September 10, 2015
Let’s get this Apocalypse rolling already.
Russian forces have begun participating in military operations in Syria in support of government troops, three Lebanese sources familiar with the political and military situation there said on Wednesday.
The sources, speaking to Reuters on condition they not be identified, gave the most forthright account yet from the region of what the United States fears is a deepening Russian military role in Syria’s civil war, though one of the Lebanese sources said the number of Russians involved so far was small.
U.S. officials said Russia sent two tank landing ships and additional cargo aircraft to Syria in the past day or so and deployed a small number of naval infantry forces.
The U.S. officials, who also spoke on condition of anonymity, said the intent of Russia’s military moves in Syria was unclear. One suggested the focus may be on preparing an airfield near the port city of Latakia, a stronghold of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad.
U.S. officials have not ruled out the possibility that Russia may want to use the airfield for air combat missions.
U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry spoke to his Russian counterpart for the second time in four days to express concern over reports of Russian military activities in Syria, warning that it could fan more violence.
“We can’t have you fighting ISIS, Mr. Putin.”
How do people read this and think that it makes sense?
Russia says the Syrian government must be incorporated into a shared global fight against Islamic State, the Islamist group that has taken over large parts of Syria and Iraq. The United States and Assad’s regional foes see him as part of the problem.
“Assad’s regional foes” being ISIS, Israel and the filthy Saudis.
Neither Israel nor the USA have explained what problem they view Assad to be a part of. ISIS and the Saudis obviously view him as too liberal and not a Sunni.
“We would welcome constructive Russian contributions to the counter-ISIL effort, but we’ve been clear that it would be unconscionable for any party, including the Russians, to provide any support to the Assad regime,” White House spokesman Eric Schultz said, using an acronym for Islamic State.
How can they keep claiming to be against both sides of a war, while also claiming they want to be involved in the war?
All that can possibly mean is “we want this war to never end.” There is no other way to interpret it.
Moscow confirmed it had “experts” on the ground in Syria, its long-time ally in the Middle East.
But Russia has declined to comment on the scale and scope of its military presence. Damascus denied Russians were involved in combat, but a Syrian official said the presence of experts had increased in the past year.
Reflecting Western concern, Germany’s foreign minister warned Russia against increased military intervention, saying the Iran nuclear deal and new U.N. initiatives offered a starting point for a political solution to the conflict.
Germany is also no doubt concerned they will get less refugees if Russia makes areas of Syria safer, which would result in a slowing of their project to genocide the people of Germany through mass immigration.
Don’t worry though, Germany – you can just get more Blacks.
NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg said reports of growing Russian military activity in Syria were a cause for concern, while France said it made finding a political solution to the crisis more complicated.
This is pure Mad Hatter gibberish.
A political solution to ISIS? What does it mean? They are going to open negotiations with a terrorist group with the openly stated goal of world conquest? What would these negotiations involve?
Either Assad regains control of Syria, or ISIS does. There isn’t any third option, except full-on Iraq-style invasion by 100,000+ American troops, which would mean years of fighting to install a “democracy” which would then be overthrown by terrorists in a few weeks.
So what are we even talking about?
Am I missing something?
Is there somewhere where NATO or France has elaborated on the concept of a “political solution” to the Syrian conflict?
Two of the Lebanese sources said the Russians were establishing two bases in Syria, one near the coast and one further inland which would be an operations base.
“The Russians are no longer just advisors,” one of the sources said. “The Russians have decided to join the war against terrorism.”
Officials in the United States, which is fighting an air war against the Islamist militant group Islamic State in Syria and also opposes Assad’s government, have said in recent days that they suspect Russia is reinforcing to aid Assad.
If you repeat a nonsense statement enough times, maybe eventually it makes sense.
But I am not aware of any other instance in history where a foreign power entered a war and was against both sides. The fact that this is official policy of the entire Western world is truly fantastic.
Russia has set out the case for supporting Assad in the most forthright terms yet in the past few days, likening the Western approach to Syria to failures in Iraq and Libya.
It is comparable in that it is insane, however it is an insanity of a whole other order.
Iraq: “We are going to invade and take over your country.”
Libya: “We are going to arm foreign terrorists to invade and take over your country and assist them by bombing you.”
Syria: “We are going to arm foreign terrorists to invade and take over your country and assist them by bombing you, but we are also going to bomb the terrorists we are arming.”
U.S. officials, speaking on condition of anonymity, told Reuters on Wednesday that multiple Russian flights have passed over the airspace of Iran and Iraq to reach Syria.
The State Department said Russian use of Iranian airspace would not be surprising, given Tehran’s past support for Assad.
Spokesman John Kirby said the United States had advised “partners and our friends to ask the Russians tough questions about” overflight requests. He did not elaborate, saying only: “I’m not gonna detail diplomatic conversations.”
Did he really use the word “gonna” as opposed to “going to”?
Thus far in the war, Iran and its Lebanese ally Hezbollah have been Assad’s main sources of military support. The momentum turned against Assad earlier this year.
In the latest setback, state television reported government troops had surrendered an air base in northwestern Syria to a rebel alliance after nearly two years under siege.
This meant the last government troops had withdrawn from central Idlib province, according to the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights, a UK-based group that monitors the conflict.
But now the tables prepare to turn.
Will the US send troops to fight alongside ISIS against Russia?
I doubt it.
But eventually, some Western power is going to bomb Russians in Syria. That is now pretty well inevitable.
What will that mean?