Russia carries on regardless

With the west seemingly weak willed regarding Syria and pondering what to do (or not) about the mess continuing before its eyes, Russia carries on regardless.

To the Russia, it is business as usual in propping up Assad and his regime. Step forward then,  Boris Johnson, to give a rip-roaring beastly Russia speech and demanding citizens of the UK go and protest outside the Russian Embassy. Good old Boris, taking the fight (sic) direct

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

The people who attend the anti-war marches have said that that idea would be a complete waste of time.

Russia have decided in her great wisdom that a naval base will be created at a Syrian port which is a strategic area for the military forces. Defences are to be installed to protect it against hostile fire (presumably NATO).

Meanwhile and way off in the background, Russia has deployed nuclear missiles within earshot of Lithuania and Poland. Russia states that this action was not exceptional, but could be seen by the West to counter the build up of NATO forces in former Eastern Bloc countries. NATO have indeed been building up forces as part of a large scale "training" exercise and to also send a message to Putin that his actions, especially in Ukraine (where the battle continues daily) is not to be tolerated.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Only a few days ago, four countries (including the UK) had to scramble jets to intercept Russian military aircraft that were getting "ever so close" to air territory not intended for them.

It seems that Russia is in the ascendancy and can do as she pleases without so much as even a wrist slap from the west.

The group Anonymous have several YouTube videos proclaiming that WWIII will soon be upon the world as the major powers become more directly involved than they are now, whatever region you wish to mention.

President Obama does not seem able or willing to confront Russia head on regarding the two areas of tension. We can all remember the "red line in the sand" threat on chemical weapons being used in Syria, way before Russia was even engaged in the civil war.

Of course, he lost a vote on military intervention at the time, as did David Cameron, and the Syrian war rumbled on and on.

Is it possible to think that politicians in the USA and the UK may be regretting to vote against intervention when they did. It may play on the minds perhaps.

With voting in the US presidential elections soon to be cast and counted (although there have been early votes cast), would a change in the White House have major bearings on the situations we witness on the news channels and read about in the newspapers.

VillageGreen wrote:

Is it possible to think that politicians in the USA and the UK may be regretting to vote against intervention when they did. It may play on the minds perhaps.

Why would they regret it? It seems to me the one time parliament got it right. Western 'intervention' in Afganistan, Iraq and Libya have paved the way for Al-queda/ISIS to gain a stronger foothold in the middle east. Intervening against Assad simply helps Islamist extremists who are amongst the rebels that are fighting to overthrow Assad. Even without Russia sticking their oar in, any toppling of Assad would just lead to another Afganisation situation. In any case, UK and US governments continued 'intervening' by proxy despite the parliamentary vote, making the vote pretty much irrelvant:
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Futhermore a this 'intervention' in Syria has actually strengthened Al-Qaeda.
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Russia are probably wrong to intervene, but is whatever they are doing worse than what the UK is doing with Saudi Arabia (selling arms that are being used to target Yemeni civilians?
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

We(predominantly Britain and the US) have been baiting the Russian bear for years. When he inevitably eventually bites back we'll see whether we were all mouth and no trousers.

A golden opportunity for THE END IS NIGH sandwich board mob.

AstiSpumante wrote:

A golden opportunity for THE END IS NIGH sandwich board mob.

God, I have not seen a person carrying one of those for absolute years. Standing on the street corner, placard firmly in hand and a mind as vigorous as any.

Moving swiftly on, I do not know much about this anonymous group. I hear they have hacked organisations and do have a little creditability about them ?.

They have a fair number of videos on youtube, most are a little out there, but there are also one or two that are worth a look. They seem to have handy facts in the one or two watchable videos. I took them with a pinch of salt.

I was listening to the radio today and the numerous listener calls raised some interesting remarks, especially concerning Trump as president. BBC Radio5live teamed up with NPR in the States to guage feelings here and over there regarding the presidential race and Brexit.

The issue of Aleppo was raised and the American woman who raised it said she only trusts Clinton to be commander in chief, as Clinton is a career politician and has the experience to deal with Putin (apparently Hilary is on a quest to bring him and Russia down) one way or another.

We will see in January 2017 (I think Trump has not got a cat in hells chance of entering the White House).

Russia appears to have an objective in Syria,  whilst the west dont know what they want as in Afganistan, Iraq and Libya.

pepsipete wrote:

Russia appears to have an objective in Syria,  whilst the west dont know what they want as in Afganistan, Iraq and Libya.

We also forget that the conflict in Ukraine rumbles on in the background, just does not get a look in on the news.

Putin is at the head of the table at the moment and he must be loving every minute of it. While the West dithers, he acts.

Whoever is US president after the november vote, and fully president in January 2017, it could well see different attitudes from the White House.

Very much indeed.

We should be supporting Assad and Russia in annihilating the Syrian 'rebels' who are are all islamists and would themselves annihilate the west given the chance. The west and its worse than useless politicians ALWAYS back the wrong side.

War Is Coming. ( ®™Penz )

I think with Assad it's a case of the better devil and we don't have a parliamentary mandate to intervene. We got rid of saddam and look how that's worked out, we got rid of Gaddafi and look who that's worked out. The only people that win are the arms suppliers

Hugh Watt wrote:

I think with Assad it's a case of the better devil and we don't have a parliamentary mandate to intervene. We got rid of saddam and look how that's worked out, we got rid of Gaddafi and look who that's worked out. The only people that win are the arms suppliers

Totally agree. One of the best theories put forward after Kennedy's assassination was the involvement of the arms suppliers. His wish to pull the troops out of Vietnam was counter productive to their wishes.

Lee Harvey Oswald's ability to fire a single shot rifle three times in 7 seconds and on two occasions hit the target is unbelievable. There must have been other forces at work.

As Freathy says, why are we supporting rebels that would slaughter our own side given half a chance?

Obama has proved to be a weak President and China, by building naval bases in the Pacific, and Russia by claiming Crimea back, have acted on it. Is it any wonder that Trump is still in with a chance.

Rollo Tomasi wrote:

Hugh Watt wrote:

I think with Assad it's a case of the better devil and we don't have a parliamentary mandate to intervene. We got rid of saddam and look how that's worked out, we got rid of Gaddafi and look who that's worked out. The only people that win are the arms suppliers

Totally agree. One of the best theories put forward after Kennedy's assassination was the involvement of the arms suppliers. His wish to pull the troops out of Vietnam was counter productive to their wishes.

Lee Harvey Oswald's ability to fire a single shot rifle three times in 7 seconds and on two occasions hit the target is unbelievable. There must have been other forces at work.

As Freathy says, why are we supporting rebels that would slaughter our own side given half a chance?

Obama has proved to be a weak President and China, by building naval bases in the Pacific, and Russia by claiming Crimea back, have acted on it. Is it any wonder that Trump is still in with a chance.

I think you're right about Obama, there was a lot of what Sarah Palin Calle did "the hopey changey stuff" but little in the way of substance.

Hugh Watt wrote:

I think with Assad it's a case of the better devil and we don't have a parliamentary mandate to intervene. We got rid of saddam and look how that's worked out, we got rid of Gaddafi and look who that's worked out. The only people that win are the arms suppliers

There was a report on the. BBC sometime ago now that was suggesting up to1000 British troops were being sent to Libya as part of an Italian led military mission. The guise was as trainers, but with full-on more direct action authorised.

Not heard much on that report since then. Either there is a hush-hush Western ground forces conflict going on, they are there in situ and awaiting further orders or the BBC report was groundless.

Hugh Watt wrote:

Rollo Tomasi wrote:

Hugh Watt wrote:

I think with Assad it's a case of the better devil and we don't have a parliamentary mandate to intervene. We got rid of saddam and look how that's worked out, we got rid of Gaddafi and look who that's worked out. The only people that win are the arms suppliers

Totally agree. One of the best theories put forward after Kennedy's assassination was the involvement of the arms suppliers. His wish to pull the troops out of Vietnam was counter productive to their wishes.

Lee Harvey Oswald's ability to fire a single shot rifle three times in 7 seconds and on two occasions hit the target is unbelievable. There must have been other forces at work.

As Freathy says, why are we supporting rebels that would slaughter our own side given half a chance?

Obama has proved to be a weak President and China, by building naval bases in the Pacific, and Russia by claiming Crimea back, have acted on it. Is it any wonder that Trump is still in with a chance.

I think you're right about Obama, there was a lot of what Sarah Palin Calle did "the hopey changey stuff" but little in the way of substance.

Obama is weak, Clinton won't be should she become president, it is common knowledge she despices Putin.

Trump, well he could start a major war by just being Trump. He has said he will deal with the loony IS, so either he means more direct US involvement or he means blowing the crap out of daesh. I would not be surprised if he used minor nuclear missiles.

IS are weakening greatly, but are still a major global threat and Trump knows this.

Don loves Vlad.

Les Miserable wrote:

Don loves Vlad.

So they say and at the moment.

Could be a different kettle of fish should he be president.

If President Trump ever met President Putin.....you could be assured that Putin's women wouldn't be allowed in the same room as him....maybe he would drop the President title and just call himself Creditor Trump.