cruiser to Mediterranean - Interfax

uk.reuters.com

(Reuters) - Russia is sending a missile cruiser to the east Mediterranean to take over the navy's operations in the region, Interfax quoted a military source as saying on Wednesday, as the United States prepares for a possible military strike in Syria.

(visit the link for the full news article)


Related News Links:
inserbia.info

In other developments Russian Forces on heightened alert – Deputy Minister of Defense following the evens aftermath of the Israeli joint missile strike test in the Syrian Coast.

Is this what the interventionists wanted to see? an ACTION response from Russia that is even stronger then before? this missile cruiser is the biggest in the Russian Fleet can even take out ships from an distance.

Now thats sending an message isn't it? and where is the actual proof that it was Assad or the SAA forces did the chemical attack? i wouldn't call four page assessment as evidence.

uk.reuters.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

reply to post by Agent_USA_Supporter

The cold war never ended, it just got more subtle.

The question i want to know, is Russia going to support Assad militarily if the UN reports back it was the rebels who did the Chemical weapons attack.

Or better still, If the Syrian intervention takes place, which is more and more likely as the days goes by, what will Russian do to hold on to its oil and gas dominance, being crushed by the west.

The whole world and there uncle knows the Syrian intervention has nothing to do with upholding the 1928 Geneva Protocol.

Russian has to make a move soon, Libyan oil has completely stopped now, and the whole country is worse then it has ever been in its history thanks to the west's heroic liberation, but we all knew that would happen.

As time goes by, it's becoming clear this was the whole intentions of the west in the first place to bring Libya to its knees for western interests regardless of displacing the Libyan people and putting the country back 200 years, and now its Syria's turn.


Just remember that in June of this year, a UN report confirmed that 70% of Syrian people are loyal to Assad, and only 10% are loyal to the rebels.

This is all you need to know about the western myth of a popular uprising in Syria.

Originally posted by snapperski
reply to post by Agent_USA_Supporter

 

The cold war never ended, it just got more subtle.

The question i want to know, is Russia going to support Assad militarily if the UN reports back it was the rebels who did the Chemical weapons attack.

Or better still, If the Syrian intervention takes place, which is more and more likely as the days goes by, what will Russian do to hold on to its oil and gas dominance, being crushed by the west.

The whole world and there uncle knows the Syrian intervention has nothing to do with upholding the 1928 Geneva Protocol.

Russian has to make a move soon, Libyan oil has completely stopped now, and the whole country is worse then it has ever been in its history thanks to the west's heroic liberation, but we all knew that would happen.

As time goes by, it's becoming clear this was the whole intentions of the west in the first place to bring Libya to its knees for western interests regardless of displacing the Libyan people and putting the country back 200 years, and now its Syria's turn.


Just remember that in June of this year, a UN report confirmed that 70% of Syrian people are loyal to Assad, and only 10% are loyal to the rebels.

This is all you need to know about the western myth of a popular uprising in Syria.

maybe Russia sense they are somewhere in the queue of axis of evil and think sod it we better fight now while we have allies.
personally I think Britain planned to vote against intervention to see how it pans out when it starts.
just watched prime ministers questions and he (cam moron)was asked how would they respond if Syria legally asked Russia for assistance and invited Russia to help against the terrorists?

Or maybe Russia being a major political power, a member of the UN council with a lot of weight and firepower in more than one sense is gearing up to do a united intervention in Syria.

Why would Russia risk pitting itself with lowly nations when it has so much international swing?

It makes no sense to me attacking any western nation if I was leading Russia, in fact if the west has concrete evidence of laws being broken that my nation has signed to abide(treaty wise) then I would feel morally obligated to help sort it out.

Yes the cold war never ended, WE the west would never allow it to end. But the political game is where it is at now and has been for some time, name a time in recent history where Russia has instigated political or militaristic stand-offs without a good reason. Or played the political game harder than the west without being provoked.

Russia stood up for Syria for 2 reasons in my eyes:

1. Syria is a sovereign nation and we have sat by idle a few times now and let sovereign nations be attacked immorally and/or illegally.

2. We have massive investments in the nation and it's location is of Russian strategic importance.

reply to post by r0nsix

maybe Russia sense they are somewhere in the queue of axis of evil and think sod it we better fight now while we have allies. personally I think Britain planned to vote against intervention to see how it pans out when it starts. just watched prime ministers questions and he (cam moron)was asked how would they respond if Syria legally asked Russia for assistance and invited Russia to help against the terrorists?

I have said for a while that this would be the best military invention option there is.

International peace keeping force (including Russia) go in to keep the peace, forcing all sides to drop their arms. I could see Syrian Armed Forces wanting this and actually backing it if allowed.

I can't see Russia going it alone though, the implications that would be held against them would make it a bad move. Support them legally, with weapons that are useless against ground units e.g. sophisticated air defence etc. Wouldn't that be a better move?

This is just a regular rotation of the ship which was pre planned months ago. Do not take much into this deployment. Also, whatever Russian ships are in the Mediterranean are keep good peaceful distance from those of the US and others. This was acknowledged by Gen. Dempsy yesterday on CNN. Other than UN, Russia won't get into military confrontation.

Originally posted by Agent_USA_Supporter

Breaking: Russia Sends sends missile cruiser to Mediterranean - Interfax

uk.reuters.com

(Reuters) - Russia is sending a missile cruiser to the east Mediterranean to take over the navy's operations in the region, Interfax quoted a military source as saying on Wednesday, as the United States prepares for a possible military strike in Syria.

(visit the link for the full news article)


Related News Links:
inserbia.info

Putin of course wants to be on the winning side.
Considering his most recent remarks that he will support a Syria strike once he sees evidence of the chemical weapons attacks, I'd say he is going to be wearing his New England Patriots Super Bowl ring and be on the side of the winning forces, sharing in the spotlight of victory over the evil Assad regime. The ships will probably lob a few missiles into Syria in a joint strike with US forces. Putin may even go on the deck of this very ship, the photo op would be priceless.

Everyone wants to be on the winning team, especially Putin.

Originally posted by TinfoilTP

Originally posted by Agent_USA_Supporter

Breaking: Russia Sends sends missile cruiser to Mediterranean - Interfax

uk.reuters.com

(Reuters) - Russia is sending a missile cruiser to the east Mediterranean to take over the navy's operations in the region, Interfax quoted a military source as saying on Wednesday, as the United States prepares for a possible military strike in Syria.

(visit the link for the full news article)


Related News Links:
inserbia.info

Putin of course wants to be on the winning side.
Considering his most recent remarks that he will support a Syria strike once he sees evidence of the chemical weapons attacks, I'd say he is going to be wearing his New England Patriots Super Bowl ring and be on the side of the winning forces, sharing in the spotlight of victory over the evil Assad regime. The ships will probably lob a few missiles into Syria in a joint strike with US forces. Putin may even go on the deck of this very ship, the photo op would be priceless.

Everyone wants to be on the winning team, especially Putin.

Don't think so! Putin will refuse to accept the evidence and try to kill it there.

Remember, yesterday Kerry said the UN team will only confirm that Sarin was used. They do not have the capability to point to who used it. Most of the evidence has already been removed by the those who used the CWs in the first place. Hence NOT ENOUGH for Putin to go along with the strikes.

Putin 'does not rule out' approving Syria strike with evidence Assad used poison gas

Reuters

I'd say he is planning to come out on the winning side.

You realize that the Moskva has to go to the Mediterranean anyway right? It's part of the Black Sea Fleet and has to come through the Med to go in and out, and had been in Venezuela recently. So to get home she has to go through the Med.

A genuine question for you all.
Is there only one shipping entrance to the Mediterranean Sea?

reply to post by jazz10


Russian ships need to visit Tartus base in Syria in order to refuel, perform any repairs, change crews etc.

Do not think Russia will get involved in this mess. Russia will not fight anybody unless Russia proper is attacked.

UN votes and other diplomacy tools will be used.

reply to post by victor7


Sorry. I meant how many waterways capable of allowing military ships access to Mediterranean Sea are they? Just curious.