Russia's reaction in case of US/West attack to Syria

After it left port it obviously changed its mind.

Ironically the protest ships that Turkey stopped going to Gaza should have done the same.

At the end of the day it is a Russian ship carrying legally bought cargo to a client.

NATO had no problem supplying weapons and ammo to the rebels in Libya, so why should Russia have any problems supplying weapons and ammo to the legal government of Syria?

A Russian-owned ship reportedly carrying weapons to Syria docked in Tartus on Thursday despite assurances it would change destination,

Being forced to verbally change destination while under duress would not be accepted in any court of law... Evading being detained for political reasons is the responsibility of the Captain.

Besides promising not to go to Tartus while in a Cypriot port was just to get Cyprus out of trouble with the rest of the EU for letting it sail. The captain cannot be held accountable as he might genuinely have decided to not go to Tartus... till he was out of EU waters...

GarryB wrote:After it left port it obviously changed its mind.

Being forced to verbally change destination while under duress would not be accepted in any court of law... Evading being detained for political reasons is the responsibility of the Captain.

Besides promising not to go to Tartus while in a Cypriot port was just to get Cyprus out of trouble with the rest of the EU for letting it sail. The captain cannot be held accountable as he might genuinely have decided to not go to Tartus... till he was out of EU waters...

Yes, there was no violation of no rule, and the Cyprus had really no say of the matter. The Captain of the ship is worthy of some admiration for fulfilling his task in front of difficulties.

As to where the task force is heading, the Med is not so large, so it will soon enough be clear where they are. My guess is Egypt and then Some stop in North Africa, Tunis or Algeria.

Russia Says NATO, Persian Gulf Nations Plan to Seek No-Fly Zone for Syria

Russia received information that members of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization and some Persian Gulf countries are preparing military intervention in Syria, the head of the Russian Security Council said.

Turkey, a NATO member, may play a key role, Nikolai Patrushev, who used to head the country’s intelligence agency, the Federal Security Service, told Interfax in comments confirmed by his office. The U.S. and Turkey are working on a possible no-fly zone to protect Syrian rebels, Patrushev said.

“We are receiving information that NATO members and some Persian Gulf states, working under the ‘Libyan scenario’, intend to move from indirect intervention in Syria to direct military intervention,” the Russian security chief said.

U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said yesterday that the Arab League monitoring mission in Syria should end after failing to deter the government’s 10-month campaign of violence against dissidents. She spoke after meeting Qatari Foreign Minister, Sheikh Hamad bin Jassim bin Jabor al Thani, a day after President Barack Obama held talks with Saudi Foreign Minister Saud al-Faisal at the White House.

Turkey’s Foreign Ministry and NATO’s press service in Brussels didn’t immediately respond to requests for comment.

Russia, which has Soviet-era ties with Syria, argues that United Nations-sanctioned bombing of Libya by NATO to protect civilians was used to bring about regime change and that Western governments are trying to repeat that scenario in Syria.

Iranian Alliance

The West is putting pressure on Syria because the country refuses to break off its alliance with Iran and not for repressing the opposition, said Patrushev, who served with Prime Minister Vladimir Putin in the Soviet-era KGB.

“This time, it won’t be France, the U.K. and Italy that will provide the main strike forces, but perhaps neighboring Turkey, which was until recently on good terms with Syria and is a rival of Iran with immense ambitions,” Patrushev said.

Syrian President Bashar al-Assad rejected calls for his resignation on Jan. 10, accusing “foreign conspiracies” of aiming to divide his country. Unrest in Syria since March 2011 has claimed more than 5,000 lives, according to the United Nations.

The Arab League imposed sanctions on Syria on Nov. 27. Russia and China have blocked efforts by the U.S. and the European Union for the UN Security Council to condemn the crackdown.

Russia, which has a naval base in Syria and sells weapons to the Middle Eastern country, is more concerned that Islamic radicals may come to power, said Irina Zvyagelskaya, a Middle East analyst at the Academy of Sciences in Moscow.

Russian Fear

“Our fear is that Syria could collapse and extremist Islamic forces will seize control that no one will be pleased about,” Zvyagelskaya said in a phone interview today. “This could destabilize the entire region.”

While Russia would block any effort to seek UN approval for a no-fly zone in Syria thanks to its veto-wielding power as a permanent member of the Security Council, Western nations and their allies may form a coalition like they did for the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq in 2003, said the analyst.

“There are scenarios which different countries are looking at,” Zvyagelskaya said. “We have seen before what a no-fly zone means, it will be used to overthrow the regime.”

No-Fly Zone

Defectors from Assad’s army who have set up an opposition force called the Free Syrian Army called at the end of last year for a no-fly zone and two buffer areas with international backing as they seek to topple the Syrian government.

The group wants a buffer zone in the north, on the Turkish- Syrian border, and another in the south near the border with Jordan to help them bring the fight closer to Assad, Riad al As’ad, a former Syrian colonel who leads the Free Syrian Army, said in a phone interview from Turkey on Nov. 18.

Russia may have obtained intelligence about Western military plans in Syria or may be sending a signal that it will actively oppose any such efforts, said Fyodor Lukyanov, an analyst at the Council on Foreign and Defense Policy in Moscow.

“After the Libyan experience, Russia will do everything to stop this scenario from happening,” he said in a phone interview. “Syria is much more important than Libya from Russia’s point of view.”

I wont be surprised if the conflict escalate , NATO will use this incident to fire few missile at Russian Naval Base in Syria and sink few russian ships and then try to claim as friendly fire incident and use Rebels to attack the Naval Base in a synchronized operation.

A possible sucide ships hitting Russian Naval Ships and then blaming on rebel is also possible , like USS Cole incident.

NATO/US has done that in past where it deliberately bombed Chinese embasy and blamed it on wrong map

NATO will use this incident to fire few missile at Russian Naval Base in Syria and sink few russian ships and then try to claim as friendly fire incident and use Rebels to attack the Naval Base in a synchronized operation.

NATO will go out of its way to avoid hitting Russian assets in Syria, and will do everything it can to avoid upsetting Russia in this matter.

Russia would not back down and would escalate itself, which will make regime change in Syria even less likely.

A possible sucide ships hitting Russian Naval Ships and then blaming on rebel is also possible , like USS Cole incident.

The pattern of "rebel" action in Syria so far seems to be go to a peaceful civilian rally and shoot a few policemen or army personel and then leave and let the police and army retaliate against the crowd. When this fails the tactic seems to be to put snipers on buildings to shoot the odd innocent civilian and pretend to be a military or police sniper to get the civilians wound up.

I rather doubt they have anyone interested in suicide missions.

Austin wrote:I wont be surprised if the conflict escalate , NATO will use this incident to fire few missile at Russian Naval Base in Syria and sink few russian ships and then try to claim as friendly fire incident and use Rebels to attack the Naval Base in a synchronized operation.

A possible sucide ships hitting Russian Naval Ships and then blaming on rebel is also possible , like USS Cole incident.

NATO/US has done that in past where it deliberately bombed Chinese embasy and blamed it on wrong map

Bombing Chinese embassy and sinking Russian naval ships is a totally different game, one NATO will do everything to avoid.

This is a game of chess between Sunni supported on the face of it pro western forces, and Shia supported pro Iran/Russian forces.

I don't think Russia will step aside and just watch a conflict unfold in this case.

Libya is not a useful comparison because Gaddafi was very much sucking up to the west rather than to Russia so Russia really had little to gain from an intervention and also a lot to lose if things went really bad.

in the case of Syria however the base at Tartus figures very centrally in the Russian navys future plans for expansion into the Med and so while they are hardly brother nations, they have a strategic value far in excess of the monetary value of their trade for example.

More importantly for Iran having a Sunni Syria is about as acceptable to them as communist Cuba is to the US... the question is what are they prepared to do about it.

Russian peacekeepers in Syria might not be acceptable to the Syrian people or the Russian people, but would Iranian peacekeepers be more acceptable to the Syrian people?

If Assad doesn't want to end up like Gaddafi or Saddam then he had better tread very carefully.

Note the people calling for no fly zones are former military men... is that not enough evidence that this is no longer a case of innocent civilians being massacred by government and police forces?

This is clearly a civil war in which the international community should not interfere. Look at the utopia created in Libya.

Of course when Arab spring is mentioned in the west protests in Iraq and Bahrain are selectively ignored...

The problem for Syria of course is that even with the best air defence systems... where do you hide?

In Serbia there were forests and mountains, while Syria is more open, which would make operating effectively difficult, and mobility absolutely critical.

Distraction, concealment, mobility, deception... such forces would be tested to the limit, but if the Syrian Air Force can maintain control of its air space then it has a chance, but I rather suspect a huge shortage of war supplies, plus the internal threat would make attack easier than defence.

The obvious solution for Syria is to simply threaten to launch ballistic missiles at nuclear facilities in Israel and Turkey if the outside interference doesn't stop.

Well Syria need to device tactics based on their environment , Mobility is for one , the other is Decoys and Deception , other being maintaining good Discipline and using guerrilla like tactics against far superior force.

For once Russia should step in there is no point in being fence sitters when it has so little ally in ME.

If Syria is attacked by NATO then they should use their missile to attack NATO radar in Turkey and Israel Diamona reactor after all the Israel came in and destroyed their reactor some time back.

The other option for both Iran and Syria is to unite and attack key targets in ME like Oil Refineries in Saudi and other countries once the oil prices goes high Western Forces will back out.

I find it strange that Israel has covert Nuclear weapons program and even has nuclear weapons and no one talks about it or imposes sanctions.

But Iran cannot operate even reactor for Nuclear energy or Develop its own Nuclear Weapons.

Wonder why this double standard , Why dont they make ME including Israel a nuclear free area and why just focus on Iran or Syria.

Wonder why this double standard , Why dont they make ME including Israel a nuclear free area and why just focus on Iran or Syria.

Because when the US jumps up and down and claims Iran wants nuclear weapons it draws attention away from issues like Zionist oppression of Palestinians in their own country.

The justification for Israel to have nuclear weapons is in case their neighbours get similar capability... so if Israel or the US will attack any country in the region... except Israel that tries to get nuclear weapons capability then Israel doesn't need nuclear weapons then does it.

The problem is that Iran has signed the nonproliferation treaty which means it has legal and legitimate access to civilian nuclear technology for peaceful purposes. The Israelis never signed that treaty, but then India and Pakistan didn't either and when they declared nuclear weapon capability status there were sanctions and international condemnation. The US protected Israel from such things.

Iran is being punished for doing all the right things, and is getting pretty severe economic sanctions because Israel and the US think they might be trying to achieve nuclear weapons status. The irony is that they claim the Iranian wish to produce its own nuclear fuel for its reactors is a sign they want to make weapons grade uranium to make a bomb, yet the sanctions and witch hunts and quite frankly bullsh!t Iran is getting from the west (EU and US) is perfect evidence that they need to enrich their own nuclear fuel, because if they don't then fuel imports and sanctions would be the next option to try to control Iran.

The US and EU and Israel claim without any solid evidence that Iran wants nuclear weapons capability, while Iran wants an independent energy resource that cannot be cut off or sanctioned by outsiders. Iran has no oil refinery capacity of its own and so it exports crude oil and imports petrol and diesel and other processed fuels. Having nuclear reactors and the ability to process Uranium into fuel , and there is Uranium in Iran, would give them a reliable, stable power supply that would allow real economic growth for Iran... clearly something the US and Israel want to prevent.

The irony is that US and Israeli and EU actions only make the faction within Iran that want nuclear weapons even stronger... actually testing a nuclear weapon would likely be the only thing that would make the US and Israel and EU back off.

I hope the SA-17 and Pantsyr has good ECCM capabilities and dont turn into a DoDo in front of very new Israel EW system.

I would expect the export models would not be as good as domestic, but at the end of the day systems need to be tested in battle, and changes in both hardware and software and tactics are needed to make them effective.

Russian systems are developed with backup modes in case of heavy ECCM environments. It is all together possible that a Hermes missile with anti radiation features could be developed and fitted to Pantsir-S1... perhaps two per launcher, so in combat if a jammer is detected they can direct those missiles at the jammer platforms.

Jamming and anti radiation systems for use against MMW frequency radars is actually rather difficult... otherwise Longbow Apaches would be easy to defeat... just fire a few ARMs at them.

Often the situation with modern radars is that the small sidelobes of modern radars means that the only aircraft that can launch ARMs at the SAM are aircraft that are locked by the SAMs radar. Note the Patriot battery that had its radar taken out was taken down by a HARM launched from an aircraft the battery was tracking. It then becomes a duel between the SAM and the aircraft... and the Panstir-S1 has very high velocity missiles and the ability to engage 4 targets at once... including HARMs. Buk can also engage HARMs and aircraft out to fairly long range.

I for one wont have any problems in Iran developing a nuclear weapon , Nuclear weapon in their hands are as dangerous in hands of Iran as it is in hands of Israel.

If International community pushes Iran too much then they are better off exploding a Nuke much like North korea did. That would ease the tension.

Let US or Israel then decide what to do next , at the least Russia and China can veto their UN sanctions etc

I am fairly certain Iran today as the ability to make a Fission Weapon and they do have enriched Uranium or Plotonium to make few bombs , the only thing is when will they go open with it , As usual i expect all the intelligence to know little.

I have read alot of the SU-33, making training flights from Kuznetsov, all away from England to Greece and Syria.
But nothing about the MiG29 Kub which was supposed to get experience until its deployment on the Vikramaditya next year.

And nothing about the plans to deploy MiG29 Kub on Kuznetsov in the near future. The SU-33 is getting old, and the new Kub has good range now, and you can get 28-32 MiG´s on the K, against only 18 SU.

And here is another navy air news:

Deck-based version of American fighter F-35 Lightning II happened to be incapable for deck landing, writes The Daily Telegraph referring to Pentagon's report. The point is that arrester hook of F-35C is situated too close to landing gear, and this poses a problem for pilot to hook arrester's barrier cable. According to the report, F-35C took part in 8 test landings on the deck simulator. None of them was successful.

It was also mentioned in the Pentagon's summary that F-35C won't be capable to launch AIM-132 ASRAAM missiles operated by Royal Air Force. Besides, US Department of Defense made a guess that F-35C was not adapted for air support which is one of the key tasks for deck-based aviation. Reportedly, some parameters were not tested at all, so other defects can be revealed in future.

According to Pentagon, if the fighter is not redesigned soon, the F-35C program could be in precarious state. The project can be also shut down due to considerable costs of redesigning works and engineering changes of already assembled fighters.

It is noteworthy that two out of three programs currently run under the F-35 project are on the threshold of closing. In Jan 2011, Pentagon set a two-year trial period for F-35B STOVL fighter; in that period engineers will have to eliminate all defects revealed. If experts fail to meet the deadline, the project would be closed.

I for one wont have any problems in Iran developing a nuclear weapon , Nuclear weapon in their hands are as dangerous in hands of Iran as it is in hands of Israel.

I totally agree.

Iran having a nuclear weapon capability would have a very stabilising influence and force the US and Israel to treat Iran with the respect it deserves.

Claims that Iran will supply nuclear weapons to terrorist groups is bunk... the US has supported lots of terrorist groups and has never seen fit to supply those groups with nuclear weapons.

Pakistan would be more likely to give nuclear weapons technology to terrorist groups and there is no clear evidence or even suspicion they have, so why even consider Iran might? More importantly why are they punishing Iran because of all these things they say they might or want to do?

As if that was a crime.

Perhaps George Orwell was right in his book 1984... but instead of individuals being controlled by a state, it is a state controlling the world and punishing other states for thought crimes...

BTW the Naval F-35 will operate with the F-18 with the latter as a fighter CAP aircraft, while the F-35 will be the strike/intruder type aircraft.

Britains options would be a naval fighter version of the Typhoon, or expensive upgrades of their F-35s to meet their needs.

The irony is that if Russia begins work on their own STOBAL carriers that by 2027 or so they might have operational carriers with PAK FA fighters, or perhaps a naval light Mig 5th gen fighter. A Typhoon will be at a disadvantage, there is no European 5th gen fighter as such, just the F-35, which as I have been saying for some time is basically a stealthy Buccaneer.

Note I like the Bucc, it is one of my favourite western aircraft, but it was never a multirole fighterbomber.

AFAIK the Russian Navy will buy Mig-29Ks because they are in production and would be much cheaper than starting production for a couple of dozen Su-33KUB aircraft.

So, the Kuznetsovs mission is over, and no high tensions were seen. But iam disappointed she didnt visite any other country than Syria.

"Deployment of Russian Navy carrier group in the Mediterranean Sea is coming to its end. In the next few days Russian warships will replenish supplies and then set a course for the Atlantic via the Strait of Gibraltar.

Ships of Russian carrier group entered the Mediterranean Sea on Dec 23, 2011. Through the deployment, pilots of deck-based aviation had an eventful training program. Twelve flight shifts were performed, which is over 130 sorties from the board of Northern Fleet (NF) aircraft-carrying cruiser Admiral Kuznetsov.

Naval pilots practiced air engagement, interception, and aerobatics by heavy fighters Su-33.

Aircrews of ship-based helicopters Ka-27 have carried out large training program as well. They maintained flights of airplanes and performed ASW tasks for self-defense purpose.

One of the deployment's distinctive aspects was interaction among fleets. In some periods, warships of Northern, Baltic, and Black Sea fleets were accomplishing joint tasks.

Crews of aircraft carrier Admiral Kuznetsov, large ASW ship Admiral Chabanenko, frigates Yaroslav Mudry and Ladny have completed a number of combat training tasks under common concept. They were dozens of air defense and ASW exercises, hundreds of shipborne drills, antiaircraft missile and artillery firings.

The deployment started on Dec 6, 2011 with departure of aircraft carrier Admiral Kuznetsov, large ASW ship Admiral Chabanenko and supply vessels from NF main base Severomorsk. Throughout the long-range cruise, ships of the Russian Navy's carrier group have covered over 8,500 nautical miles. "

But iam disappointed she didnt visite any other country than Syria.

Probably intentional to make a point.

Russian Warships to Patrol Syrian Coast

MOSCOW, April 13 (RIA Novosti) – Russian warships will be continuously deployed for patrol duty off the Syrian coast in the Mediterranean, a high-ranking source in the Russian Defense Ministry said on Friday.
“A decision has been made to deploy Russian warships near the Syrian shores on a permanent basis,” the source said.
The Russian Kashin-class guided-missile destroyer Smetlivy is currently deployed near the Syrian coast.
“Another Black Sea Fleet ship will replace the Smetlivy in May,” the source said, adding that several Russian warships were on their way to the Mediterranean.
“This may be the Pytlivy frigate or one of the amphibious assault ships,” he said, adding that “deployment of a Black Sea Fleet task force to the region cannot be ruled out.”
The United States, France, Great Britain, Germany and some other countries have deployed more warships to the Mediterranean since the outbreak of unrest in Syria in February 2012. More than 9,000 people have been killed in the violence, according to the United Nations. On Thursday, the Syrian government declared a ceasefire with opposition fighters as part of a U.N.-brokered peace plan.
The Russian military has repeatedly underscored the need for Russian warships to patrol the Mediterranean on a permanent basis. In Soviet days, up to 50 warships from the Fifth Squadron of the Russian Black Sea Fleet and other Soviet Navy units have been deployed in the Mediterranean on a permanent basis.
Over the winter months, a Russian task force, led by the Admiral Kuznetsov aircraft carrier, has been deployed to the Mediterranean. The ships returned to the Russian Northern Fleet’s home base of Severomorsk in February, after two-month naval exercises.
Other Russian ships currently on patrol duty in the Mediterranean are the Kildin surveillance ship, as well as the Iman tanker vessel and a floating workshop deployed near the Syrian port of Tartus.


http://www.en.ria.ru/world/20120413/172799962.html

Good practise for the crews, and hopefully a stabilising factor regarding the west.

US enlists UK clout to stop Syria-bound Russian ship

The US government has enlisted Britain's help in a bid to stop a cargo ship suspected of carrying Russian attack helicopters and munitions to Syria. Curiously, the media mention a model of chopper which does not exist.

­Washington is painting the alleged shipment as being in breach of the Syrian arms embargo, with a view to affecting the ship’s insurance cover.

The MV Alaed is a multipurpose twin-deck cargo vessel operated by Russia’s FEMCO Group. It is allegedly making its way to the conflict zone in Syria via the North Sea after picking up helicopters from the Russian Baltic port of Kaliningrad.

The current European Union arms embargo against Syria, imposed in May last year, suggests a ban on the "transfer or export" of arms and any related "brokering" services, including insurance.

The American government is presumably trying to use this legislation to force the vessel's London-based insurer to withdraw its cover. This would make it difficult for the ship to dock legally in ports and could force it to return the cargo to the port of origin.

Interestingly, all the media sources refer to “Mil Mi-25” helicopter, suggesting a single source of information. No such model, however, has ever been produced by the Moscow chopper-maker Mil Helicopters.

Washington’s request to London comes after US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton last week triggered a diplomatic ruction between Moscow and Washington when she lashed out at Russia over a shipment of attack helicopters, which she said the Syrian government could use in a crackdown on the opposition forces.

“We are concerned about the latest information we have that there are attack helicopters on the way from Russia to Syria,” she said.

It was later revealed that the aircraft in question were not new machines, but rather Syrian-owned helicopters, which Russian engineers had overhauled under a standing contract at Mil’s premises in Kaliningrad. The choppers are believed to be part of a 36-strong consignment ordered by the Syrian government at the end of the Soviet era.

Moscow responded heatedly to the accusations. Speaking in Tehran on Wednesday, Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov reiterated that Russia does not sell to the Syrian government any arms which could be used against the opposition, unlike the US, which sells anti-riot equipment to the governments of its Gulf region allies. The minister was referring to US supplying crowd control arms to Bahrain and other controversial allies, who are known to suppress domestic dissent with force.

The US pulls such strings and the UK does as it is told... makes you wonder why it is in Russias interests to cooperate with the US over transportation routes for Afghanistan.

Of course this ploy is pathetic... the Russian vessel is returning refurbished/overhauled Syrian Helicopters, so it wouldn't even break the current EU embargo even if Russia was bound by such a thing... which it is not.

The amusing thing of course is that the UK based insurance company is likely to rescind all insurance for that transport company so rather than send all its ships back to home ports the natural thing for them to do is find another insurer... preferably a Russian one.

It will be interesting to see what happens as many of the naval insurance companies are in the EU, so this will be good news for those insurance companies not within the EU. I am sure this UK company will have its hand out to the UK government for lost revenue over what is clearly a political decision so it will be the UK taxpayer that coughs up the cash.

For the ship in question it should have no problems as long as it can get insurance, though some EU countries might try further measures to block its progress... which is of course ultimately petty and pointless because they have no right to stop it.

The BRICS were talking about a non western dominated equivalent to the world bank and IMF... perhaps a joint international insurance body could be added to further undermine the western stranglehold of the major world entities and give neutral countries a choice.

If I was Russia I would simply state that any attempt to block legal Russian shipments of anything to anyone will result in Russia stopping cooperation with the US in terms of transport of material through Russian territory to benefit US and other forces currently in Afghanistan.

This will make operations in Afghanistan much more expensive...

Interesting news that apparently Obama and Putin had a chat and all of a sudden the ship in question has turned around.

Obama publicly said that force is not an option and that solutions should be found peacefully to solve the issue.

I rather suspect that Putin has basically traded sending stuff to Syria for a guarantee of no western intervention.

The enormous irony is that most of the west have been deluded by their media the same way they were deluded in Kosovo by KLA actions where were clearly of a terrorism nature and were used specifically to illicit a western response.

The Syrian opposition is clearly trying the same game plan and the western media has fallen for it.

The reality is that this has nothing to do with the Syrian people and everything to do with Sunni and Shia muslim groups... the sunni muslims supported by the west want to take over what is a moderate muslim country and turn it into another sht hole extremist state and the west is helping them in the hopes they will have more political influence on the new government than they have with the old.

It is the west gambling in an attempt to isolate Iran and remove a Russian ally from the region... and of course it is the Syrian people who get to die and live in the chaotic aftermath.

Those evil Russians trying to return Syrian helicopters and other material Syria ordered years ago and paid for because the EU has a bug up its a$$ about Assad.

Of course after setting up fake massacres to demonise the Assad regime and to get the west to intervene, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to work out that these so called rebels are ruthless and would not be in any way an improvement for Syria.

The irony of course is that another militant Sunni regime in the region will not be good for Israel... after all who are they going to blame when everything doesn't go well?

The nerve of some people. Sheesh.

Anyway, Russia should return those helicopters to Syria. It's their stuff, we simply repaired it.

There was never any confirmation about what was actually on the ship that was turned back... Hinds can be transported by An-124 so it would not be that difficult to get them to Syria if they needed to.

If Putin has gotten a promise from Obama that they wont use force then Syria is probably not going to miss those Hinds for however long it takes to get them there.

Ship bound for Syria was carrying 3 old helicopters repaired in Russia - Lavrov



Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov has confirmed in an exclusive interview to RT that a Russian ship bound for Syria was not carrying anything but 3 Syrian helicopters that had been repaired in Russia.

RT: The Western media this week has been frenzied about Russia sending warships and helicopters to Syria. How do you react to that?

Sergey Lavrov: It was part of a campaign and not a very decent campaign, I would say.

We are sending no battleships to Syria. We have been saying publicly that we have been implementing contracts under which we have to supply arms to Syria. Those armaments are entirely defensive and they mostly consist of air defense systems, which cannot be used against the population and can only be used to respond to outside aggression.

The ship which is being discussed these days was indeed carrying air defense systems. It was carrying three helicopters which had been repaired in Russia under contracts signed in 2008. Those are Soviet helicopters. They have been in Syria from Soviet days. In 2008 there was a contract to repair them.

They are still to be assembled after delivery. The entire process will take no less than three months.

So to speak about something we have just sold to Syria and which is being used in action is not true at all.

But this story has another twist with the British insurance company, which decided to withdraw insurance from this particular ship. This is a testimony that the insurance system of Great Britain is not reliable, because they were citing sanctions imposed on Syria unilaterally by the EU.

This means that anyone – any country or any company – who is not violating any international rules, who is not violating any UN Security Council resolutions might be subject to extra-territorial application of somebody else’s unilateral sanctions. This is a very slippery slope.

I do believe we have to discuss the issue of unilateral sanctions in a systematic manner: what they mean and what can be done to make those who faithfully implement international law, including UNSC resolutions, not be subject to application of somebody else’s rules.

Bad examples are contagious. It was until recently the US which was resorting to unilateral sanctions to punish countries every now and then, including sanctions with extra-territorial application. Now unfortunately the EU is taking the cue, beginning to use sanctions in a unilateral manner more and more against Syria, but also against some other cases.

This is a trend which is counter-productive. In principle dealing with any international issue you need to include partners with whom you have difficulties, not isolate them. Isolation never works.

RT: We are hearing reports of a clemency for President Assad from the West if he steps down, some kind of immunity, how would Russia react to that?

SL: I would just repeat what I said:it's for the Syrian people to decide who should rule them, how they should live. The main thing for the external players is to ensure that they all sit down at the negotiating table to discuss their future, where the minority and the majority will feel safe and included into the political system, otherwise the groups that now support president Assad, and there are quite a number who do so, would be in the opposition to the ruling majority and the war and violence would continue, but the positions of the participants would be shifted. This is something that might happen if people insist on one-sided approaches to the crisis and on imposing something on the Syrians.

RT: British Prime Minister David Cameron says that in Los Cabos at the G20 meeting President Vladimir Putin shifted his view on the situation in Syria. Is that true?

SL: It is not true.

The meetings with UK PM David Cameron and US President Barack Obama did discuss Syria. Both our partners said President Bashar Al-Assad must go and external players must develop a transition plan for the Syrians to agree. We expressed our position that we cannot accept a policy which would aim at changing regimes from the outside. This has been our position all along. We also cannot prejudge for the Syrians what the outcome of the political dialogue would be. We strongly support a political dialogue and efforts to stop the violence. We suggest for this purpose that all external players should lean on the Syrian party on which they have influence and thus persuade them to withdraw from cities – both the government and opposition – to sit down and have a dialogue. But there should be no prejudging from outside what the substance and result of this dialogue might be. It’s for the Syrians to decide.

I have seen the statement made by PM Cameron that President Putin shifted his position after meetings in Los Cabos. It is not true at all. President Putin was asked in Los Cabos himself at his press conference about his position on Syria. He expressed it exactly the way he did with David Cameron and Barack Obama.

http://www.rt.com/news/lavrov-syria-exclusive-394/

Revealed: CIA secretly operates on Syrian border, supplies arms to rebels

American secret service operatives are distributing illegal assault rifles, anti-tank rocket launchers and other ammunition to Syrian opposition, the New York Times reports. But due to some rebels’ links to Al Qaeda, the CIA’s task is precarious.

­The paper reports that for weeks now, officers based in southeast Turkey have supervised the flow of illegal arms to numerous opposition factions ready to fight the regime of President Bashar Assad. The only problem is some of the rebel groups have links with terrorist organizations such as Al Qaeda, so the CIA mission must be careful not to arm proven terrorists by mistake.

Arms and ammunition are being brought into Syria mainly over the Turkish border with the help of Syria’s Muslim Brotherhood network and other groups, the report says. Expenses are being shared by Turkey, Saudi Arabia and Qatar.

The NYT source, an unnamed Arab intelligence official, revealed that American officers are also collecting information on Syrian opposition groups and recruiting informants among their ranks. The source said the Obama administration is considering sharing its intelligence data, such as satellite images and detailed information on the location and maneuvers of Syrian troops.

According to the source, CIA operatives might be helping the rebels with organizing a rudimentary intelligence organization. The CIA agents have reportedly not set foot on Syrian soil, however.

While, it seems, supplying Syrian opposition with arms, the US would like to see Syria’s allies, Russia in the first place, stop supplying weapons to the regime of President Bashar Assad. Washington has expressed concern with Russia performing maintenance of Syrian Mi-25 assault helicopters.

Moscow has consistently denied supplying to Damascus any types of assault weapons that can be used against armed rebels. Russia’s Foreign Ministry says the country has only supplied Syria with defensive capabilities such as anti-air missile systems.

Russia is not violating any international sanctions against Syria, and Moscow has declared it will not cease military cooperation with Damascus.

Prior to the report about CIA officers operating on the Turkish-Syrian border, the Obama administration’s declared policy on the conflict in Syria centered on diplomacy and humanitarian aid. The State Department has reportedly allocated $15 million in medical supplies and communication equipment for armed opposition groups in Syria.

In the meantime it seems the Pentagon is considering various options for interference in the Syrian conflict, including establishing no-fly zones over the country, as was done in Libya a year ago.

American and Israeli generals are also concerned with securing alleged stockpiles of Syrian chemical weapons, the very existence of which has never been proven.

http://www.rt.com/news/cia-officers-turkey-syria-378/
_________________________________________________________________________________________________


Now this is funny. US and UK going crazy over a few helicopters while at the same time supplying weapons to the rebels.

Now this is funny. US and UK going crazy over a few helicopters while at the same time supplying weapons to the rebels.

More importantly getting their panties in a bunch because the Russians are RETURNING Syrian helicopters that aren't being used so far, while the west supplies the rebels with small arms that are killing people every day in Syria.

Some things about the west I like... equal rights etc etc, but integrity and practising what you preach and not judging others by your own values just make me hate them... us.