Russia reportedly sending warships with marines to Syrian waters
August 3, 2012 | 11:41am
MOSCOW -- Amid the continued uprising in Syria, the Russian Defense Ministry on Friday issued somewhat contradictory statements about a group of its naval warships steaming into the eastern Mediterranean.
The first statement said the warships were not planning to call on Tartus, a naval base Russia maintains in Syria. The second, issued several hours later, said it was possible that service boats from the group might call on Tartus to replenish supplies “if the time period of the trip is extended.”
Earlier in the day, Interfax quoted an unnamed Defense Ministry source as saying three landing assault ships, an anti-submarine ship and four smaller vessels might call on Tartus by Sunday. The ships are carrying a contingent of about 360 marines and amphibious armored personnel carriers.
The source didn’t specify whether the marines would remain in Tartus or leave with the warships. Tartus is a small port and won’t be able to dock more than two warships at a time, the source said.
Defense experts debated whether the naval group might be in the region to evacuate Russians based in Syria.
“I am absolutely confident that most likely their task will be to evacuate the personnel and equipment of the base,” Alexander Golts, a defense expert and deputy editor-in-chief of the popular liberal online publication Yezhednevny Zhurnal, said in an interview.
“However, this group is not sufficient enough to evacuate from 30,000 to 60,000 Russian citizens working and living in Syria," Golts said, "unless the marines will be ordered to gain control of a landing strip at Damascus airport and help establish an air-bridge to take all Russians out.”
“Whatever their task, it is clear that given the rapidly deteriorating situation in Syria the Kremlin wants to have some sort of military presence close to its shores,” Golts added.
Boris Dolgov, a senior researcher with the Center for Arabic Studies in Moscow, said he doubted that the naval group was sent to the Mediterranean to evacuate Russian citizens, which also include diplomats, mission employees and persons working in Syria on contracts.
“Tartus is not a proper navy base but just a repair port which can’t be used for such a large-scale evacuation,” said Dolgov, who traveled to Syria twice after the beginning of the conflict nearly 17 months ago. “It is too early to speak about such a serious step as an evacuation.”
Our Friends, The Ruskies.
Our Friends, The Ruskies.
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/world_n ... aters.html
Your collective inability to acknowledge this obvious truth makes you all look like fools.
yrs,
rubato
Re: Our Friends, The Ruskies.
An escape route for Assad and his wealth. If he's in a good mood, some of his family and cronies.
The Russians have no interest in getting into a military conflict, or even threatening one, for the sake of an ally who has become insignificant in geopolitics and economics and the condition appears to be permanent. But they'll squeeze the lemon for what juice remains.
The Russians don't have a tradition of looking after their nationals when things get ripe.
Putin can 'spin' the naval maneuvers as 'being tough' and 'standing up' to America. His claque are just as naive and unsophisticated as US conservatives who fall for the same gags. It's called 'throwing a Grenada'.
yrs,
rubato
The Russians have no interest in getting into a military conflict, or even threatening one, for the sake of an ally who has become insignificant in geopolitics and economics and the condition appears to be permanent. But they'll squeeze the lemon for what juice remains.
The Russians don't have a tradition of looking after their nationals when things get ripe.
Putin can 'spin' the naval maneuvers as 'being tough' and 'standing up' to America. His claque are just as naive and unsophisticated as US conservatives who fall for the same gags. It's called 'throwing a Grenada'.
yrs,
rubato
Last edited by rubato on Sat Aug 04, 2012 5:35 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Re: Our Friends, The Ruskies.
My guess would be that the Russians got spooked when they saw the rebels overrun a military base last week...
They probably have a lot of computer data and high tech intel equipment at that base and they want to protect it...
I doubt very seriously that the rebel forces are going to go near Tartus. As much as I'm sure they despise the Russians, I'm also sure they don't want to run the risk of providing them with a pretext for intervening in force.
I've had a number of positive things to say about Obama's foreign and security policies, but I have been very disappointed by the extent to which we have allowed the Russians to hold hostage (through their veto power in the Security Council) an effective policy for getting Assad out of power....
My understanding is that most of the arms the rebels receive come from the Saudis and Qatar, and that we have been providing almost no assistance to them. If this is true, we are going to have very little if any goodwill with the Syrian people, or influence with the new Syrian regime when it comes to power.
Contrast this with Libya, where The West was deeply and publicly involved in supporting the freedom fighters, and they recently elected a pro-Western government with secular leadership.
I don't think we should have gotten involved militarily to the extent we did in Libya, (the geography and logistical situation in Syria really didn't make that kind of extensive air support a good option) but we could have done much more than we have. There's no reason, (especially after the Syrian provocations with Turkey) that NATO couldn't have used air power to establish a "safe zone" in a portion of the country near Turkey from which a rebel governing authority could operate, soldiers could be equipped and trained, and refugees protected. We could also provide assistance in equipping and training that force, (which would also enable us to establish a good working relationship with them.) and providing satellite intel to assist in their operations.
I have been deeply troubled when I have heard US officials claiming that there's no way we could do more because the Russians (and the Chinese) wouldn't go along with it. That is an absolutely atrocious and unacceptable foundation upon which to base our actions.
US foreign policy should never be dictated by whether or not we can get a pair of thug regimes, (who certainly have neither the best interests of The West or the people directly involved at heart) on the UN Security Council to go along. Our interests and our values are diametrically opposed.
Nor should we, (and there are some, including many in Syria who believe this to be the case) cynically use Russian opposition as an excuse for not doing what we should be doing to help, because we really don't want to do it.
My hope is that neither of these situations truly represents the reality; that we are neither really letting the Russians tie our hands or using them as an excuse for inaction. My hope is that in fact the governments of the US and the rest of the major Western powers have been lying their asses off and that we have in fact been very involved in assisting these people. It's both in their best interest and our own for this to be the case.
They probably have a lot of computer data and high tech intel equipment at that base and they want to protect it...
I doubt very seriously that the rebel forces are going to go near Tartus. As much as I'm sure they despise the Russians, I'm also sure they don't want to run the risk of providing them with a pretext for intervening in force.
I've had a number of positive things to say about Obama's foreign and security policies, but I have been very disappointed by the extent to which we have allowed the Russians to hold hostage (through their veto power in the Security Council) an effective policy for getting Assad out of power....
My understanding is that most of the arms the rebels receive come from the Saudis and Qatar, and that we have been providing almost no assistance to them. If this is true, we are going to have very little if any goodwill with the Syrian people, or influence with the new Syrian regime when it comes to power.
Contrast this with Libya, where The West was deeply and publicly involved in supporting the freedom fighters, and they recently elected a pro-Western government with secular leadership.
I don't think we should have gotten involved militarily to the extent we did in Libya, (the geography and logistical situation in Syria really didn't make that kind of extensive air support a good option) but we could have done much more than we have. There's no reason, (especially after the Syrian provocations with Turkey) that NATO couldn't have used air power to establish a "safe zone" in a portion of the country near Turkey from which a rebel governing authority could operate, soldiers could be equipped and trained, and refugees protected. We could also provide assistance in equipping and training that force, (which would also enable us to establish a good working relationship with them.) and providing satellite intel to assist in their operations.
I have been deeply troubled when I have heard US officials claiming that there's no way we could do more because the Russians (and the Chinese) wouldn't go along with it. That is an absolutely atrocious and unacceptable foundation upon which to base our actions.
US foreign policy should never be dictated by whether or not we can get a pair of thug regimes, (who certainly have neither the best interests of The West or the people directly involved at heart) on the UN Security Council to go along. Our interests and our values are diametrically opposed.
Nor should we, (and there are some, including many in Syria who believe this to be the case) cynically use Russian opposition as an excuse for not doing what we should be doing to help, because we really don't want to do it.
My hope is that neither of these situations truly represents the reality; that we are neither really letting the Russians tie our hands or using them as an excuse for inaction. My hope is that in fact the governments of the US and the rest of the major Western powers have been lying their asses off and that we have in fact been very involved in assisting these people. It's both in their best interest and our own for this to be the case.
Re: Our Friends, The Ruskies.
Shhh, I have heard that there is a company at work in and around Syria. Do you smell spooks?Lord Jim wrote:My guess would be that the Russians got spooked when they saw the rebels overrun a military base last week...
They probably have a lot of computer data and high tech intel equipment at that base and they want to protect it...
I doubt very seriously that the rebel forces are going to go near Tartus. As much as I'm sure they despise the Russians, I'm also sure they don't want to run the risk of providing them with a pretext for intervening in force.
I've had a number of positive things to say about Obama's foreign and security policies, but I have been very disappointed by the extent to which we have allowed the Russians to hold hostage (through their veto power in the Security Council) an effective policy for getting Assad out of power....
My understanding is that most of the arms the rebels receive come from the Saudis and Qatar, and that we have been providing almost no assistance to them. If this is true, we are going to have very little if any goodwill with the Syrian people, or influence with the new Syrian regime when it comes to power.
Contrast this with Libya, where The West was deeply and publicly involved in supporting the freedom fighters, and they recently elected a pro-Western government with secular leadership.
I don't think we should have gotten involved militarily to the extent we did in Libya, (the geography and logistical situation in Syria really didn't make that kind of extensive air support a good option) but we could have done much more than we have. There's no reason, (especially after the Syrian provocations with Turkey) that NATO couldn't have used air power to establish a "safe zone" in a portion of the country near Turkey from which a rebel governing authority could operate, soldiers could be equipped and trained, and refugees protected. We could also provide assistance in equipping and training that force, (which would also enable us to establish a good working relationship with them.) and providing satellite intel to assist in their operations.
I have been deeply troubled when I have heard US officials claiming that there's no way we could do more because the Russians (and the Chinese) wouldn't go along with it. That is an absolutely atrocious and unacceptable foundation upon which to base our actions.
US foreign policy should never be dictated by whether or not we can get a pair of thug regimes, (who certainly have neither the best interests of The West or the people directly involved at heart) on the UN Security Council to go along. Our interests and our values are diametrically opposed.
Nor should we, (and there are some, including many in Syria who believe this to be the case) cynically use Russian opposition as an excuse for not doing what we should be doing to help, because we really don't want to do it.
My hope is that neither of these situations truly represents the reality; that we are neither really letting the Russians tie our hands or using them as an excuse for inaction. My hope is that in fact the governments of the US and the rest of the major Western powers have been lying their asses off and that we have in fact been very involved in assisting these people. It's both in their best interest and our own for this to be the case.
Soon, I’ll post my farewell message. The end is starting to get close. There are many misconceptions about me, and before I go, to live with my ancestors on the steppes, I want to set the record straight.