Looks like we are seeing the final preparations for the Syrian offensive on Idlib.
Couple of noteworthy things:
- Masses of Russian ships in the Mediterranean off Syria, with many dozens of Kalibr cruise missiles and hundreds of Tor anti-air missiles between them:
Now in Med Sea:
CG Marshal Ustinov
DDG Severomorsk
DDG Yaroslav Mudryy
FFG Admiral Grigorovich
FFG Admiral Essen
FFL Pytlivyy
FSG Vyshniy Volochek
FSG Grad Sviyazhsk
FSG Velikiy Ustyug
LST Orsk
LST Nikolay Fil'chenkov
MS Turbinist
MS Valentin Pikul
SS Kolpino
SS Velikiy Novgorod— Capt(N) (@Capt_Navy) August 25, 2018
Also some reports of Mig-31’s patrolling the Caspian with the new Kinzhal missiles:
https://twitter.com/Brasco_Aad/status/1033337565020082176
This reportedly represents the greatest concentration of Russian naval assets in the Syrian theater since the start of the war.
The US and its allies are preparing new airstrikes on Syria, the Russian Defense Ministry said, adding that militants are poised to stage a chemical weapons attack in order to frame Damascus and provide a pretext for the strikes.
The attack would be used as a pretext for US, UK and French airstrikes on Syrian targets, Russian Defense Ministry spokesman, Major General Igor Konashenkov said. USS ‘The Sullivans,’ an Arleigh Burke-class Aegis guided missile destroyer, was already deployed to the Persian Gulf a couple of days ago, he added.
This isn’t the first time a Russian warning of a chemical weapons attack was preceded by an actual strike, so a provocation seems quite realistic. Especially with John Bolton as good as egging them on.
One has to admire the brilliance of Kremlin’s “Grand Strategy” that brought Russia into a high-risk standoff with NATO over…some Middle Eastern shithole.
Cause there is no better way to shore up support for your regime than to launch a small victorious war in the Middle East – this is what Stolypin taught. Or something.
Now, an “irresistable question” needs to be asked: would such an “amasing achievement” be possible today, if the Kremlin had followed advice of various experts, patriots, and other smartasses, who told them to finish Ukrainian war first? Huh? That’s what I fucking thought!
The Yankee Regime would have moved from Syria to Iran to the Caucasus and beyond.
Russia had little choice.
Well….most likely we’ll see repeat of the previous episode:
Anti-Assad forces (with some external help, of course) will create a charade->it will get blown out of proportions by MSM in West->Trump will, again, be compelled to act->standoff weapons will be fired on Assad’s regime targets->Russia will issue strong statements->blabbing sphere will be, for a week, full of blabbing (including this site).
That’s it.
Of course, there is always that other possibility. Small, but with ultimate repercussions.
Interesting times.
On a long enough timeline our chances of avoiding it will approach zero.
Everything is better than a nuclear war (except those who will do anything to avoid a nuclear war will be unable to avoid it without fully submitting), but of course a major war in Europe (the conquest of a large country with ethnically cleansing millions; I guess that’s what you’re thinking about when you talk about “finishing the war in Ukraine”) would be even more likely to lead to a general conflagration. And possibly China wouldn’t support you much.
reiner Tor , I understand full well what your angle is: as a Hungarian you are obviously wary of being on the receiving end of a European conflagration. But the reality is that Russia enjoys military dominance in Eastern Europe, and cannot be bullied the way it IS being bullied by NATO forces in East Mediterranean.
P.S.: Maybe in 50 years China will become a superpower. Maybe. But for now China can barely muster its courage to vote with Russia on Syria UNSC resolutions. We cannot rely on China.
“Domino theory” was wrong when USA practiced it during the Cold war. It is wrong now.
a gas attack may be the initial precursor to create the context for US strikes but given the chemical attacks haven’t worked as a casus belli and we’re in the end game i think they’d need something bigger – i think they’ll be considering attacking a US ship and making it look like it was Russia/Syria.
addendum
so it would be a good idea imo if those Ruski anti-missile ships were also looking out for unknown missiles being fired towards US ships.
“full spectrum dominance” is not going to go away until the neocons are purged from the state dept.
so given that Syria->Iran->Russia is the inevitable sequence where best to fight?
i’d say Syria was a good choice not because it’s important to Russia but because it’s not important to the USA i.e. it’s a purely neocon operation with very little public support in the USA which provided the best chance of a split int he US elite – which is ultimately the only way out of this spiral we’re in.
‘Foreign specialists’ may stage chemical attack in Syria in 2 days to frame Assad – Russian MoD
This sounds like a public warning to lay off this shit and call back the Dogs of Gas or else.
They seem well informed, so I suspect this potential false-flag could be de-fused by a single 2-hour operation. Which may actually happen.
“Domino theory” is the theory that international communist insurrection in country X will lead to international communist insurrection in country X+1. Of course, these were all nationalist insurrection, so the premisse was wrong.
Suspecting that color revolutions on your doorstep and an increasingly safe-for-Israel Middle Eastern landscape (made safe with the help of Saudi Arabian killteams) with additional ever-ratcheting-up sanctions are actually related to semi-coherent planning and uncoherent but very nasty public pronounciations from neocons is NOT “domino theory”.
The hebrew lettering will give the game away.
Then the MSM will find something biggly wrong with the Kardashians.
Go Syria!
I’ve been a history buff since my teen years and I realized early on that 99% of Communist gains were made in the chaos following WWII. Unfortunately, 90% of Americans are so ignorant of history that they believed the BS that the military-industrial-media complex fed them.
RuAF should just bomb anybody who glows in the dark.
An interesting point.
My impression is that’s the only thing the US elite agrees on.
The only way out of it is a decisive action by Kremlin. A type of action that will SCARE American public into putting some pressure onto their elites.
And the only thing that scares US public is a possibility of ICBMs falling on their heads.
The problem is….how to send a scare without doing the deed? Or, worse, not creating a condition that the things spiral out of control?
I am absolutely positive that both sides (and some other) have been doing extensive games and playing out scenarious.
We do this…they do that….we do this…they do that….and fine tuning all that up to that moment when the first nuke gets launched. Having that as “red line” not to cross.
The problem is….that’s a very, very fine line.
I am not optimistic about all this. Not in this particular instance, but sooner or later……………………………………
But, then, I am just nobody. We have much better people to take care about that. As current US decision makers and all those influencing them.
All good then.
This has happened several times already. There will be no wider war. The conflict is winding down, not spinning up.
yes – which is why they might try something desperate and reckless
The more it happens, the more likely a wider war will happen. On a long enough timeline, the chances of avoiding a nuclear war will drop to zero. And I’m probably not talking about millions of years, and not even centuries: it’s probably impossible to survive the current US policies without a nuclear war for just a few decades.
You are absolutely right, spot on. Putin and his advisers knew they would strike Syria while the Russians would be busy with Ukraine. Never thaught of it that way but it sure is the truth. Chessplayer and a good one without a doubt, take care.
Has there ever been another great power proxy war, where the losers had such a lopsided economic advantage?
Total 2017 GDP of countries that have funded, armed, or provided direct military support to Syrian rebels (USA, UK, France, Turkey, Saudi, Israel, Qatar): $26 trillion
Total 2017 GDP of Russia, Iran, & Syria: $2.1 trillion
From a purely Russian perspective it’s insanity to think that annexing a large and disloyal population is good. You also don’t seem to understand the difference between offense and defense. You don’t care for international relations arrogantly (and stupidly) believing that you need no allies or can disregard international opinion altogether.
You know, your proposed conquest of Ukraine would result in the dilution of the Russian population (which is already not homogeneous enough at barely above 80% Russian), it’d disregard international law (I’d bet even Lukashenka would need to be coerced to accept this), and as an aggressive action it’d make the neocons’ position way more acceptable to the broad public. Especially if you went ahead with your proposed ethnic cleansing program.
You envy Hitler’s success so much that you’d actually like to copy it. You are a mirror image of the neocons.
Lol, Reiner, I prefer Hungary’s army to take over management of the zoo.
Afterwards, imagine your possibilities to use from the Hungarian budget to pay for Ukraine’s pensioners, or recapitalize Kiev’s banks and oligarchs. Actually one day it could become a reality, if EU is crazy enough to let them join.
Political control of the “shithole” determines:
Who will control pipelines built to carry oil across Iran, Iraq & Syria to the Mediterranean shore?
Whose troops will be at the naval base at Tartus & military air base at Khmeimin?
Who will have political influence in the Levant?
Should the Kremlin just leave it to NATO & Saudi Arabia?
(I bet you could come up with a few ethical and humanitarian considerations as well, if you care about that sort of thing.)
Hungary doesn’t really have armed forces to speak of, but it could easily change. When I was a child, we had an army of 100,000+ soldiers, well over a thousand battle tanks and over a hundred warplanes. Yes, it was mostly obsolete, but we were considered the slackers in the Eastern Bloc.
Felix is advocating for policies which would result in Russia getting bogged down in an occupation regime in a large country and the neocons getting really strong in the whole of Europe.
Training the Russian armed forces in a civil war at the request of the lawful government is much easier for Russia than conquering a large European country.
Why is it that controversial?
http://www.stevedennie.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/levantmap.jpg
Now, that’s a worthy prize. Worth risking a war with NATO for sure!
Honestly, I think occupying the Ukraine will be easier, because Ukrainians are less fanatical than Middle Eastern jihadists, and most likely would not be able to rely on American air support. Russia will also find it much easier to project power in the Ukraine.
The fact is Russia doesn’t need allies to accomplish its goals in the Ukraine. In the initial stage we could rely on Russian ground troops plus the armies of LDNR. Once we have control of Novorossia, we could train and equip a lot of local proxies, who would handle the occupation.
But that’s a problem for Europe, is it not? Perhaps, things need to get worse in Europe before they get better?
You are a mirror image of the neocons.
The neocons would have multiple orgasms if Russia were to invade Ukraine, this is what they have been working for and dreaming about for years.
Ukrainians are way more competent, though. I’m not even sure about the fanaticism. Arabs are not very fanatic, on average, only some of them. And some of the Ukrainians are also quite fanatical.
You need allies to survive the sanctions. Or else your own population will topple the nationalistic regime of President Keverich.
Well, if military balance doesn’t bother you, then yes. But actually, it’s not a big problem, finally having large armies. I just thought it might bother you.
They are more likely to invite another army of refugees, than create a capable European army. Remember, neocons hate you almost as much as they hate Russians. 😉
They will do both. And actually, from their Cold War track record, or their track record in Ukraine, they will tolerate even actual neo-Nazis (or during the Cold War actual former Nazis) and nationalism to facilitate stronger armies against Russia.
But most likely there will be both very strong armies and anti-Russia hysteria AND a push for more refugees. And the anti-Russia hysteria will make it more difficult to fight against the refugees, because anti-immigration activists are already accused of being Russian agents, and it will only get much worse if you start a major war of conquest.
So obviously NATO will have very strong armies right on your borders. If that’s not a problem, then why did you even bother with the Baltic states joining NATO? Why does it matter to you at all?
The reason I’m sceptical is because “very strong army” is not something that you can simply wish into being. It will take years and hundreds of billions of dollars to alter the balance of power in Eastern Europe in a meaningful way. It is a major undertaking that will put great strain on Western societies – there is a reason why they are in no rush to militarise Eastern Europe.
The big problem for US and “old Europe” is that they have admitted a whole bunch of countries into NATO, that they have no real hope of defending from Russia. Nor do they care about defending Eastern Europe. Expansion of NATO was a process driven to a large extent by bureaucratic inertia. Elites in the West never seriously considered how this is supposed to work in the event of an actual Russian invasion. Western societies are not prepared to make the necessary sacrifices.
It could be because NATO’s expansion reduces Russia’s ability to use its military as a tool of foreign policy, and Russian foreign policy has few other effective tools?
I suppose during 1990s, when Russian military was in its state of post-Soviet mess and struggling to defeat Chechen separatists, one could see a “humanitarian intervention” by NATO as a realistic threat to Russia, but that’s simply not the case anymore.
Well, it probably takes a few years, but unlikely to take more than, say, five years. Regarding the money, it’s just a question of political will. By implementing the policies you propose here, you will easily create that political will with very little or no effort on the part of the former Eastern Bloc peoples. I cannot speak for Western Europeans, but in the countries closer to Russia military spending will jump to 4-5% of GDP almost instantaneously. And money goes farther for us than for the US (though not as far as for Russia), so if we start spending like 50 billion extra on an annual basis, it will show up pretty well.
But it’s unlikely that Western Europeans won’t feel threatened, too: they will also increase spending. Which will be higher in absolute numbers than the increase in the former Eastern Bloc. And of course the neocons will have an easy job convincing the American public of still higher military spending.