In Which The NYT Claims That John McCain Is A White House Official
Some rag reports: Kremlin Says Russian ‘Volunteer’ Forces Will Fight in Syria:
Russia signaled deepening intervention Monday in the Syria war, strongly hinting that its “volunteer” ground forces would soon be fighting there..
...
Although President Vladimir V. Putin has ruled out sending ground forces to Syria, a senior Kremlin defense official told Russian news agencies on Monday that military veterans who had fought in eastern Ukraine were likely to start showing up as “volunteer” ground forces in Syria.The statement by the official, Adm. Vladimir Komoyedov, head of the armed forces committee in Russia’s Parliament, asserted that such volunteers “cannot be stopped.”
Maybe a map is needed for the NYT to learn some political differentiation.
Dear NYT -believe it or not- but the Kremlin and the Parliament in Moscow are indeed two dissimilar institutions. The retired Admiral Vladimir Komoyedov is the elected chairman of the defense committee of the Russian Duma and not a "Kremlin official". Also - Senator John McCain is not a "White House official" no matter how much he would like to be one.
The Kremlin cares about the former Admiral's opinion just as much as the White House cares about McCain's usual blabber. Komoyedov can announce whatever nonsense he likes. It does not make it Russian state policy.
The NYT of course loves to depict Russia as a dictatorship and attributes everything someone in Moscow says or does to the President of the Russian Federation or, even darker, to "the Kremlin". But that is propaganda, not reporting.
But back to the issue of the possibility Russian volunteers in Syria. On the "World" page of the NYT website we find a promotion for a current NYT Magazine piece headline: Meet the American Vigilantes Who Are Fighting ISIS
A ragtag group of fighters from America and Europe have joined the fight against extremists in Syria. But with little training and no clear leadership, do they know what they’re doing?
Are U.S. volunteers going to Syria to fight extremists in Syria a "signal" of "deepening intervention" by the official U.S. of A.? Why is seen as such when some Russian volunteers might want to do alike?
Posted by b on October 6, 2015 at 13:42 UTC | Permalink
next page »
As we all know, there are two sets rules, ones for the Empire, and another for everyone else. Having said that, IMO, this "Syrian problem" cannot be solved without "boots on the ground". I hope Russia and her allies are willing to make that commitment.
Posted by: ben | Oct 6 2015 14:10 utc | 2
@2
The boots on the ground are the Syrian army, Hezbollah and iran forces
Russia are there to keep us/ israel/ Turkey/ Gil states out
Posted by: James lake | Oct 6 2015 14:21 utc | 3
McCain may not be a "White House official," but he sure does have an important function in the executive branch--he is CEO of the National Republican Institute, which receives the majority of the National Endowment for Democracy's "democracy promotion" funding.
Of course, McCain is also Chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee.
As we have seen over the years, McCain is something of a loose canon, and his positions straddling executive-legislative branches gives him a unique power base, which essentially affords him the capability of running an independent foreign policy, perhaps even undermining the President and State Department.
Could the New York Times in fact be subtly complaining that Russia resembles the US too much--that its foreign policy is somewhat of a mishmash, just like the US?
Posted by: JohnH | Oct 6 2015 14:26 utc | 4
"May was the flowering month for the Syrian thistle."
I don't know who these ragtag fighter guys are, but it seems like NYT is going for the romanticized Spanish civil war feel with this one. Funny because just recently somebody (I forget who) said that all of this has a Spanish civil war / world war precursor feel to it. I've been saying for two years that somebody very powerful wants to start a world war in order to prevent the inevitable decline, to do a reset of sorts which would bring us back to that kind of post ww2 advantage. Or something.
Posted by: gemini33 | Oct 6 2015 14:35 utc | 5
How much of this is misleading journalism and how much of it is just inept?
Posted by: ralphieboy | Oct 6 2015 15:01 utc | 6
With all due respect the map above shows some place near "White house", huge building where sits the government (left arrow), and the Kremlin (right arrow). Parliament aka State Duma dwells at Okhotniy ryad 1, which is much closer to the Kremlin, in every way.
Posted by: Wizzy | Oct 6 2015 15:06 utc | 7
Given that the only 'product' besides the financial shell game that props up the NYT is weaponry, it is not surprising that it dances with those who brung it. We might also connect, (because even the elites need minimally nourished peons to produce those weapons - although they are doing their best to put robots in as many slots as possible) the TPP ramrod to ensure imports of such basic necessities for the un-unionized, unloved, mini-minimal wage workforce are not strategically sanctioned - we are an island empire after all.
That pesky Edward Snowden - he certainly threw a spanner into those secretive manipulations. Might well have saved us all from hell.
Posted by: juliania | Oct 6 2015 15:14 utc | 8
That's almost an exact parallel, btw.
"Adm. Vladimir Komoyedov, head of the armed forces committee in Russia’s Parliament"
John McCain is the chairman of the Armed Services committee in our upper house.
But who can resist using the name "Kremlin"? After all, it triggers that icy, ominous feeling in millions of Americas who grew up in the first Cold War era and we invested a hell of a lot of money in that propaganda, doggoneit. It's amazing how propaganda can be recycyled. I wonder if Hollywood will start giving Russian accents to all the movie villains again, no matter what their country of origin. Every other foreigner got a British accent. In the 2000s we started getting Arab villains from Hollywood but I'm not sure those were quite as effective as the scary Russians and the (cue scary music) Kremlin.
Posted by: gemini33 | Oct 6 2015 15:32 utc | 9
since when has the nyt/wapo, or wsj ever got the facts right when there is a war to be had? the purpose of this papers is laid bare and has been for some time.. no need to be shocked about the disinformation campaign this trio of asswipes regularly engage in..
Posted by: james | Oct 6 2015 15:45 utc | 10
@9 (myself)
Oh, and another reason we might not want to use Arab jihadists as Hollywood movie villains anymore is because the geniuses are now trying to break it to the American people, as gently as possible, that those guys are our insurgent boots on the ground, funded in part by our tax dollars. I really do wonder how they are going to manage that. But the ones on tv news with the real Russian accents are expediting that process with the great sorting out of terrorists happening in Syria right now.
Posted by: gemini33 | Oct 6 2015 15:53 utc | 11
Clarity. Harder and harder to put lipstick on this Wahabbi/Salafist/Jihadi pig for the NeoCon/NeoLiberal/R2P axis through the vehicle of their propaganda organs.
Godspeed Russia & the Axis of Resistance.
Posted by: JerseyJeffersonian | Oct 6 2015 16:18 utc | 12
Are U.S. volunteers going to Syria to fight extremists in Syria a "signal" of "deepening intervention" by the official U.S. of A.? Why is seen as such when some Russian volunteers might want to do alike?
Good point. It is yet another hypocrisy in a sea of hypocrisy.
Like this American volunteer who recently followed me on Twitter. Vice loves him. Maybe because Vice is also CIA just like Matthew. How else does Vice gain such miraculous access?
Matthew VanDyke and Sons of Liberty International
Posted by: Cold N. Holefield | Oct 6 2015 16:21 utc | 13
I'd like to start a petition for renaming Syria, Megiddo. Please sign below if you support the motion. Per @12, everybody wants a piece of Syria. Considering that, there is no way in hell Assad lasts five more years let alone a year. I'm guessing Putin has made a grave error on this one. He can't maintain a permanent military presence and he doesn't want to commit to a significant military footprint, but to accomplish what he said he wants to accomplish, that's what it would take. Russia is going to be attacked by rebels who have yet to be named and renamed. It would be best if he takes that toe out now before it's too late and he and Russia are in for good and hence, done for good.
Posted by: Cold N. Holefield | Oct 6 2015 16:41 utc | 14
from Russia Insider
The following article was published in the Financial Times:
Moscow scuppers US coalition plans for no-fly zone in Syria
Russia’s bombing of anti-regime rebels in Syria has been described as a disaster for the US-led coalition’s efforts to destroy Isis, the Islamist militant group, but the Kremlin’s real challenge to Washington is in the skies above the war-torn country.
Alongside a modest Latakia-based contingent of two dozen Su-24 Fencer and Su-25 Frogfoot jets — planes designed to strike land targets — Moscow has deployed assets which render the prospect of no-fly zones enforced by the US or its allies over Syria impossible to enact.
Just weeks ago, after months of diplomacy, officials were close to an agreement on enforcing aerial safe-zones to end the Assad regime’s bombing of civilians in northern and southern Syria, according to diplomats and military officials in the US-led coalition.
The agreement was based on Jordanian and Turkish plans presented earlier this year.
Many officials believe an imminent move to ramp up coalition activity in Syria precipitated the Kremlin’s sudden intervention late last month.
“The ultimate reason all this is happening is because of the renewed focus on Syria and the need for some sort of political solution there — something which we thought we could achieve by enforcing no-fly zones, safe zones,” said one senior European diplomat.
But any hopes of military co-ordination with Russia to achieve this, even in the wake of its disruptive deployment, are swiftly being dashed.
Nato’s supreme military commander in Europe, US General Phillip Breedlove warned last week that the alliance was “worried about another A2/AD bubble being created in the eastern Mediterranean.” A2/AD stands for anti-access, area denial.
Gen Breedlove’s fears have been realised in the past days as Russia’s small deployment of four Su-30 “flanker” jets, which are at Latakia’s Bassel al-Assad air base — highly manoeuvreable aircraft designed to shoot down other aircraft — has been augmented with a far more powerful arsenal.
Russia’s ministry of defence announced on Friday the deployment of its navy cruiser the Moskva to Latakia. The Moskva is armed with a complement of 64 S-300 ship-to-air missiles, Russia’s most powerful anti-aircraft weapon.
Deployment of S-300s — or other similarly sophisticated systems, also known as triple-digit Sams — has long been one of the Pentagon’s biggest fears in the Middle East. The S-300 system, which has an operating range of 150km, is capable of striking down all but the most sophisticated stealth aircraft. It means most missions flown by Washington’s coalition allies — Jordan, for example, uses F-16 jets — are now highly vulnerable. Even the UK’s deployment of Tornados and Typhoons at the Royal Air Force’s base at Akrotiri, Cyprus, is threatened by the missiles.
“The Russian forces now in place make it very, very obvious that any kind of no-fly zone on the Libyan model imposed by the US and allies is now impossible, unless the coalition is actually willing to shoot down Russian aircraft,” says Justin Bronk, research analyst at the Royal United Services Institute.
“The Russians are not playing ball at deconfliction — they are just saying, ‘keep out of our way’. The coalition’s operations in Syria will be vastly more complex from a risk assessment point of view and from a mission-planning point of view.”
Even surveillance missions above Syria by US and coalition aircraft will be complicated. One Nato air force officer said the organisation expected to start seeing the kind of “cold war tactics” and brinkmanship Russia has recently been using in the Baltics. Pilots will be briefed to expect powerful Russian radar systems “lighting up” their aircraft in shows of strength, he said.
Preventing the creation of US-led coalition no-fly zones in Syria is important for Moscow’s influence over events in the country. With the Assad regime’s territorial grip looking fragile in recent months, the added imposition of a US-led coalition no-fly zone could have forced negotiations that would have led to a loss of Russia’s influence. Now any diplomatic or political process that does occur will do so on Moscow’s terms.
“Russia’s military actions are serving political ends of which there are several,” says Alex Kokcharov, Russia analyst at IHS Janes, the defence consultancy.
For Mr Putin, US and Nato “no-fly zones” have additional resonance too.
“Putin was deeply shaken by the overthrow of Gaddafi in Libya,” Mr Kokcharov notes. “There is something at a personal level that is motivating this.”
For Russia military planners, no-fly zones — seen in the West as a measure of humanitarian mercy — are often seen as tools of regime change.
Posted by: okie farmer | Oct 6 2015 16:43 utc | 15
I thought the Outlaw Empire already had lots of volunteers known as Daesh, many from NATO countries including USA already in theatre? Perhaps the NY Times wants a bunch of Rambos?
As far as I understand Russia's policy, it would like the volunteers already in the region to remain in the region, preferably buried.
Posted by: karlof1 | Oct 6 2015 16:45 utc | 16
@15:
" . . . the added imposition of a US-led coalition no-fly zone could have forced negotiations that would have led to a loss of Russia’s influence. Now any diplomatic or political process that does occur will do so on Moscow’s terms. . . ."
This would be laughable if it didn't fly in the face of the 'greenhouse effect' tragedy that was and is Libya.
Posted by: juliania | Oct 6 2015 16:52 utc | 17
Lest we forget, the law against propaganda aimed at U.S. citizens was undone by the 2012 NDAA. Not that anyone noticed. Pretty much just made it officially sanctioned,as opposed to officially sanctioned, but technically prohibited:
"The US government has unbound the legal regulations against using propaganda against foreign audiences and American citizens. The intention is to sway public opinion by using television, radio, newspapers, and social media targeting the American and foreign people in controlled psy-ops.
The newest version of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) has an amendment added that negates the Smith-Mundt Act of 1948 (SMA) and the Foreign Relations Authorization Act of 1987."
http://nsnbc.me/2013/07/23/how-the-ndaa-allows-us-gov-to-use-propaganda-against-americans/
Posted by: Colinjames | Oct 6 2015 17:04 utc | 18
@14
"There is no way Assad lasts five years, let alone a year".
This makes no sense.
Just like the rest of your post.
The level of naivete - believing that Putin will just tell what his real objectives are - is astounding.
Posted by: MMARR | Oct 6 2015 17:08 utc | 19
Well, Israel is not going to make it.
Meanwhile, Israel’s former Foreign Minister, Tzipi Livni, has called for direct cooperation with Iran and Hezbollah in order to protect Israeli interests. Maariv newspaper quoted Livni as saying on Friday, “Netanyahu must understand that the world looks at Iran and Hezbollah as legitimate partners in the confrontation against Daesh.” She warned that Tel Aviv’s geostrategic position will be hurt if the Israeli leadership does not realise what must be done do to influence the shifts in the balance of power in Syria.
Posted by: somebody | Oct 6 2015 17:17 utc | 20
A couple of weeks ago, the Saker ran an interview with a Russian/Syrian fighting with a Syrian militia.
snippet:
In the media, we often see stories about people from all around the world joining ISIS, for one reason or another. At the same time, almost nothing is known about those who are fighting this plague. We talked to Michel Mizah, a 25-year-old citizen of Russia and Syria, who recently returned from Damascus, where he fought in the “Shabiha” pro-government paramilitary units.
Posted by: woogs | Oct 6 2015 17:29 utc | 21
Dear New Lying Times,
Why don't you shut up for a change, close shop for a few, and get your propagandists, I mean, journos, to read Moon of Alabama to get some sort of education? Otherwise you'll have to design a customary apology for every time you promote a war, or put your foot in your mouth.
Sincerely,
Posted by: Lone Wolf | Oct 6 2015 17:38 utc | 22
These are pure desperation stakes from the Empire and proof positive that there is no fool like an old fool."US foreign policy expert Zbigniew Brzezinski says the United States should retaliate if Russia does not stop bombing its assets in Syria.
Brzezinski, the national security adviser for former President Jimmy Carter, advised President Barack Obama to attempt to disarm the Russians if they keep attacking the CIA-trained militants in Syria.
"The Russian naval and air presences in Syria are vulnerable, isolated geographically from their homeland," Brzezinski wrote in an article published by the Financial Times on Sunday. "They could be 'disarmed' if they persist in provoking the US." http://www.presstv.com/Detail/2015/10/06/432230/US-Syria-Russians-Brzezinski
Posted by: harry law | Oct 6 2015 17:55 utc | 23
I salute all those who have the stomach for the western mainstream media. I don't, but I read about it, here and other places, so I get a sense of its scale. Personally, I rejoice at the barking dogs. The louder they bark, the larger the caravan that is passing. If the only price we pay is media noise, while the US does nothing whatsoever as Russia replaces it in the Middle East, I call it a bargain.
Orlov today has published one of his best articles ever, channeling the late Douglas Adams it seems, with a whiff of Python: The World's Silliest Empire
Posted by: Grieved | Oct 6 2015 17:57 utc | 24
@15 okie.. is US General Phillip Breedlove any relation to strangelove? lol..
@19 MMARR.. cold is blowing hot and cold today...
@23 harry...re Brzezinski.. he's got a point.. if the paid for mercenary forces that the usa and it's band of merry murderers are responsible for doing regime change in syria are being taken out, then it makes sense.. what he would never say is ISIS, along with all these armed nutso's running around on the ground in syria are a direct result of their inflaming the situation on the ground for the specific reason - regime change.. idiots like brzez like the results in iraq, afganistan and libya and are hoping for more of the same with syria..
Posted by: james | Oct 6 2015 18:18 utc | 25
Another point of dispicable hypocrisy or omission is that: The most "volunteers" pouring into Syria, are foreign terrorists joining ISIL and Al Qaeda. And turkey is the funnel through which most of these terrorists come through.
That propaganda exists to hide the fact that this is a mostly foreign jihadi insurgency and has nothing to do with local resistance.
Just compare the 'Empire times' criticism of turkey compared to Russia now, it's quite obscene.
And all this contradictory, nonsensical, hypocritical, unconvincing propaganda is mostly directed towards the public. So if the public cannot discern absurd propaganda, then it to be severely criticised too. You know the same public that have agency, and say that the Internet is a vast resource of open information, which they never bother to visit sites that contradict their fake world view. So yeah, they're a problem too.
I've told at least 20 people I know about the absurd propaganda in Syria, and these are leftists to centrists. They still couldn't really give a shit. Not one of them. I'm sure that will be similar to a lot of places across the West. I've even directed them to Moon of Alabama and they have zero interest coming here.
Posted by: tom | Oct 6 2015 19:02 utc | 26
From harry law's #23
"The Russian naval and air presences in Syria are vulnerable, isolated geographically from their homeland," Brzezinski wrote in an article published by the Financial Times on Sunday. "They could be 'disarmed' if they persist in provoking the US.
Get a life, Zbig. They're so "isolated geographically from their homeland" that just on 2 years ago, Russia made some Syria-bound Yankee cruise missiles vanish from the Mediterranean skies using continental Russia's early warning system to detect and (successfully) target them.
Russia's no-fly zone is Syria's no-cry zone.
Posted by: Hoarsewhisperer | Oct 6 2015 19:06 utc | 27
@25 tom
I actually don't blame the public this time. This situation in Syria is indecipherable. If you haven't had seriously good alternative sources for several years, it's really hard to understand. And the propaganda has been massively ramped up.
Posted by: gemini33 | Oct 6 2015 19:15 utc | 28
@15 okie.. is US General Phillip Breedlove any relation to strangelove?...humm?
@19 MMARR.. cold is blowing hot and cold today...
@23 harry...re Brzezinski.. he's got a point.. if the paid for mercenary forces that the usa and it's band of merry murderers are responsible for doing regime change in syria are being taken out, then it makes sense.. what he would never say is ISIS, along with all these armed nutso's running around on the ground in syria are a direct result of their inflaming the situation on the ground for the specific reason - regime change.. idiots like brzez like the results in iraq, afganistan and libya and are hoping for more of the same with syria..
@25 tom.. i agree with your first paragraph.. it is all about mercenary forces in other people's country.. as someone else said upstream, the nyt/wapo/wsj can put as much lipstick on this pig as they want, it doesn't change the fact it is a foreign paid for mercenary armed force - call it what you will ISIS, al qaeda, el nusra - doesn't matter.. these bullshit countries beginning with the usa know this too..
ditto what gemini33 says too.. this is heavy propaganda we've been seeing since the inception of the regime change move on syria.. it just ramped up even more with russia's involvement.. meanwhile tpp passed thru.. kinda like israel bombing the shit out of gaza right about now would be right on cue too..
Posted by: james | Oct 6 2015 19:55 utc | 29
@23 Maybe closing the Bosphorus to Russian shipping is on Zbig's mind but he doesn't want to come right out and say it.
Posted by: dh | Oct 6 2015 20:02 utc | 30
Turkey is obliged by the Montreux Convention (a valid international treaty ratified by, among others, Turkey, the U.S., and Russia) to allow Russian ships to pass through the Straits. For Turkey to block them would be an act of war, and expose their country to Russian retaliation.
Posted by: lysias | Oct 6 2015 20:19 utc | 31
As for the ‘foreignors’ in Europe who went, or are going, to Syria to fight, in Switz. the few summary investigations, studies, etc. (other countries, e.g. Germany and France, have done this too but they don’t report the results) showed that around - dodgy no. but they can’t do better - half went to fight on the djihadist, IS / Daesh etc. side, the other pro-Assad. The Spaniards, for ex., I suspect (no nos.) went in pro-Assad, there are many you-tubes showing Spanish guys fighting fascim in many spots, on the model of the Spanish civil war.
In the W media, this putative, estimated, 50% of foreign pro-Assad fighters is never mentioned at all. Only in ‘outsider’ fringe media, non-EU countries (like CH), etc. Attention is focussed on ‘djihadists’ and the ‘terror and apocalypse’ they could impose if they ‘came home with their violence’ huh, while they are fighting ostensibly on the side of the W -> US-EU (anti-Assad.) The spin and falsification is so thick is it unbelievable.
Ppl are starting to notice.
Posted by: Noirette | Oct 6 2015 20:20 utc | 32
Posted by: ralphieboy | Oct 6, 2015 11:01:57 AM | 6
How much of this is misleading journalism and how much of it is just inept?
I'd say 100% misleading 'journalism'. The NYTimes is the leader of the rat pack of disinformation these days.
Posted by: gemini33 | Oct 6, 2015 11:53:42 AM | 11
the geniuses are now trying to break it to the American people, as gently as possible, that those guys are our insurgent boots on the ground, funded in part by our tax dollars.
'... al-CIA-da are the moral equivalent of our founding fathers ...'
It would be good if Cold Holefield fought off his Russophobia well enough to at least heed Petras'
counsel, which I regard as somewhat understated in the pertinent area, but it will do.
http://petras.lahaine.org/?p=2055
Posted by: truthbetold | Oct 6 2015 21:05 utc | 34
@30 "Turkey is obliged by the Montreux Convention (a valid international treaty ratified by, among others, Turkey, the U.S., and Russia) to allow Russian ships to pass through the Straits. For Turkey to block them would be an act of war, and expose their country to Russian retaliation."
Very reassuring. Thank you.
Posted by: dh | Oct 6 2015 21:09 utc | 35
Go ahead, Bibi, cozy on up to Russia you slimy little traitorous coward. Cross the line so every dual Israeli-American citizen can be booted out of America once and for all. Perhaps, when and if that time comes, every Jewish American will have to take a loyalty oath to America and swear off Israel, or pack their bags and head to Israel where they belong if they feel that way. Same goes for Russians in America. In fact, it should happen right now for Russians in America. Kick the bastard Dmitry Orzo back to Russia where he belongs picking dingle berries from Putin's ass all day long. And the wealthy Russian Oligarchs in America and Europe — kick their asses back to Russia. They are not welcome. They're vermin.
Posted by: Cold N. Holefield | Oct 6 2015 21:24 utc | 36
Saudi is not going to make it either
Moscow and Riyadh will discuss the development of bilateral cooperation at the intergovernmental commission in the end of October, Russian Energy Minister Alexander Novak said Saturday."We will have an intergovernmental commission with Saudi Arabia at the end of October. We will discuss joint projects, development of trade and economic cooperation not only in the energy sector but in all areas," Novak told reporters.
Earlier this week, Saudi Ambassador to Russia Abdulrahman Al-Rassi said that Riyadh was counting on long-term strategic cooperation with Moscow, including the security sphere.
Saudi King Abdullah bin Abdulaziz Al Saud is planning to visit Russia "very soon," although no date has been set yet, according to the ambassador.
Posted by: somebody | Oct 6 2015 21:47 utc | 37
OT for this thread, but perhaps b would like to pursue this not too surprising revelation, http://sputniknews.com/latam/20151006/1028122247/US-Morales-Assassination-Plot.html
'"In 2007, the embassy of the United States installed a Center of Operations in order to execute a civil-prefectural coup to apply plan A, which was the coup, and plan B, which was the assassination," Quintana said.'
Posted by: karlof1 | Oct 6 2015 21:51 utc | 38
US officials finally getting serious with ISIL. How did they get all those Toyota trucks ??
What's up. Are Ford, Chevrolet, Dodge getting jealous ??
Posted by: curious | Oct 6 2015 22:22 utc | 40
@39
Too funny!! They're just now asking that question?!? Angry Arab answered it long ago: The Saudis and Qataris provided them.
Posted by: karlof1 | Oct 6 2015 22:25 utc | 41
I wonder if the new 'cold' brand @35 hasn't been hijacked by some enterprising HamBaconEggs class hasbarista? 'He' doesn't resemble the old 'cold' hole I so 'fondly' remember.
Posted by: jfl | Oct 6 2015 22:40 utc | 42
@30 lysias
That would be reassuring ... back in the 20th century when outfits like the US/EU/NATO still gave lip-service, at least, to international law.
Posted by: jfl | Oct 6 2015 22:45 utc | 43
@25 Tom
@27 gemini33
It's next to impossible to understand what's "really going on" in Syria. Absolutely none of what's termed the M$M has provided almost anything factual.
US citizens are presented with beheadings and told about teenage girls from the USA and UK who've gone to Syria to "fight" and/or marry ISIS dudes.
Then we're fed a bunch of propaganda about massive amounts of refugees swarming into Europe, replete with photos of dead or kicked kids. All whilst the GOP "candidates" do their best to diss these kids and demand that the "greasy Syrians" (I've seen that exact phrase used) go back "home and fight."
It pretty much makes Dr Strangelove look like a hotbed of rational sanity. As is the *desire* of the MIC/BigSpy, etc, US citizens are turned off and frankly just give up and go shopping. At this point, I'm not as judgmental as I used to be. What, really, can any of us do? Yeah, we can make a good effort to attempt to understand the players and figure out what's really going on - rather than read deliberately ginned up lies by the stenographers in the US "media." Sure. But then what?
I try to keep my head above water, but it's not easy. And then, I have to say to myself: now what?
Posted by: RUKidding | Oct 6 2015 22:45 utc | 44
@42 Cold does sound a little bitter and upset. Not too surprising. These are difficult times for everybody.
Even Tony Blair sounds a bit frustrated....
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-34461252
Posted by: dh | Oct 6 2015 22:48 utc | 45
OK let's get this straight. My post #44 was a reply to jfl @41.
Yes Lysias @42. Let's hope Zbig respects the Montreux Convention and isn't planning anything underhand.
Posted by: dh | Oct 6 2015 22:52 utc | 46
Cold does sound a little bitter and upset. Not too surprising. These are difficult times for everybody.
Me upset? I don't get upset. I do get happy and let me tell you, I couldn't be happier that Russia invaded Syria. Like the Toyota commercial says, "who could ask for anything more?" Things were starting to get dull before Russia's invasion and occupation of Syria and the Middle East. Now, hopefully, we'll finally see some real action and fireworks. No more beating around the bush. More than likely though, it'll be another dud like all the ones before it including Ukraine. In several weeks it will be old news in this ever-quickeninmg news cycle. Another yawner.
Posted by: Cold N. Holefield | Oct 6 2015 23:03 utc | 47
@44 dh
Sorry ... can't bring myself to watch Tony B.liar at the suborned BBC. The summary says ..,
... [W]ith Russia's increased military role in Syria... the West must approach such talks from a position of strength, in order to reach a "fair and reasonable" outcome.
Sounds like the mirror image of my guess at what's in the cards : with Russia's help Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, and Iran destroy al-CIA-da in the middle east (well reduce them to a pale shadow of what they were) and then approach 'such talks' from a more or less unified position of strength, in order to reach an 'f&r' outcome.
I can see that happening. I cannot see the US/EU/KSA/Israel regaining such a 'pos' at this point. That's why they are beside themselves.
Posted by: jfl | Oct 6 2015 23:06 utc | 48
US/EU/KSA/Israel + Turkey ... I don't know why I keep leaving Turkey out. I guess it's because Erdogan seems to think of himself as a separate, independent agent. The Sultan of Squat. But he'll be left out of the 'pos' along with the other Beagle Boys. I'll bet his successor is a much more reasonable person, at least with regard to wars outside Turkish borders.
Posted by: jfl | Oct 6 2015 23:13 utc | 49
Posted by: RUKidding | Oct 6, 2015 6:45:49 PM | 43
It is completely crazy.
This here - according to the Washington Post - seems to be Obama's plan
President Obama has decided not to directly confront Russia over its new air offensive in Syria, believing that President Vladimir Putin will soon find himself in a Syrian “quagmire,” but he has approved a new escalation of U.S. efforts against the Islamic State.
This somehow makes sense. And now the insanity - same article -
Those measures were recommended by Obama’s new Joint Chiefs of Staff chairman, Gen. Joseph F. Dunford Jr.They include direct U.S. weapons shipments, overland from Iraq, to Syrian Kurdish and Arab fighters who in recent months have pushed the Islamic State from a major portion of northern Syria along the Turkish border.
The Kurds are now expected to begin moving south toward Raqqa, the de facto militant capital, in north-central Syria.
U.S. airstrikes are also slated to increase west of the Euphrates, where U.S.-backed opposition forces have had little recent success against the Islamic State. Those strikes are being launched from Incirlik air base in Turkey, where aircraft from other coalition partners will join U.S. planes.
Supporting Kurds from Iraq? Same Kurds Turkey has been bombing in Iraq? But are allies in Syria?
What could possibly go wrong.
Posted by: somebody | Oct 6 2015 23:19 utc | 50
Posted by: dh | Oct 6, 2015 6:52:19 PM | 45
Well, Zbig won't be able to get Turkey on board and support the YPG at the same time.
Posted by: somebody | Oct 6 2015 23:22 utc | 51
@46 Did Russia invade Syria? I must have missed it.
@47 I thought Tony Blair was very statesmanlike in that interview. He didn't say barrel bombs once.
Posted by: dh | Oct 6 2015 23:24 utc | 52
The NYT should have been completely discredited for the shit it pulled in the "run up" (cheerleading) to the Iraq "war" (genocide). A sufficient number among The American Public is affected by cognitive dissonance so that it must (make itself) believe some components of the MSM (which is pure horseshit).
Posted by: fast freddy | Oct 7 2015 1:28 utc | 53
WMD, Iraq, 911, Yellow Cake, Plame-Wilson, Niger, Stovepipe, Cheney, Junket, "Scooter" Libby, Judith Miller = NYT. And Patrick Fitzgerald is also a fraud.
Posted by: fast freddy | Oct 7 2015 1:32 utc | 54
Gemini33 @ 5,
" I've been saying for two years that somebody very powerful wants to start a world war in order to prevent the inevitable decline, to do a reset of sorts which would bring us back to that kind of post ww2 advantage. Or something."
Yeah, that whole neocon faction might actually want that. For sure they're engaged in foolish brinkmanship-- in the Ukraine coup, too.
But, tell me, if you are actually looking for it, don't you see evidence of another faction that's trying to pull back from such risky actions? I don't like any of them, but Obama seems to me not to be any worse in his anti-Russia & Assad rhetoric than he has to be to placate whatever forces are behind the neocon faction-- Gates, Soros, Vanguard, maybe Buffet, who else?
I mean the neocon faction is always complaining that he's not being tough enough, should go ahead & bomb or invade or put missiles in Ukraine or whatever. He meets them partway rhetorically, but he doesn't DO these things. Look, isn't it true that if the neocon faction were totally in control US could've made it much more difficult for Russia to go into Syria? Yeah, there was that little bit of blather about not using somebody's airspace to transfer weapons, but the US didn't DO anything. Could've put ships off the coast & blockaded it. As soon as Russia put the first aircraft down in Latakia, US could've landed some of theirs & said, "No, we won't permit the Russians to escalate here or to save the brutal dictator, etc." US did nothing for days and days; when what was happening leaked out, the media yelled and exaggerated. No action. Nothing. We could insert an entire invading army and sporadically bomb Syria, but we could not put some aircraft down on an airfield if we really wanted to?
If you ignore the rhetoric and look at actions alone, Russia is there by arrangement with the Obama-Rockefeller-CFR faction. The neocon faction has taken too many risks and are waking up the masses; even the European vassals are starting to resist. Enter into the mindset of the more prudent Rockefeller faction for a moment and look at the difficulties and risks they wanted to avoid:
- If US does a Libya and seriously bombs Syria, isn't it true that both Syria & Hezbollah have quantities of rockets that reach all parts of Israel? G. Kadi, guest writer at Saker says so..
- Russian & Chinese warships stood off the coast during the chemattack baloney, which gave Syria imaging capability for the anti-aircraft defenses that they have held in reserve, seldom using them in response to Israeli attacks.
Neocons wanted to bomb on that & other occasions. US didn't do it, possibly couldn't do it cuz couldn't sacrifice Israel and a bunch of NATO planes and face down the Russian redline. Clearly the Russians must have threatened consequences-- maybe military + the release of damaging intell on 9/11, for example??
Now ISIS was gaining on Syria. First ISIS had passed into the control of madman Erdogan-- and no one wanted a Greater Turkey. For the last year ISIS had even become to a degree uncontrolled by anyone. Maybe US could make Turkey & the Saudis stop supporting them w money & arms-- but there were 1000s of organized men out there; what would they do then & where? Syria looked like it could soon fall under ISIS control, where it would be a risk to Israel & Jordan. There are jiadis in Libya and Egypt. The giant bombing in Thailand was jihadis, jihadis reported in the Phillippines, jihadis from every country getting experience in Syria. Maybe such a very BIG dose of Straussian chaos is not a good idea.
Am I right that under this situation there was no other solution available to the US except to get rid of ISIS militarily? And they couldn't do it themselves, cuz unacceptable to the American people, and the Russians & Syrians couldn't trust them to do it. The Iranians already have more power in the region than Israel or Turkey or the Saudis like. So their power to do it had to be tempered & supplemented by the Russians. Under cover of those ridiculously-long Iran nuke negotiations the deal was struck, and the Russians came into Syria BY US AGREEMENT.
IMO there is no possibility that this occurred as it is presented to us, as an act of defiance by Putin. Too risky on one side & too passive on the other. After the deal was struck, it was publicly announced by four NATO countries including the US that the Patriots would be removed. They were enforcing a no-fly on Syria's northern end, which protected the transit of ISIS supplyline. Although they were to be removed only when their scheduled deployment ended in several months, the US ship which served as command and control for them left the area, leaving the coast wide open.
Turkey and the neocon's General Allen and others resisted this. They reinstituted the no-fly without the Patriots, they announced it on the Sunday talkshows. There was a sort-of denial by the White House, and a request that Turkey stop bombing the Syrian Kurds, which was sort-of obeyed. Petraeus tried to marshall enough support to use al qaeda unreservedly inside Syria, and to supply them weapons unreservedly (and doubtless, special forces). Twice previously the neocon faction had prevented a Syrian resolution. Once, the Obama-Rockefeller faction had even removed both Petraeus and Allen in that honeypot scandal that CANNOT have been anything but an intell op. But the strength of the faction opposing them was not great enough and they returned!! Then Obama tried to get Allen and a coalition to actually bomb ISIS, but Allen prevented their effective use and sent phoney intell to the White House showing degradation of ISIS. When word leaked out from the coalition, the Pentagon was asked to investigate, the phoney intell discovered & leaked to the press.
This time, with the fall of Syria imminent wiser heads prevailed. Do you remember UN ambassador Churkin saying, "But the US doesn't WANT Assad to fall." This is perfectly true. The neocon fantasy of putting some al qaeda-linked puppet in there was far too insecure for Israel. A 3-way partitioning of Syria w Assad in the part closest to Israel was apparently also judged too unstable-- perhaps the threat of Syria's rockets or Russia's disapproval. Everybody except the neocons had had enough adventure.
Now, for all that ridiculous drama. It was almost blown when somebody said, "The Russians are baffled. They were invited in and now there's all this scandal in the media." For the life of me, I cannot remember who said that. There was the much too public mockery of the failed US "moderates" program. Finally, this was enough to get rid of the neocon's point man on Syria; General Allen stepped down. He and others had maintained that Obama was unwilling to commit what was necessary to the program & he was right. If you go to the Daily Beast's coverage on10/31/14 when the program was being started there are several articles which make it obvious that Obama was doing everything possible to undermine and emasculate the "moderates" training program-- almost ludicrously so.
Then we have the silliness of not overflying 1 or 2 countries, then the "encounter" of Obama & Putin at the UN, complete w frozen faces and nonclinking wine glasses. Good grief! I guess it's good for Obama's popularity w whoever the neocon masses are, and it's certainly good for Putin's popularity at home & abroad-- but didn't you sense the usual overplaying of the contrived event? For all the shouting in the media, not even a whisper about additional sanctions or cutting Russia out of SWIFT. Yes, the media will continue to yell, but IMO it's theatre.
OK, I promise not to write on this topic again. I have written about it in summary form previously and I couldn't find anyone to share my excitement with, of having figured it out. This is my last effort.
Oh, and yes-- IMO-- Ukraine was resolved in the slipstream of the Syrian resolution, as Lone Wolf said, or was it Grieved? And Russia will be compensated for some of the cost of cleaning up the US mess in Syria by huge military and aviation purchases from Iran, publicly announced before the nuke deal was even thru Congress.
Posted by: Penelope | Oct 7 2015 1:43 utc | 55
@18 Colinjames
>> the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) has an amendment added that negates the Smith-Mundt Act of 1948 (SMA) and the Foreign Relations Authorization Act of 1987."
I found a law review article online about the change. IIRC, the article made it sound like the SMA placed prohibitions on only some organizations and not all. If true, then we sheeple were never ever legally protected from deliberate misinfo.
But, if true, then why the change? Is it possible it's just for administrative reasons?
Could that be?
Posted by: yoh | Oct 7 2015 1:49 utc | 56
@49 somebody
That Amazon Post article read like the Bezos/CIA prescription for Obama policy. As far as continuing to arm al-CIA-da - which are now openly 'the moral equivalent of our founding fathers' - the US is going to continue to bomb SAA forces in the guise of bombing Da'esh, and Da'esh will now be the recipients of ALL the weapons supplied to al-CIA-da as the rest head for the hills or 'change sides' and join SAA.
So ... nothing has changed, from the 'Obama' point of view.
Be very interesting to see what the Iraqis have to say about 'Obama's' plans. Seems to me that Iraq needs to be openly allied to Syria and the Kurds and Iran for things to work out for any of them.
The Russians and Syrians can report the real effects of the US bombing, and, together with the Hezbulla and Iranians, continue to mop-up al-CIA-da, of all brands. But it does seem Iraq must come onboard for the operation to really work.
Posted by: jfl | Oct 7 2015 1:57 utc | 57
Penelope @ 54: Your scenario totally possible, Theater for the masses, while the oligarchs divide the spoils behind the curtains. Business uber alles, seems to be the order of the day around the globe, however, I would love to believe, someone, somewhere, with enough influence, actually cares about the planet, and it's people, more than the money they can extract from both.
Yes, and then I woke up.
Posted by: ben | Oct 7 2015 2:55 utc | 58
Hi Penelope #54
That's a lot of writing. I have a few thoughts on it, without taking one side or the other. I've been wondering all this too.
I don't see the US military open door as completely contrived theater to allow the RF in. I think RF is backing down the US and nudging that door open. Maybe we're actually looking at a completely next generation of military hardware that Russia has and the US doesn't - because it stole the money and wasted it on F53's and such. So I believe the real secret here may be that the US is completely outclassed and outgunned, and doesn't dare face Russia in any fight. It's Donald Cook, it's the report from Syria the other day that the west can't even trace the radar that's tracking them, it's the perfect downing of the cruise missiles you mention. So I think there's that dynamic as one part. That alone would explain a lot of posturing - yielding ground while keeping face.
As to the handover of influence from US to RF, we've seen this concept from the Middle East. There's Ghassan Kadi whom you mention at the Saker. And remember Mohamed there who always said Putin was in cahoots with Obama and they would sort out ISIS between them? A year ago? And was ridiculed for it. Certainly the feeling from ME commentators is that ISIS is now beyond US control. We in the west tend to think the CIA is still controlling them, but people on the ground over there seem to feel otherwise. I think much of what you're saying does hinge on this question of whether ISIS is now its own actor or not - and if so, how come the supplies keep coming? I guess it really could be the oil buying it?
And there's your earlier concept that I think we heard also from Kadi, that US is yielding ME to RF in order to pivot to Eurasia - surely a rapidly waning strategy but I don't know how long US factions hold their dreams against all evidence.
I suspect there are different factions in the US and as you say, some are pushing and some are pulling. Obviously, none of this is visible at the electoral level.
I don't know if you paint the whole picture in your massive post. I suspect parts of it are accurate, others may miss the true layer for the more apparent one below or above it. When we bring in the Rockefellers we start to come up against forces that specialize in obfuscation and obscurity, so it gets tricky.
Thank you for your kind words the other day about my writing. I did see your comment but time was moving too fast to reply. I'm a big fan of yours. I've clicked many of your links and greatly admired the work you do to contribute breaking news and perspective in threads.
Posted by: Grieved | Oct 7 2015 3:09 utc | 59
don't forget that McCain is an unofficial White House official b,
or have you already forgotten McCain's role in recruiting terrorists in Ukraine and Syria? we even have the photos
Posted by: Cahaba | Oct 7 2015 3:28 utc | 60
Penelope -- Nuland is still in place ... and so are Powers and Rice ... I think Obama still fancies himself a "great man" and "on the side of good" and R2P -- maintaining America place in defending the blah blah blah ... which is why there is the incessant barrel bomb/chemical weapons chants wrt Assad ... whereas ISIS is written off as a bat-shit crazy religious "death cult" (which he and others may well believe already contains the seeds of their own destruction, blah blah blah). My impression is that Obama is not confident and is overly concerned about his "legacy" ... and polls.
My mother used to complain about people who "had no politics" -- meaning that they had no core values or vision -- and I think Obama, who defines himself as a pragmatist, has that problem. He wants to do the "smart thing" ... because he doesn't want to be seen as "dumb" or "cowardly" ... doing the "right thing" really doesn't factor much.
FWIW, the NYT has a breaking scandal of pay-to-play, graft and worse at the U.N. ... remember the Saddam sanctions violations and Koffi Annan's son ... happy days ...
I'm not convinced that Obama is actually driving the bus ...
Posted by: Susan Sunflower | Oct 7 2015 3:28 utc | 61
Here is corroboration, perhaps, of some potential lines of thought on MOA...
Posted by: BOG | Oct 7 2015 3:46 utc | 62
BOG @ 61: Thanks for the link. Have been looking for same..
Posted by: ben | Oct 7 2015 3:55 utc | 63
@BOG#61, @ben#62
Hold it! Did you take a good look at the source? debka.com reports or Debkafile
Earlier, I was taken for a ride that one or two Chinese vessels either heading for Syria port or Jinggangshan now in Syria. I further checked including listens to John Batchelor podcast it point to debka. There were no videos nor pics to proves China's warships either heading or in Syria's port.
DEBKAfile Wikipedia...."an Israeli military intelligence website based in Jerusalem, providing commentary and..."
Posted by: Jack Smith | Oct 7 2015 4:15 utc | 64
@ 63: Thanks jack, but reading doesn't always mean believing.
Posted by: ben | Oct 7 2015 4:24 utc | 65
From Counterpunch :
http://www.counterpunch.org/2015/10/06/how-putin-will-win-in-syria/
Posted by: ben | Oct 7 2015 4:27 utc | 66
@BOG#61, @ben#62
Oops, forgot to add saw this headlines somewhere few days earlier and when I checked the source Debkafile I knew it was a fake!
BOG and ben always check and rechecks the source before you believe anything even websites you trusts!!
I may be wrong. Wait till I see China's boots on Syria soil!
Posted by: Jack Smith | Oct 7 2015 4:28 utc | 67
@ben
Below three websites I go daily for Syria News. Be careful with Middle East Eye. Remember last week or so we were talking about Bernies Sander? Middle East Eye provide video Pro-Palestine activists ejected from Bernie Sanders events.
The Arab Source
Middle East Eye
Syrian Arab News Agency
VIDEO: Pro-Palestine activists ejected from Bernie Sanders event
Posted by: Jack Smith | Oct 7 2015 4:59 utc | 68
@56 further
The most important thing to remember about bombing in Syria by US/EU/NATO is that it amounts to an aggressive act of war. Syria did not extend an 'invitation' to US/EU/NATO to bomb its terriories, nor has the UNSC authorized anyone to bomb Syria 'for Syria's own good'.
So any US/EU/NATO bombing attacks on Syrian soil are war crimes.
Russia has been asked by the Syrian government to help it contain and eliminate its terrorist infestation, sent to Syria by US/EU/NATO to overthrow the legitimate Syrian government. President Assad won election to a seven year term in 2014 by a landslide, receiving more than 85% of the votes of the 70%+ of the electorate that turned out to vote.
Russian operations in Syria against terrorists have the full support of the Syrian government and so are completely in line with international law. Russia will be completely in line with international law when it shoots down terrorist US/EU/NATO drones, missiles, and/or planes attempting to bomb Syria.
Posted by: jfl | Oct 7 2015 6:03 utc | 69
@23 There is so much that is risible about Brzezinski's op-ed, starting with the notion that the USA has any right to arm and supply rebel "assets", much less that it has a right to "retaliate" when those "assets" start getting swatted by forces loyal to the legitimate government.
Apparently the Indispensable Nation has the right to protect "its rebels" because.... well.... because.
But the other thing that shouts out in that op-ed is that Brzezinski is suffering a bad case of Karl Rove Syndrome.
This doctrine: "We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality."
Brzezinski is thinking the same way i.e. he is urging the US to *act*, and by the sheer fact of *acting* the USA will create the reality that it desires, and all the while its opponents will simply sit back in stupefied amazement.
It is a doctrine that can't think further than one step ahead, precisely because Americans like Brzezinski and Rove don't comprehend this simple idea: if this is a new Great Game then all the players do, indeed, get a turn. There isn't just One Player, and everyone else is an onlooker.
Witness.....
Brzezinski: "The Russian naval and air presences in Syria are vulnerable, isolated geographically from their homeland"
As it stands that statement is perfectly correct: the Russian forces are geographically isolated from Russia (Turkey is to the North and Iraq is to the East, so there is no shared Russia/Syria border).
Brzezinski: "They could be 'disarmed' if they persist in provoking the US"
And that's where he goes So Very Wrong.
He clearly believes that Obama can order the Turks and the Iraqis to close their airspace, at which point Russian forces in Syria will be cut off from resupply and wither on the vine.
Well, yeah, Turkey might well agree to that. But Iraq won't.
al-Abadi has been telling anyone who will listen how much he supports Russia's intervention in Syria.
Brzezinski should take note of that enthusiasm, because al-Abadi is all-but shouting from the rooftops that *if* push comes to shove then Iraq will dump the Americans and invite the Russians in to replace them.
Wither that "Russian geographical isolation" then, Zbiggie?
Posted by: Yeah, Right | Oct 7 2015 6:41 utc | 70
Ben @ 57 & Grieved @ 58, Although I imply that a deal has been struck regarding Syria (& I think Ukraine), this does not mean that the overall dynamic between the US & Russia is different than we usually interpret it. I do still think that Iran's upper class is going capitalist & giving up resistance to imperialism. The more prudent faction in the US will IMO merely change tactics-- now emphasizing TPP and the supranational institutions to continue usurping power & sovereignty from nations. But I wrote all this in my summaries, so I'm repeating myself.
But they're not renouncing force: only today I read that 3000 marines w/b dispatched to the S China Sea, and that US is having a meeting w China's neighbors to merge their naval forces.
Grieved, may I remind you that the only reason we know about the superiority of the Russian electronics is that US volunteered it w a "Gee Whiz" attitude. Don't think the military mind works that way. But who knows. Maybe.
oh-- the Rockefeller thing: I think they disagree w the neocons cuz of something else I wrote in one of the summaries. In January honorary chmn of CFR in unprecedented occurrence was critical of Obama staff, name names of who should replace, etc. They know they're winning, don't need the adventurism. Their whole thing has always been institutions; CFR designed and negotiated the Bretton Woods institutions.
---
Posted by: Penelope | Oct 7 2015 6:54 utc | 71
Okie Farmer @ 15, Absolutely amazing the number of lies they can fit into 1 article. It seems to me that they began to lie more steeply about 2 years ago. I began telling myself, "It feels like an endgame."
--
I just found out that EC didn't approve Nordstream 2, either. Bad news for Russia's economy.
--
Curious @ 39 & karlof1 @ 40, I suppose the Saudis are in big trouble now that they're going to be talking w Russia about fixing the oil price. All sorts of pressure: maybe they'll suddenly be blamed for 9-11 too. Toyotas are obviously pressure from the US, no?
--
RUKidding, About the refugees. You're right it was propaganda & artful events being photographed at the train station, etc. But it actually was an arranged event. Arranged by more than just Turkey opening the camps. Did you see this? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PHqFkOenpvY
--
Yoh @ 55, 99% of the law prohibiting the USG from disseminating its propaganda at home was long since repealed. Smith-Mundt was only the last fragment.
It is also perfectly legal for the news media to lie to the American people-- no need to wait for USG propaganda. http://www.snopes.com/politics/business/foxlies.asp
"FCC's policy against the intentional falsification of the news is not a legal mandate, requirement or regulation and that Fox may falsify news reports," --FL 13th District
Posted by: Penelope | Oct 7 2015 6:56 utc | 72
@b
Where are we now? We hear a lot of bluster from the "west" but what does it actually amount to.
Are the Europeans going to attack Russua with sanctions for Syria
Is the U.S. and the gulf allies going to fund more terrorists?
Is Turkey going to keep supporting flow of terrorists across the border.
We hear the talk what are they going to do?
Thank you
Posted by: James lake | Oct 7 2015 6:59 utc | 73
al manar @ 72, Clearly the honeypot removal of both Petraeus & Allen was an intell op. But the faction which accomplished it was not strong enough to maintain it, and both men re-emerged. If you go back to Geneva I in 2012 it's apparent that Obama is trying to resolve Syria diplomatically, but he is foiled by the neocon faction. And he's foiled even more strongly at Geneva II. Now, we know that Presidents act very little on their own; the very wealthy people who put them in office are obsessed w power. To a great degree presidential policies don't originate in the President himself-- not since JFK. So when I'm tempted to think "Obama's policy" I look instead at the very wealthy men, especially the bankers to see which it wd be, backing the play. Rockefellers = CFR, Trilateral Commission, the Bretton Woods institutions, Kissinger, others. While they have employed violence they tend strongly towards institutions. They have no links that I know of w the neocons. So, that's part of the thinking-- tho of course it's speculation. The goal of the two factions is the same-- just different preferred tactics.
Anyway, thanks for your interest & taking time to respond.
Posted by: Penelope | Oct 7 2015 7:20 utc | 74
Penelope@54
I think you are as close to truth as we can be with what corporate media dispenses.
Yes, we are ruled by oligarchs like Donald Trump. Their goal is power (money) and fame. Sometimes they are united in the plotting their scams. Western plutocrats are at the forefront of funding NGOs to takedown the Kremlin. Most of the time they are at each other’s throat. They all are horrible at long range planning, greedy and have absolutely no empathy. They demanded that the Eurozone force austerity on Greece rather than writing off their bad debt. As a result of Greece stopped border enforcement and almost a million Muslim refugees have flooded into the heart of the EU with more to come. The ultimate cost of this decision will rip the European Union apart.
I believe western oligarchs are intent on grabbing Russia’s resources. But, Turkey and the Gulf States cannot turn their backs to fellow Sunnis. Forces are not available to conquer the militant Sunnis if they are resupplied and have safe havens to regroup. The war, as they intended, will be a quagmire for Russia. But, I am very afraid that it will escalate. The Syrian Civil War has already expanded into a regional holy war between Shiites and Sunnis with Christians participating on opposing sides. This is one mistake away from World War III.
Posted by: VietnamVet | Oct 7 2015 7:28 utc | 75
A quagmire for Russia Why???
they are not sending any ground troops
The air campaign is for 3/4 to take out the terrorist infrastructure. The Syrians will do the rest.
Posted by: James lake | Oct 7 2015 8:17 utc | 76
Posted by: Penelope | Oct 7, 2015 2:56:08 AM | 74
I just found out that EC didn't approve Nordstream 2, either. Bad news for Russia's economy.
That is not the information I find:
With Syria probably not a viable route of Qatari / Iranian gas to Europe, Europe will depend on Russian gas and they know it.
Posted by: somebody | Oct 7 2015 8:40 utc | 77
Posted by: al manar | Oct 7, 2015 2:36:38 AM | 69
Well, something suddenly changed the US mind to attack Syria directly in 2013 - It might as well have been this
and this here probably signals Israeli displeasure with the Obama administration supporting the Muslim Brotherhood in their neighbourhood
Posted by: somebody | Oct 7 2015 9:46 utc | 78
I guess if one actually gulled ones self with fanatasies of super-duper hitherto-unknown Russian anti-missile weaponry, which can down a tomahawk at a few minutes notice, the I can see how one might also conjure up a CFR-Rockefeller-Peacenik-Faction to believe in
Posted by: S9000 | Oct 7 2015 10:22 utc | 79
A quagmire for Russia Why???
Posted by: James lake | Oct 7, 2015 4:17:39 AM | 78
Because Wars are expensive, unpredictable unstable affairs by their very nature.
Because once committed it becomes hard to un-commit, and every day that goes by, every life lost, every rubles spent, makes it harder and harder to un-commit.
"The Syrians will do the rest."
Ah, but "Will they?"
and if they don't? (they have struggled to perform so far)
What then?
More Airstikes?
Posted by: S9000 | Oct 7 2015 10:31 utc | 80
As me ol mucker Sun Tzu would say
- 'Appear weak when you are strong, and strong when you are weak.'
the bosporus is a mighty narrow seaway
Posted by: S9000 | Oct 7 2015 10:35 utc | 81
The air campaign is for 3/4 to take out the terrorist infrastructure. The Syrians will do the rest.
This is why this comment section cannot be taken seriously. Well, it's one of the reasons, but there are so many more. The sock puppets here, for all the obvious reasons, just can't be impartial and objective. The socks believe what's good for the goose is not good for the gander. When it's The West using an air offensive against the Islamic State (it's IS now, not ISIS or ISIL — update your memes please), the analysis here and many other places, blinded by hate of all things American, is that you can't defeat such a thing as the Islamic State using air power alone, and that in fact air power will only make things worse on the ground. But when Russia does the same thing, well, we get statements like the one italicized above. It's a double standard. It's the result of blinding partiality. It's faulty thinking. It's pathetic. If air power alone didn't work for The West it won't work for Russia either. The genie of chaos has been loosed from the bottle in The Middle East. Sure, The West popped the top of that bottle, but it didn't take much effort — the genie was waiting anxiously just beneath the precarious cork. It was always a matter of time. The Middle East as it's structured now was always an abomination that would never hold for any length of time. Russia isn't going to put the genie of chaos back in the bottle with a few bombing runs. It's not going to put the genie back in the bottle period. Instead, it's either going to put its tail between its legs and head back to the North Pole after a couple years of futility, or it's going to dig itself in so deep it ends up ruining itself and Putin falls out of favor with the Russian establishment and loses his grip on power. Quagmires love smart people. In fact, the smarter the person who enters the quagmire, the more effective the quagmire is. A quagmire uses your smarts against you. Your smarts is its advantage, not your's. Putin will soon find out, or, we'll find out soon enough if this little foray of his was all bluster and just for show. I'm thinking it's probably the latter.
Posted by: Cold N. Holefield | Oct 7 2015 10:35 utc | 82
@87 "and if they don't? (they have struggled to perform so far)"
Probably not. But then they'll just call in the Iranian Revolutionary Guard instead.
After all, the Syrians *are* supposed to be allies of the Iranians, are they not?
"What then?"
100,000 Revolutionary Guards, and if that doesn't work then 250,000 Revolutionary Guards.
"More Airstikes?"
No. 100,000 Revolutionary Guards, and if that doesn't work then 250,000 Revolutionary Guards.
Posted by: Yeah, Right | Oct 7 2015 10:44 utc | 83
al manar @ 69
"al manar" would indeed be a choice name for a troll challenging the claim, posted here by Hoarsewhisperer @ 26, that "Russia made some Syria-bound Yankee cruise missiles vanish from the Mediterranean skies using continental Russia's early warning system to detect and (successfully) target them."
Our al manar contradicts the Hezbollah-oriented online newspaper Al Manar, that reported on the incident.
I mentioned the report in a comment at Moon of Alabama on March 20 this year. Here is the link again:
Truth of US-Russia Confrontation
I then gave further evidential support to the Al Manar story. You can find it on the March 19, 2015 Moon of Alabama page, currently as comment number 32. The original numbering of the comments and therefore references to earlier comments have been disturbed by Bernhard deleting all the comments of one Soros, making the same claim there as sl manar here.
I can understand how our Neocon friends would want to push the use of the F-22s that were recently shipped over to the Mid-East from Hawaii, by making it seem less suicidal. A jingoist blog suggested that an F-22 could go silently over Syria and make itself visible for a few seconds, scaring the shit out of the Russians. Actually, stealth plane signatures were identified years ago in cell-tower signals. The technology is no doubt in the S-300 system, not to mention the S-400s that Col Jack Jacobs thinks are there.
It's a sad day when Cold N. Holefield makes more sense than the combined mental output, as evidenced by the thousands of pointless words posted in this thread alone, of all the Penelopes/somebody/bens/jfls etc etc
Posted by: S9000 | Oct 7 2015 10:51 utc | 85
If Brzezinski is worried about those US assets in Syria being bombed by the Russians and if the Saudis persist in messing up Syria, surely either Syria Iraq Hez or Iran can find similar assets in Saudi Arabia, working on the principal that people in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.The main Saudi Oil terminal at Ras Tanura could be wiped out by those 'assets'
An assault on Ras Tanura, however, would be vastly more serious. As much as 80% of the near 9m barrels of oil a day pumped out by Saudi is believed to end up being piped from fields such as Ghawar to Ras Tanura in the Gulf to be loaded on to supertankers bound for the west.
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2004/jun/03/saudiarabia.oil
Posted by: harry law | Oct 7 2015 11:06 utc | 86
35
26% of Israeli's, the ruling party super-minority of which Bibi belongs, are the 'White Israel's from the former Soviet Union, and pity the poor Sephardim who thought they'd use the fall of the Soviet Union to expand their illegal settlements in Palestine, instead, the Sephardim, the original Sons of David, have been marginalized into ghettos by the ex-Soviets, and have applied to Spain for political refugee status.
Right after Bibi fly to America and bitch-slapped Congress into extending economic sanctions against Russia, which cost American business some $24 BILLION, Bibi rushed back to Tel Aviv to inaugurate (Haaretz) a New Israeli Free Trade Zone ... with RUSSIA!!
And Congress stood and applauded getting bent over the barrel by the former Soviets for 15 minutes, longer than any US president, that's how deep New American Century Trotskyists have penetrated into the Beltway.
Old #JohnMcCainArmedandFundedISIS, America's biggest war criminal, with the blood of 1000s of Levant innocents in his hands, is banging his gums about taking on the Russians!
Wasn't America founded on the premise there would be no more Royalty, and if they raised their Ugly Heads on America's shores, that's what a good sharp sword is for.
Ahh, but it's too last, the Marxist fem-boy gribbles are riddled throughout Mil.Gov, it's all looting, all the time now, and all it will take is for Turkey to shoot down one Russian jet, then it will be Game Over on the Biggest Arms Race since the Cold War.
Posted by: AHammer | Oct 7 2015 11:34 utc | 87
Posted by: Al Manar | Oct 7, 2015 7:00:23 AM | 93
:-)) yep, fantasies, that is how it works on the stock exchange, when everybody believes them shares rise.
The US have been drawing "red lines" and not honoring them for a while. Guess why everybody puts their money elsewhere.
Posted by: somebody | Oct 7 2015 11:37 utc | 88
... Forces are not available to conquer the militant Sunnis if they are resupplied and have safe havens to regroup. The war, as they intended, will be a quagmire for Russia. But, I am very afraid that it will escalate. The Syrian Civil War has already expanded into a regional holy war between Shiites and Sunnis with Christians participating on opposing sides. This is one mistake away from World War III.Posted by: VietnamVet | Oct 7, 2015 3:28:44 AM | 77
IMHO, the Western propaganda/media "Putin getting into quagmire" talking point is probably just false, but definitely an exaggeration. Okay, define Quagmire: a seemingly endless conflict that is at least at the level of a low-intensity war. Afghanistan is a great example. To have a quagmire you need rulers who are widely seen as illegitimate, unpopular, and corrupt, who would quickly disappear if not for illegitimate, uninvited foreign supporters/masters. You also need a dedicated and well-supplied 'rebel' army or armies, i.e., NOT for-hire mercenaries.
Of course, all rulers are to some extent illegitimate, unpopular, and corrupt, but opinion polls say the Syrian people generally see Assad and the Baath Party as fairly legitimate, and they reelected him by a huge majority in a recent and fairly clean election. Also, relatively speaking, the 'rebels' are seen by most Syrians as the corrupt, illegitimate (and murderous) puppets of foreign masters. Second, I just don't buy that IS and Al Qaeda are all that dedicated. Some are, definitely, but many seem to be just a step up from mercenaries, and therefore ready to run when the cost-benefit calculations get rough. We're probably seeing that 'flee mentality' in the last week's news, but that may be Russian war propaganda; we'll see.
But it's true that I don't see how this can be just a 3-4 month operation where Al Qaeda and IS are pushed way back and then Russia goes home. Unless Putin can work some magic diplomatically, the same well-supplied and well-paid semi-mercenary forces will push back into Syria soon after Russia leaves. BUT ... semi-permanently keeping two or three thousand personnel, a few dozen jets, two or three small airfields and one navy base in operation is not a quagmire. Putin would have been smart (and he is) telling his Syrian and Iranian friends that Russia's push has very clear quantitative limits. "This is what we're going to contribute, but we can't do it alone. If you [Iran, Syria, and Hezbollah] can't carry out the necessary ground operations then our forces will have to leave."
Posted by: fairleft | Oct 7 2015 11:38 utc | 89
"Four Russian Navy warships have fired a total of 26 missiles at the position of the terrorist group Islamic State in Syria, Russia’s Defense Minister Sergey Shoigu announced. The missiles were fired from the Caspian Sea."
https://www.rt.com/news/317864-russian-warships-missiles-launch/
Posted by: doveman | Oct 7 2015 11:41 utc | 90
@95 This is all pretty simple: do the Russians want to win, or do they want to wallow around like the Americans?
If they aren't interested in imitating the USA's exceptionally good imitation of hapless Water Buffaloes - that is, if Putin really wants to *win* - then he'll go in hard, and that means troops. Lots and lots of troops. A Crushing Number Of Boots On The Ground.
Now, where does he get those troops from?
Does he recruit them from amongst the Syrian popln?
Answer: No, if they could do that then they would have already done that.
Does he recruit them from the same foreign pool that ISIS etc. uses?
Answer: No, those dudes are flocking to ISIS.
Does he use his OWN Russian troops?
Answer: No, Putin ain't stupid.
Do Hezbollah supply those troops?
Answer: They already have. They don't have any more to give.
So where?
Answer: Well, there's only one place that has a s**tload of troops that would be willing to pitch in to help their good buddy Assad.
So there's your answer: either Putin is pissing around - no more serious about *winning* this war than Obama is - *or* he needs to conjure up 100,000s of troops from somewhere.
And there are only two places he can get those troops:
a) He can use Russian troops, or
b) He can use Iranian troops.
He'll opt for option (b), precisely because he ain't stupid.
Remind me again: what's to stop him from doing exactly that?
Posted by: Yeah, Right | Oct 7 2015 11:42 utc | 91
Al Manar @95. The Syrians do happen to have a military alliance with Iran, and let me tell you they would throw a million men and more at the head choppers if they thought for one moment that the Syrians could succumb to them, for they know they would be next, spurred on with the Syrian scalp, hezbollah then Iraq then Iran would be attacked. Because this war is existentialist for so many countries, Russia included, the Jihadis don't stand a chance.
Posted by: harry law | Oct 7 2015 11:44 utc | 92
@95 "Yeah, suuuuuure, . . . . why not throw in a million [1,000,000], while you're at it?"
Look, start from this sensible proposition: Putin Ain't Stooooopid.
He will have studies the USA's efforts in 2003-onwards and come to the correct conclusion: you don't pacify a battlefield by going in light and fast like Rumsfield did in Iraq.
You pacify a battlefield by going in Big and by going in Hard and once you have defeated the enemy forces then You Sit Your Big Fat Arse On The Place Until It Stops Wriggling.
But you can't do the latter unless You Actually Have A Big Fat Arse.
It's not enough to be Lean And Mean And Move Real Fast.
That might win you the battle, but it won't win you the after-war.
You win that with 100,000s of soldiers who Sit Their Big Fat Arse On The Place Until It Stops Wriggling.
Now, I ask again: where can Putin and Assad get those 100,000 troops from?
Assad doesn't have them. Putin does, but doesn't want to use his own troops.
Who else does that leave?
Posted by: Yeah, Right | Oct 7 2015 11:51 utc | 93
The Syrian Civil War has already expanded into a regional holy war between Shiites and Sunnis with Christians participating on opposing sides. This is one mistake away from World War III.
Posted by: VietnamVet | Oct 7, 2015 3:28:44 AM | 77
No, that's a false equivalency. It's a holy war by Saudi Arabia against everyone who isn't Sunni, which usually means Shias. Saudi Arabia's state religion, Wahabbism, which also happens to be Al Qaeda and IS's religion and inspiration, considers Shias apostates. Shias do not feel the same way about Sunnis, and just want to be left alone and/or given their legitimate percentage of power in countries where they are the majority or large minorities. Yemen's Houthis, for example, ruled in a coalition with Sunnis. Hezbollah is explicitly in favor of a multi-confessional Lebanese state. Syria's Baath Party is secular and the government has many Sunnis and Christian officials.
Posted by: fairleft | Oct 7 2015 11:53 utc | 94
@104 "more fantasy"
Explain to me why it is "fantasy".
Don't just wave your hands around dismissively. Actually explain *why* it's a "fantasy".
Putin has put an air umbrella over Syria, which means that NOW he can bring whatever he wants into that country and it won't be attacked from the air.
So if he wants to bring 100,000 Iranian troops into Syria then who, exactly, is going to stop him?
And how, exactly, do they put a stop to it?
Please, explain that to me.
Because all I'm seeing so far is you just waving your arms about while muttering "Fantasy! Pure Fantasy!" and, I gotta' be honest with you, that shtick looks less and less impressive every time you flap your arms up and down.
Posted by: Yeah, Right | Oct 7 2015 12:01 utc | 95
@107, @108, @109, @111 As predictable as it is tedious, Al Manar has responded by waving his arms about and calling it all a "fantasy".
As to *why* it's a "fantasy", well, Al Manar then waves his arms around and says, essentially, this: Because I Say So.
Some points to ponder:
1) Does Iran have that many troops?
2) Can Putin protect those troops as they are deployed?
3) Would the deployment of that number of troops be enough to crush the "rebels"?
The answers are "Yes, and more", "Hell Yes", and "Yeah, more than enough"
So it ticks a lotta' boxes as far as Putin is concerned.
Now, on the negative side of the ledger, deploying those troops is a bad idea from Putin's PoV because..... well, I'll let Al Manar explain:
AM: Fantasy! Pure Fantasty! Fantasy, I tell you!
Yeah, you do tell me that. But you still haven't explained why.
Apparently it is a "fantasy" because you say-so, even though it is an option that is well within Putin's capabilities, and as far as he would be concerned would tick an awful lot of boxes.
So, remind me again: why wouldn't he do it?
Posted by: Yeah, Right | Oct 7 2015 12:23 utc | 96
Troll 'al manar' @ too many fact-free comments...
Re: US cruise missiles 'vanished' by Russia circa Sept 3,2013.
Here's V Putin smiling (inwardly) about it (Extract & Link)(Bold sponsored by Hw).
Meeting on developing the aerospace defence system
November 28, 2013, 19:00 Sochi
http://eng.kremlin.ru/news/6344
Meeting participants discussed equipping Aerospace Defence Forces with up-to-date weapons.
PRESIDENT OF RUSSIA VLADIMIR PUTIN: Good afternoon, colleagues,
(snip)
"We are moving forward in this direction, and there is progress. By way of example, let me highlight the Voronezh missile attack early warning radar station. It is already operational in Armavir, Kaliningrad and Lekhtusi. And I must say that in September this year, during combat-like exercises, it detected launches from the Mediterranean region, and effectively proved its efficiency and reliability. In accordance with plans for the next five years, we will need to commission seven more such stations."
(snip)
Posted by: Hoarsewhisperer | Oct 7 2015 12:23 utc | 97
@112 "Right there @ 90 you are describing, to a "T", a military "quagmire",".
Far less than that number of modern troops ran through Iraq in 2003 like a rat through a drainpipe. The "quagmire" came later, when Rumsfeld was too tight-fisted to deploy enough troops for the "pacification" part of the business.
As I said, Putin ain't that stupid. Go in big. Go in hard. Then sit your Big Fat Arse down on the place until it stops wriggling.
If you want to call that a "military quagmire" then be my guest.
But "military quagmires" is what the AMERICANS do, and (have I pointed this out? I think I have) Putin ain't as stupid as the Americans.
AM: "and what's worse, you don't even seem to be aware of it, even after it's been pointed out to you."
*sigh*
I'm pointing out what Putin would have to do to AVOID getting stuck in a quagmire, which is exactly why I am suggesting that you are wrong: he'll go in hard, he'll go in big, and once he's won the "battle" then he'll sit down hard on the "peace" until it stops wriggling.
Rumsfeld found out that hard way that you need far more troops for the last part that for the first part. Lots and Lots and Lots of troops.
Assad doesn't have enough of them.
Hezbollah doesn't either.
Putin does, but he would prefer not to use them.
That leaves........ I'll give you three guesses.
We will both know who is right and who is wrong by the time that 2015 draws to a close.
But I'll put down my markers now: by the time that 2016 rolls around there will be AT LEAST 100,000 Iranian troops inside Syria. And I fully expect that by that time Iraq will also have thrown in with the Russians.
That will mean a formal request for military assistance, and that will mean another 100,000 Iranian troops inside Iraq.
And every single one of them will be invited in by al-Abadi, and their deployment in-theatre will be done under to protection of Su-30 fighters and S-300 anti-aircraft missiles.
Remind me again: Who is going to stop that from happening? And how do they stop it?
Posted by: Yeah, Right | Oct 7 2015 12:41 utc | 98
Posted by: Al Manar | Oct 7, 2015 8:31:53 AM | 115
I prefer the Kremlin-inspired motivation for the Coalition's decision to abort its imminent(?) attack on Syria, to the Yankee Chemical Weapons Deal excuse. The Chem Weapons excuse invites the gullible to believe that the US acted out of the Goodness Of Its Heart / a sense of Fairness / Compassion & Decency.
The only way to get Yankees to behave with Decency is to get their nuts in a Vyce and start cranking. Putin, and everyone else on the planet, except 'al manar' apparently, knows that.
Russians don't gloat or bluster. They don't have to because
Those who can, Do. Those who can't Teach/Lecture/Bluster/Bitch/Whine.
Posted by: Hoarsewhisperer | Oct 7 2015 12:59 utc | 99
VietnamVet wrote:
The Syrian Civil War has already expanded into a regional holy war between Shiites and Sunnis with Christians participating on opposing sides.
If by "Christians participating on opposing sides" you mean that there are some Christians who are on the side of the secular humanists (Assad) and some on the side of the jihadis, I think you are wrong. All Christians are on the side of Russia, with its support of Syria and Iran, and against the Islamist terrorists supported by the Wahhabi statelets.
If you meant to suggest that the Anglosphere, with its use of Islamist terrorists against Russia (the mujadeen in the 1980s; IS today), is in some sense Christan, that is wrong. The Anglosphere is post-Christian. That means, by the way, that it is now Russia that represents modernity in Europe and in the West in general.
The comments to this entry are closed.
I love the map! Don't count on any of the stenographers at the propaganda mill called NYT to pay the slightest heed to this factual tidbit. Here in Team USA, facts have been made utterly irrelevant. Just make up some fables and fairy tales and spew forth. Like, whatevs, dude.
*
Vis John McCain: well Walnuts McGrumpypants somehow does seem to get himself enmeshed in a lot of foreign policy sh*t. I'm not sure how that happens, although McCain appears to be on *someone's* list and - the dawg forbid - sometimes appear to have some sort of weird power to do stuff. I guess calling this senile. war-mongering POS a White House Official is what some of our 1% Overlords want to believe??
Posted by: RUKidding | Oct 6 2015 14:08 utc | 1