Syria crisis: Russian air strikes against Assad enemies

That Russian noncooperation with the US on Siberia has more to do with the US printing a Siberian currency & storing it in a Swiss bank IMHO. It was probably something just intended to put pressure on the Russian government & the partnership you mentioned was probably going to be used as a springboard to further agreements and eventual integration. I don't have a problem with a union of the US,Russia & Canada but there is now a lot of bad blood, could take decades if ever.

Freddy.

 

When Russia asked Washington to share its intelligence on ISIS, they refused...which is highly suspicious.

 

I agree that now it could take a long time before such a Partnership can be forged and that is a shame.

China is growing even if more slowly now than it has in the last 2 decades as China is handicapped by massive amounts of debt in the Trillions of Dollars on local levels.

China has been artificially controlling the value of it's currency and this has come back to bite China on the A$$.

But with a Chinese population of close to 1.7 Billion as China constantly under reports it's population numbers to get U.N. Famine, Poverty and Disease committees as well as groups like Amnesty International off it's A$$ but China might become aggressive at some point in the future.

A Russian/America-Canadian Partnership along with NATO, Japan, Taiwan and Australia should be more than sufficient to keep China in line.

Such a partnership is absolutely in the best interest of Russia considering Russia shares a boarder with China and the Russian population which is only about 145 Million is very much outnumbered by 1.7 Billion Chinese.

It's best for Russia and the United States and Canada to get away from such foolishness that is occurring in Syria so that we can prepare for threats upon all our Nations.

A Partnership is the way to go.

AboveAlpha

 

That's all right. They're getting more obvious and irrelevant in this affair day by day ..... and everyone is taking notice.

 

Washington is becoming irrelevant??? LOL!!!

You better let Putin know that!

AboveAlpha

 

Just to add the United States is only more than happy to supply Satellite Data detailing ISIS, Al-Nursa and Al-Qaeda Targets to the Russian Military.

However the Russian Military specifically requested U.S. Satellite Data specific to only FSA Targets.

Let's be clear about U.S. Policy in this matter.....

The United States is interested in destroying the ISIS, Al-Qaeda and it's Syrian Arm Al-Nusra.

The United States also want's ASSAD GONE.

If after both the U.S. and our Allies along with Russia destroy the ISIS, Al-Qaeda and Al-Nusra and then get ASSAD to leave Syria that we then find that there are Sunni Extremist Elements existing in the FSA.....THEN....at that time and ONLY at that time will the United States make an effort to rid all Sunni Extremists within the FSA.

THAT...is U.S. Policy.

AboveAlpha

 

In this arena (the fight against ISIS) .... yes. They have been ineffective and now are about as useful as tits on a boar.

As for its policy in removing Assad, it has been more effective, mainly by funneling TOW missiles through Saudi Arabia. Putin is well aware of this,of course, and must have factored that in before intervening. He did just have a meeting with the Saudi foreign and defense ministers, so we've yet to see what comes of that.

Saudi Arabia, by the way, purchased over 13,000 TOW missiles two years ago, with deliveries beginning this year. We can see what they are being used for. Still, that's a LOT of missiles; way more than the Saudis could ever need. They can stir up a LOT of trouble for a LONG time supplying extremists with these things, and not just in Syria, and this is all with the US's foreknowledge. It's a very dangerous game they're playing.

 

TOW Missiles sold to Saudi Arabia give the kingdom's troops the ability to destroy enemy mechanized divisions and the Saudi's are primarily worried about Iran.

Still....these TOW's could be used against Assad's Tanks and other Mechanized vehicles.

As far as Putin entering the war in Syria....this is not a smart move by Putin and if anything places Russia at risk by Terrorist Attacks as the Russian boarder is extremely long and porous and it would be easy for Sunni Extremists to cross over into Russia.

Of course the Saudi's would not turn down a request by Putin to meet but make no mistake....Saudi Arabia's primary ally is the United States.

AboveAlpha

 

We've been here before haven't we. Most recently yesterday where I asked for evidence of your claims that Assad was taking his CUT from corrupt money and you responding by providing details about Yasser Arafat's well known corruption which didn't once reference Assad. It was a rather bizarre response; accuse one person but provide further allegations about another. That's actually not evidence. That's just plain weird.

So, can you specify exactly and in detail where Russia agreed/promised what you have claimed please? Saying something and supporting it with evidence is not the same thing, and since I asked you to support your claim, please do so.

From the reading I have taken from this Act, it was the US fear and subsequent imperative to contain and make safe nuclear, chemical and biological weapons following the break-up of the Soviet Union that was the driving force of this Act. For example, a Cato Institute discussion of this Act doesn't even mention the agreement you claim Russia made (see HERE) and another HERE. In fact I can't find a single source in which it is claimed that Russia entered any sort of agreement as you claim or any source (other than you) claims that Russia has behaved in bad faith or broken the agreement. So please evidence what you claim.

And we've been here before too. More than once. I am one of those members who keep bringing it up, usually in response to these claims of yours - and have posted in previous threads evidence showing conclusively that The US and Germany absolutely did breach their promise to Gorbachev about this.

In regard to your comment about "if you read the agreement", I sincerely believe you've never read it yourself anyway. Sorry. But I don't, otherwise you would be able to quote chapter and verse, or at least link to the agreement and point me to evidence - and you can't.

I've already read the Wiki page about this. There is not comment or reference relating to your claim about Russia "interfering" with her previous Soviet bloc states.

All I want is evidence to support your claims. It shouldn't be this protracted and difficult.

 

Not if you listened to the American side from the begining, from day one "we" said there are moderate rebels, you guys jumped on the first rebel group sweared alligence to Da'esh and decided all rebels are like that, US, Arab leauge and Europe supported the rebels against Assad while Iran, Lebanon and now Syria fight to keep Assad in control = also against teh moderate rebels,

You deny their position and then get "suspicous" when they act upon it, Russia bombs ALL of Assad enemies not just - some say hardly any - ISIS targets.

 

If it comes from your 'official' sources the first thing I do is suspect them of lying. Your governments have a 'rap sheet' as long as your arm when it comes to lying to you.

 

I have a question Alpha (2nd para down).

Re your statement that 100 Putin's buddies own 35% of Russian wealth - these stats were drawn from the book titled Putin's Plutocracy: Who Owns Russia, by Karen Dawisha. She might even be right. I wouldn't be surprised. However, because she is an International Affairs Fellow of the CFR, was a policy planning staff member at the State Department, I would't be surprised if it turned out her perceptions and book are somewhat predictable - not to say prejudiced - in her/its design. And because the University of Maryland, where she held a professorship, has a comfortable and historically close relationship with the CIA, I can't help but harbour a suspicion about that too.

And so I have to question why you, Alpha, spend your time on this forum punching out this perpetual anti-Putin, anti-Russian propaganda?

And it is propaganda by any definition, because if you were in the slightest bit balanced in your opinions and views, you would be duty bound to try to show some proportionality in your posts. For example, in speaking of the foregoing claim that Putin's 100 buddies own 35% of Russian wealth, you might also note that a report by Oxfam found that 1% of the world's population own almost half the world's wealth (HERE), which led USA Today to conclude that 85 of the world's richest people own 46% of global wealth. The fact that the USA is today an oligarchy run by many of those 85 people should cause at least a passing comment about the unfairness and imbalance about US domestic matters and goals and bias. But no, you have to keep attacking Russia and ignoring anything negative about your own nation.

 

Well, considering that Washington has done nothing but drop a few token bombs here and there I'd suggest accusations of inept feebleness are about right.

 

Much like ours?

 

I thought you'd be happy the the US finally steps away from another war in the ME, not bombing Syrian villages or killing innocents, I guess its alright when an anti-American does that huh ?

 

Did you really expect obama and pals to bomb their ISIS allies? lol

Obama is pissed because russia is bomb his terrorists.

 

Exactly like ours.

- - - Updated - - -

This is about the only time we agree.

 

I see the Russian cheering section is still going strong.

 

When ISIS captures their enemies, they cut their heads off, on a beach and release it on youtube.

 

Russia cheering section?

No. Im part of the disgusted, wtf are you doing, obama??? section.

If obama really wanted to take out libya and syria, he should have done it with American troops with American values.

He used terrorists, so leftys could pretend to have moral superiority

your left handed messiah is ten times worse than bush.

 

'Sod off Putin, it's my party (and I'll cry if I want to! ).'

 

Well I agree.

But lets not pretend this isn't a conflict that has been going on for a century between the worlds two leading ideologies.

I just find it funny you complain about liberal deception on the world stage while we all know ISIS has very little to do with what is happening in Syria. The Ruskies are masters of deception and taking what is on the surface for anything that is any where near the facts is pretty dangerous. Do you really think Obama makes a decision on these things without a room full of top brass generals along with the best information from our best intel agencies? I would wager a large sum of money 90% of POTUS policy making isn't even their own when it comes to the Russians. You can sit and blame Obama all you want but America isn't resorting to proping up terrorist because of our POTUS, nor will such policies be ended by one. It's the people of America that have changed. 75 years of Ivan propaganda in America and we can see the results.

 

Thats not it. Its really not.

Putin can do what he wants, not because of any russian propaganda, but because obama is telling lies, he cannot admit too.

America is supposed to be in a war on terror, but our president is supporting terror.

Have you not seen how poorly obamas tears have been received by Americans?

No one believes Putin is wrong, because hes killing terrorists.

Here, Im gonna help democrats out.

Do you want hillary to become an American hero? Do you want hillary to become president?

When hillary testifies at the benghazi hearing next week, she should tell the truth. She should tell the truth, and demand obama be held accountable for his demands that she support terrorists. She should tell the truth about why Ambassador stevens was in benghazi, and what he was doing there. She should tell the truth about how spetznaz set up the hit, to stop the flow of weapons and terrorists being sent to syria.

PS When hillary does this, I want a sweet job at the clinton foundation.

 

How is any of that different than Reagan's policies in South America? What was that about again? Communism maybe? You think when we armed the Afghan's against Russia they were a different people then they are now? The only thing I hold against Obama is the same I hold against all of our politicians as many of them haven't really thought about Russia for some time. There is only one way to deal with a nuclear power like Russia and that is to get all up in their face, and that's what Reagan did, and it brought Ivan to the table looking to make a deal. Sure, it almost started a nuclear war but that is the risk you take with a nuclear adversary. Sometimes you need a bad guy to keep the other bad guys from the door, and I'll agree Obama isn't that bad guy. And this brings us full circle back to my point that the problem is the people in America and Russian influence in the states, because how else does a guy like Obama get eleceted?

 

Obama got elected because the idiot before him did a terrible job; got you embroiled in unwinnable wars, screwed your economy and generally left a mess that will take decades to recover from.