Russia to the Rescue?

1. 73

   jacharlessposted 9 years ago

   If you have been following the global events regarding regime changes, destabilized middle east, IS, the refugee crisis, you probably are aware that Russia has stepped into the arena.
   
   In the Russian mind, as always, they are blunt, to the point. There's a problem, ok, let's fix it else annihilate it permanently.
   
   Since their entrance, Syria has bounced back considerably, in just two short weeks, versus two years of a supposed pounding by the 88 member coalition. As such, China has entered on the side of Syria with Russia and, as of today both Iraq and Iran have agreed to jointly work with the Russio-led coalition, to completely oust IS and AQAP from Syria, Iraq, even Yemen and possibly Libya.
   
   In spite of this, the US led EU, UK and Israel are bellowing "no fair" or scrambling to hold secret meetings with Russia to carve out a new place for them when the dust settles. Of course this is a redux from the 1940s, sans the Medes (Kurds) getting their own country...
   
   Regardless, in your opinion, do you think this new coalition is a good/bad thing and why?

   replyreport
   1. 59

      Live to Learnposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      I don't know. I would hope that something could assist in stabilizing the Middle East; but thus far I see no reason to believe it will happen. Everyone thought the invasion of Afghanistan by American forces would see positive results. At the time it happened, I wondered why we thought we'd have a positive effect when Russia had spent years there spinning their wheels.
      
      No long term good will come from a coalition consisting of country run by an ex KGB officer, a government willing to use chemical weapons against its own citizens and a country which has had a stated objective of annihilating another country and its citizens for over 35 years. It's kind of like rabbits in Australia. It sounded to some like there was an upside at the time they were brought in.

      replyreport
   2. 84

      peoplepower73posted 9 years agoin reply to this

      I think the coalition is a bad thing.  Putin says that Assad has a legitimate government and that is why he needs Russia's support.  However, Assad is a Shia Alawise.  The majority population in Syria is Sunni.  Assad can only rule as a dictator because that is the only way he can hold onto power as a minority sect.  The Shia and the Sunni hate each other.  That's why Assad used barrel bombs and gas on his own people, because he doesn't like his own people.  He made refugees out of millions of his own people.
      
      Iran's major population are Shia and they are now sending over a 1,000 troops into Syria to support Assad's regime.  Obama is between a rock and a hard place, because if he doesn't support Assad, then he could jeopardize the nuclear deal with Iran.  On the other hand, if he takes out ISIS, then he will upset Saudi Arabia who are Sunni's just like ISIS.  In the mean time Saudi Arabia is attacking Houtis Shia in Yemen using U.S. military aircraft.
      
      The Russians have implanted anti-aircraft batteries in Syria to shoot down any U.S. or coalition forces that interfere with Putin's strategy.  The best thing Obama can do, in my view is to pull out of the mid-east and let them fight their own battles.  But he won't do that because we have our own interest there in the name of oil.
      
      You notice, I have identified the players by their religious sects.  This is the only way sense can be made out of this very complex situation.  It is a three way civil war, but without identifying the sectarian differences, it makes no sense.  Russia must have interests in the region.  I don't think they are supporting Assad, because they like him.

      replyreport
2. 78

   colorfuloneposted 9 years ago

   At the UN today Putin said, “Instead of the triumph of democracy and progress, we got violence, poverty and social disaster — and nobody cares a bit about human rights, including the right to life. I cannot help asking those who have forced that situation: Do you realize what you have done?” 
   
   Obama's failed foreign policies. 
   
   http://pamelageller.com/2015/09/putin-t … done.html/

   replyreport
3. 78

   colorfuloneposted 9 years ago

   Do I trust Putin? 
   
   Not when Obama's agenda is the lifted (communist) Cuban embargoes.

   replyreport
   1. 0

      jonnycomelatelyposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      Susie, are you saying there can be nothing acceptable from anything that's perceived as left of center, yet everything to the right of center is the way your country should be going?

      replyreport
      1. 78

         colorfuloneposted 9 years agoin reply to this

         Hi Jonny.  No I am not saying that.

         replyreport
         1. 0

            jonnycomelatelyposted 9 years agoin reply to this

            Ok.Thanks for clarifying.  Sorry I misinterpreted.

            replyreport
            1. 78

               colorfuloneposted 9 years agoin reply to this

               Anytime, Jonny.
               
               Obama (nom de jour) seems to like having imperialistic ambitions in politics and economics.
               
               I do not think the lifting of the embargo will harm Russian and Cuban economic relations more, at least not for several years to come, but it will be even less of a priority now for Raúl Castro.   It is likely, Putin won't be able to use the island as an aircraft carrier in an attack on the US. 
               
               Sorry jacharless, I took this thread off topic. 
               
               Putin is not happy with Obama in the middle east and is putting the blame for the state of affairs directly where it belongs.  He wants to end the conflicts with ISIS and is willing to make a mess in order to clean up the enormous mess Bush, Obama, Kerry and Clinton has created.

               replyreport
4. 77

   psycheskinnerposted 9 years ago

   For the people of Syria, the Assad government is more deadly than ISIS will ever be.  So "stabilizing" that regime is not going to help them.

   replyreport
5. 0

   ahorsebackposted 9 years ago

   Look to your history , Russia has always had an interest in the Middle  East , Southeast Asia , or anywhere  , although on the opposite sides as the US or NATO ,  they have had Syria's side fro day one .     They are just being Russia !

   replyreport
   1. 78

      colorfuloneposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      I have a soft spot for Russia, they have been allies. 
      
      I've been laughing since I read where Putin called Obama the leader of the modern day Sodom and Gomorrah.

      replyreport
      1. 0

         ahorsebackposted 9 years agoin reply to this

         It was doubtful that either the U.S. or Russia  could have defeated Hitler  without the other in WWII !

         replyreport
         1. 78

            colorfuloneposted 9 years agoin reply to this

            Very true.  They were right beside us in WWI also.

            replyreport
6. 73

   jacharlessposted 9 years ago

   Interesting replies.
   
   The underlying question to ask is who, since W2, has colonized 190 countries, or helped to create "occupied territories" under the guise of "regime change" or "oil" or some such agenda as democracy. Who has nearly 1000 military installations worldwide. Russia? Syria? Iran, Iraq, Libya...?
   
   Next, regardless of the social-media agenda, must come to understand Russia has zero interest in America. Never had an interest in her land, probably never will. Why? Well her current land space is 1/5 the total land mass on earth. That's huge and requires a lot to maintain. America doesn't even make up the total circumference of Moscow and her suburbs, respectively.
   
   Third, everyone pretty-much knows Mr Assad has not committed genocide, nor chem's against his own people. We know the photos were doctored and no proof of chem use found by the inspectors (think Iraq 2.0),   else a) he would have been ousted without delay b) two years ago the people of Syria would never have re-elected him. Which, incidentally is precisely when IS made its move on the global stage...
   
   Regardless, I think this Russio-led coalition is a good thing. I think it is going to squash the middle-east territorial conquest by Israel, Saudi Arabia and the West, under the tent of an ancient barbaric presentation, designed to shore-up what remains of the middle-eastern wild west and shore-up the borders of Russia. I think it is going to insure the Central Bank does not get control of Syria, Russia (again), Iran -and will be booted from Iraq & China when all is said and done. However, it does now create a new problem for the powers-that-be: how are they going to get these last few countries to kneel before them. We see how quick Libya and Cuba were to sign-on...

   replyreport
   1. 0

      jonnycomelatelyposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      I also am very skeptical of United States' interests - and how the world is being twisted, screwed and manipulated.
      
      It seems to me that the mass media have been used to paint an ugly picture of Russia and anytbing that tries to support a community-based (i.e., "communist") point of view.
      
      Bring in nice talk, political correctness, a proclamation of Jesus-type godliness, and blind self-proclaiming patrotism , and you get a nation of believers in anytbing that will swallow the story hook, line and sinker.
      
      Just a personal opinion, of course....

      replyreport
      1. 73

         jacharlessposted 9 years agoin reply to this

         Well damn, if you didn't nail it, jonny.

         replyreport
   2. 59

      Live to Learnposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      You might explain why they have evidence of chemical weapon use and Syria has admitted to having multiple chemical weapon manufacturing sites. Sure, they claim some fell into the hands of rebels. But, if you are manufacturing chemical weapons I would assume you are expecting to use them. So, I think I won't take your word on this at the moment.

      replyreport
      1. 73

         jacharlessposted 9 years agoin reply to this

         It is quite easily explained:
         Assad is not the only party in Syria with access to, or ability to produce chem-weapons. Both the FSA and Nusra Front have chem weapons not produced by the government. Second, let's not forget many rockets found were imported from Iraq, left behind by the Western-led allies after their withdrawal. Ironically, a lot of high-grade weapons, munitions, artillery, etc were simply "left behind" allowing said-radical groups to capture them without much difficulty.
         
         More than one MIT expect has shown that the Syrian Army did not use chems against their own people, nor the rebellion for that matter, at all four incidents of said use.
         
         I'll site Mr Hersh first, then Dr Postol as well as Mr Lloyd. We can then follow-up with the OPCW inspectors, and UNFF, who to this day have not found any evidence that the Assad-led government used them. As such, the UN brokered a deal with the Assad-led government to remove all chem weapons from Syria as a precaution.

         replyreport
7. 78

   colorfuloneposted 9 years ago

   The powerful voice of Franklin Graham, "Christians in Syria are more vulnerable than ever before with the government in danger of collapsing. The Syrian government has been the one to protect minority groups, including Christians. If the Syrian government were to lose power to the Islamic State, not only would there be hundreds of thousands more refugees, but tens and tens of thousands more would be slaughtered by ISIS. Russian President Vladimir Putin’s policies to uphold Syria’s government might save Christian lives. Pray for the Christians in Syria."   
   
   He posted this link on Facebook:  http://humanevents.com/2015/09/18/putin … -in-syria/

   replyreport
8. 0

   ahorsebackposted 9 years ago

   Not too  many  ever seem to want to face the fact that  when a rogue nation comes along   , Syria , North Korea  ,   Iran ,    that  the "super powers " that be have to  invoke a combined  effort to control that nation .    Hence , a covert or open co-operation between nations like the U.S. and Russia     We can debate who has the biggest  interest in that  , but  more than not often , that's how it works .
   
   Pretend  rivals  acting under the cover  as co-conspirators ! Russia - the U.S  ,been that way for awhile too .

   replyreport
9. 78

   colorfuloneposted 9 years ago

   It is looking like a "World War" underway according to Allen West.   
   
   Question: If the US is at war, would that put the presidential election on hold?

   replyreport
10. 73

    jacharlessposted 9 years ago

    This is quite a good listen. Explains so much. If you have 7 minutes to spare, give a listen.
    
    RT News - SoundCloud

    replyreport
11. 78

    colorfuloneposted 9 years ago

    Putin has national interests in the region.

    replyreport