Wednesday, April 4, 2012

A Helicopter fires on rebels? Mediterranean war games......

A new video has appeared purporting to show rebels being shot at by...... make your assumptions.
Problem being, there are no rebels being shot at from what I can see in that video?
And the people filming seem pretty calm.


Coincidentally or not. And you know it is not. The news today is mentioning that Turkey is drawing up plans for a buffer zone in Syria

As if this is something new? As if this is a new development? It isn’t!
The Turkish buffer zone was mentioned as far back as July 2011 here, in this post.

With a link back to this article War for Peace and Killing to Save Lives

Some additional happenings- 

The Red Crescent building was torched in Homs. It was set to deliver aid today. Who would have done this? Who has been dead set against any diplomacy? Who has terrorized the area by laying seige to entire towns, ensuring a military response. Who wants regime change?
"Somebody set fire to that building. People knew what that building was, and what was in it," the source said. "Sadly, the Red Crescent was supposed to do an aid distribution today."

The NATO rebels are continuing guerrilla tactics to terrify the populace.

                                                   IAF F-16 -pic from article below

What is going on in the Mediterranean area? Quite a bit.

Israeli-US Air, Naval Forces Train for Energy War

“Israeli, Greek and U.S. militaries are in an exercise in preparation for a possible war over Israel’s huge off-shore gas discoveries.”

Except these are not Israeli discoveries- These are Lebanese discoveries.
I had covered the discovery of Gas resources in Lebanese waters some time back.
Resources to spark war attack by Israel on Lebanon July 28/2010

Quoting from above article;

Russia is keeping a wary eye on the American-Israeli exercises and is staging its own war drill in a Syrian port, according to DEBKAfile. Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov warned this week against a pre-emptive strike, which he said would violate international law.

A Russian guided missile destroyer reportedly sailed to the Syrian port of Tartus for an exercise with what DEBKAfile said is three-fold message for the United States that Moscow is supplying Syrian President Bashar Assad with defense systems, that the Russian and Iranian support of Assad will continue and that the deployment of the warship illustrates Moscow’s ability for a rapid response to foreign maneuvers.


Speaking of Russian ships- expanding on what is going on  at Tartus:
This piece is worth reading entirely. If you like to rack the brains, that is?

How many old, belching Russian destroyers does it take to establish an international veto in Syria? Take note the USS Enterprise gets a mention. The counterpoint with the current deployment of USS Enterprise (CVN-65) could hardly be starker. As the Bosphorus Naval News piece observes, Smetlivy was commissioned in 1969.  Enterprise was commissioned in 1961. This is her last deployment (a sad occasion indeed for Cold War sailors). She is on the way from Norfolk to the Persian Gulf It’s only fair to note that Russia has an intelligence collection ship operating in the Eastern Mediterranean, and has been keeping one on station.  The Black Sea Fleet ship Kildin took up the patrol in March, relieving the intelligence collection ship Ekvator (which, yes, means “equator”). So that makes at least two Russian navy ships in the Med at the moment.
It is equally fair to note that while the Enterprise Strike Group is just passing through, USS Vella Gulf (CG-72) and USS The Sullivans (DDG-68) are deployed to the Med separately, for ballistic missile defense patrols.  They are currently participating in joint exercise Noble Dina with the navies of Israel and Greece.  (See Elder of Ziyon’s takedown of the carefully edited Hezbollah – Al Manar – reporting on Noble Dina.)

Capability versus will

Why is it so important to go over these naval details?  To emphasize that merely showing up and tooling around in force doesn’t get the job done politically.  The US Navy has so much more force than Russia has in the Med right now that the comparison could be considered surreal.  But that force isn’t making a difference to developments in the Syria problem, because it is not being used in the service of any focused policy to settle the Syrian conflict favorably.  NATO has an overwhelming preponderance of force in the Med, but it is Russia that wields the effective veto over what the international community is going to do about Syria.       
One last piece before this post get’s put to bed.
Russia’s position on Syria- Myths and Realities

Another article that is worth reading entirely. I did.
Excerpting below:

First, I would like to make clear Russia categorically condemns any violence. The actions of President Bashar al-Assad’s government in the crisis can hardly be called exemplary and the perception Russia is ‘‘blindly supporting’’ the Syrian authorities is mistaken.

However, it is worth remembering that 25-30pc of those who have been killed in Syria were members of the security forces. It is wrong to say government tanks and artillery are confronting poorly armed civilians. Several dozen law enforcement personnel die in Syria every week in terrorist attacks.

Seeking to stoke tensions, opposition fighters disrupt power and water supplies and the work of shops. In the recent showdown in Homs, civilians were in effect hostages to the irreconcilable positions of the two sides.

So we believe it is crucial that the international community condemns not only the violence on the part of government forces, but also the armed actions of the opposition; that it demands the political opposition dissociate itself from extremists and that armed opposition groups leave population centres in conjunction with the withdrawal of government forces.

This was the aim of the Russian amendments to the draft resolutions of the UN Security Council and the General Assembly. Sadly, these ideas were not backed by many of our UN partners.

Just one more- and then this post get's tucked in!
Additionally diplomacy on Capital Hill -Russia makes its Syria case on Capitol Hill
The briefing was led by Russian embassy officials Anton Vushkarnik and Sergey Kuznetsov, according to the invitation, but several other embassy officials also spoke at the meeting. About half a dozen Senate staffers attended the briefing, which got pretty heated, according to congressional sources briefed on the meeting. The Russian embassy officials refused to acknowledge basic facts about the burgeoning conflict in Syria, including that Syrian President Bashar al-Assad continues to kill his own people. The Russia officials also claimed that an equal number of Syrian civilians have died at the hands of the Syrian opposition.

Senate staffers? Is that a signal? No one in Washington cares what the Russians have to say?
It would seem to be.


  1. Ah, the helicopter gunship gambit...standard fakery opp. Camera handily nearby to record. The link to the ?false flag? Red Cross camp fire is

    1. Felix in the video, where no one was actually shot.
      Are there ships in the distant background?
      What do you think?
      And could you identify the helicopter?
      I know some military buffs could, not me though..
      As for the Red Crescent fire-
      In Homs. I know there has still been sporadic rebel presence in the area. I would think they burned the place down
      Perhaps they though aid should only go to the rebels in the camps on the Turkish border

  2. In don't trust DEBKAfile as a source. The last time they were puffing about Russia defending Syria they were left out in the cold by Russia (I think it involved the special forces coming to Syria). The Russian paper that reported it only reported it in its Arabic version and Russian officials later disavowed the report as exaggerations.

    This report is similarly hyperbolic and lacks better sourcing/explanation. My understanding of support fleets, for instance U.S. carrier groups, is that there are a lot of ships and I don't think one supply vessel and one submarine along with this one destroyer are that substantial.

    Russian puffing its chest would look much different than this. It would send its finest vessels en masse and they would have VIPs announcing this fact rather than leak it to an obscure American blog.

    Also, I do think a signal was being sent by only sending staffers to deal with the Russian delegation. The U.S. is acting like Russia is taking the extreme position and is disprespecting them. Of course this is complete propaganda and treating Russia like dogs is part of the ploy.

    Of course Russia had the power to stand up for itself by vetoing the SC resolutoins rather than get humiliated by senate staffers. If Russia wanted to dispute the basic facts this was a much more effective venue than pleading to senate staffers! Indeed, they had a responsibility to ensure the basic facts were correct before they agreed to any SC resolution and the West should bear the burden of proof and they have proved to be liars so it's foolish for Russia to act like they are helpless now. They should have vetoed the resolution that will now be used to justify buffer zones, i.e. the military invasion of Syria.

    I simply can't accept the political negligence defense--that Russia got fooled by the West into greenlighting an attack on Syria. No way.

  3. Here's my analysis to try to discern the real Russian policy re Syria.

    Russia is "heping" Syria by:

    1) Pressuring Syria to accept the Anan plan to stave off regime change. It's Syria's last hope for peace or else Assad is a dead man, according to Russia.

    2) PR tactics like the Russian ambassador writing an opinion piece in the Telegraph weakly supporting Syria.

    3) A briefing jointly planned (!) by the Russian embassy delegation and U.S. congressional staffers where Russia can debate Syria and question the basic facts.

    4) Continue to honor weapons contracts with Syria (alhtough future weapons contracts are in doubt).

    5) Leak false reports about Russian military support for Syria (but maybe this is the West leaking). Maybe leak some other facts to the media that make the West look bad (?).

    6) Continue weapon system training and meetings with the Syrian army. Russian vessels will continue to make scheduled stops at its leased naval facilities.

    On the other hand, Russia has taken the opposite actions which openly harms Syria:

    1) Russia basically repudiated its treaty with Syria. The U.S. doesn't even have a treaty with Israel but acts like an attack on Israel will be treated as an attack on the U.S. Whereas Russia, even though it has a treaty with Syria, has explicitly said they will not defend Syria if she is attacked. Also, Russia has called into question future miiltary contracts which may jeopardize the treaty.

    2) Russia is allowing NATO to use more bases that will support operations in places like Afghanistan. Russia already allowed the U.S. and NATO unprecedented use of its former Central Asian bases after 9/11. Russia is allowing the U.S. greater control of the region by allowing military operations (even though jokes are made that only toilet paper will pass through--yeah right).

    3) Russia is providing a weak defense of Syria. Like many liberals, Russia is not focusing on the media fakery and obvious clandestine operations by the West in Syria. If Russia really wanted to protect Syria why not engage in a full throated defense and strongly condemn the West for meddling? Why not highlight CNN getting caught hanging out with terrorists while they blow up pipelines? Why not scream this at the staffers and the media rather than playing defense and trying to say both sides are equally guilty?

    4) Russia pressured Syria into agreeing to the Anan plan. If Russia knew the West's true intent was to conduct regime change, then it was foolish to give an inch to save a mile. It would have been much more effective to never give them the inch. The Anan plan is doomed to failure, it was not the last chance. Plus, Russia should have learned its lesson from Libya. They gave an inch and allowed a no fly resolution only to see the West ignore it and go beyond it.

    5) The total lack of any military puffing by Russia. We've had a couple of false alarms but nothing close to a real threat from Russia. If the situaiton were reversed, and it were a U.S. ally, like Israel (even though they aren't really an ally) that were being threatened by outside forces, the U.S. would puff itsmilitary chest even if it weren't ultimately going to use it.

    On the plus side, Russia is not doing enough, or is actually hurting Syria, and on the negative side, Russia has already basically condemned Syria.

    That's the way I see it anyway!

    1. The divisions in The Elite are for the media and for sheeple consumption only. Russia, UK, US, Iran, Saudis etc all take orders from the apex of the Pyramid.
      Search objective military analysts and they say that Russian behavior now is 100% consistent with their behavior back when they were our Illuminati Cold War 'enemies' vis a vis the ME. They never truly stood up to the west on behalf of their arab allies, in fact during 1967 War were caught helping the west by subtle omission!

  4. WWM: I don't know that there is one source that is always reliable
    Let's say DEBKA puts an interesting spin on things, all the time.

    "Russian puffing its chest would look much different than this. It would send its finest vessels en masse and they would have VIPs announcing this fact rather than leak it to an obscure American blog."

    The ship going to Syria did have mainstream coverage, I noted it the other day myself.

    "Of course Russia had the power to stand up for itself by vetoing the SC resolutoins rather than get humiliated by senate staffers."

    Which Russia has, twice.

    I believe this was an exercise in diplomatic niceties.

    "Indeed, they had a responsibility to ensure the basic facts were correct before they agreed to any SC resolution"

    Russia did not agree to any UN Security Council Resolution- they agreed to a UN statement- two different beasts.

    Personally, I do not think there will be any more attempts made to get this war on through the Security Council
    NATO will attack
    Think of Iraq- No Security Council Resolution.
    The US could not get one.
    Turkey will attack acting on behalf of NATO.IMO.

    As for Russia's finest. I am not sure of the condition of their naval fleet. However, I do not believe it to be any where near what the US has.

    As for ships that accompany.. I believe this is dependent on what is being sent.

    Quite frankly speaking I don't think this is a matter of ships, subs, destroyers or otherwise
    This will come down to long range ballistic missiles- Nuclear ones

    1. Good reminder about this merely being a statement and not resolution. But lack of legal authority didn't stop the West in Libya. Plus, Russia still may go along with another resolution.

      I'm not impressed with the two vetoes because they seem hollow after the one yea vote. It's like the camel's nose under the tent. Politics is often a staged game with fake opposition and the no votes gave Russia cover, it built up their bona fides, for a later sellout.

      And I agree with you that a real battle between these two nations could involve nukes. That's what really scared me a few months ago--when I saw Medvedev addressing the Russian people and talking about the measures he was taking to secure the nukes, etc. It was frightening. But now, as you can tell, I'm not so sure . . .

    2. Also . . . you're right the mainstream media reported the ship visiting the port, but DEBKA reported that special forces were on board and insinuated they would assist the Syrians. I don't know if DEBKA is misinformation or if the author is being used by his source, but it appears to be false because the Russians denied it. Plus, it was probably not a significant enough of a deployment to be a major threat. Anyway, since the claims of the anonymous source seem to be unreliable the author should do more to explain them. Was the last story amended? Is this the same source?

      Here is one of the claims:

      "Consigning the Smetliviy warship to Syria illustrates Moscow’s new rapid response policy" Rapid response policy? Where? How? Was this policy expressed by the Russians? Is it on paper? Are we just reading the arrival of this destroyer as the proof of the policy? I think this story needs more detail and as is it is very hyperbolic--which is questionable because the last story was hyperbolic and then denied by the Russian military.

    3. Russia or anyone nation denying anything means zip, zero, nothing.

      It simply means we are not talking about it.

      If someone asked Obama, are you involved in destabililizing Syria, he would say something to the effect of....

      We are involved in trying to save the lives of innocent civilians and stabilize the region to the benefit of everyone in the ME

      He would never simply say yes or no
      It is no different for Russia

  5. James or Chuckyman, or anyone else familiar with this type of military stuff....

    Feel free to clarify destroyers vs aircraft carriers and what accompanies this
    Also the reality long range missiles.

    I believe, but am not 100 percent sure that Russia can strike far from it territory via long range missiles
    But admit to not being up on the military aspect of all this

  6. hi Pen,
    Russia has had Inter Continental Ballistic Missiles (ICBM's) for decades and still has them as far as I know. So they can fire on the US if they choose.

    The ring of missiles that the US is putting around Russia is to give them 'first strike capability'. Meaning that they are close enough to take out Russia's defensive and offensive missile systems with a first strike and thus prevent Russia from retaliating and 'nuking' the US in return.

    I've left some comments in the comments section at WPC which might be of interest regarding Russia and destroyers-
    R2P - Responsibility To Protect

    Debkafile is a mouthpiece for Mossad just as the Telegraph is for MI5/6. So what is a Russian Ambassador doing writing an op-ed for them? How is this report suiting the interests of MI6 who are actively supporting the terrorists who are creating the trouble in Syria?

Ambassador, Alexander Yakovenko, does not mention NATO nor the fact that they are creating the trouble by equipping, training and transporting the armed 'rebels' into Syria.

    Yakovenko is characterising the fighting in Syria as a civil war when it is in fact, an armed aggression by foreign nations by proxy; an act of war. Whole different deal.

    Russia is internally divided and I believe the balance of power within Russia will shift with Putin's accession to the presidency (and therefore in control of foreign policy) in May.

    1. Hey James:

      I didn't come away with the idea he was talking about a civil war happening at this time. But, does mention it will happen.
      As in Libya.

      " It is wrong to say government tanks and artillery are confronting poorly armed civilians. Several dozen law enforcement personnel die in Syria every week in terrorist attacks."

      which it is.

      Then near the bottom of the article he mentions the civil war aspect vs a soft landing for Syria and Syrians.

      I found the piece interesting, but, definitely noticed it is all couched in diplospeak and definitely dumbed down.

      So who is the audience for that editorial?
      The average Joe and Jane? Yes.
      Which is why I think it is devoid of specific terminology
      such as NATO - R2P guerilla war- destabilization etc.,

      Language that would be used here all the time-but not in a piece appealing in essence to the lowest common denominator.
      Even his use of the word "terrorist" attacks
      This is how everything is presented via the media to the masses-Everything is terror or terrorists constantly.
      With this piece he was speaking to the masses.
      The Telegraph had nothing to lose in publishing it.
      It would have enabled them to appear 'unbiased'
      And the media is so very concerned about appearances

  7. A further point, Pen, is that the Russia has the Sunburn Missile -
    "Many years ago, Soviet planners gave up trying to match the US Navy ship for ship, gun for gun, and dollar for dollar. The Soviets simply could not compete with the high levels of US spending required to build up and maintain a huge naval armada. They shrewdly adopted an alternative approach based on strategic defense. They searched for weaknesses, and sought relatively inexpensive ways to exploit those weaknesses. The Soviets succeeded: by developing several supersonic anti-ship missiles, one of which, the SS-N-22 Sunburn, has been called “the most lethal missile in the world today.” . . . .
    . . . The Sunburn’s combined supersonic speed and payload size produce tremendous kinetic energy on impact, with devastating consequences for ship and crew. A single one of these missiles can sink a large warship, yet costs considerably less than a fighter jet.. . .
    . . . The US Navy’s only plausible defense against a robust weapon like the Sunburn missile is to detect the enemy’s approach well ahead of time, whether destroyers, subs, or fighter-bombers, and defeat them before they can get in range and launch their deadly cargo. For this purpose US AWACs radar planes assigned to each naval battle group are kept aloft on a rotating schedule. The planes “see” everything within two hundred miles of the fleet, and are complemented with intelligence from orbiting satellites."

    Good luck with that. Once the Sunburn missile has been launched, the target is dead in the water. See full article here

    1. I haven't read it all yet, but, this sentence caught my eye
      as in WOW

      "Not only did the Sunburn missile destroy the dummy target ship, it scored a perfect bull’s eye, hitting the crosshairs of a large “X” mounted on the ship’s bridge."

  8. @Walter, @Penny
    you concentrate too much what Russia is doing to help Syria, yes Russia has the UNSC veto but that would not hinder the Zionists. What has paused the Syrian question is Iran, the Zionist thru Turkey tried to blackmail Iran and failed, Iran has said that it fully backs Assad and it's reform. I think Iran would go to war over this and the Zionist are not yet ready. Same as Iran has openly said that it would back Armenia if Islamist and Zionist attempted some mischief in that country. Russia and the weasel Mededev would sell Syria to their Zionist masters but for the red line drawn by Patriarch Kirill, i know I keep banging on about this but that is what the street in Russia supports.

    Publish as OpenID does not work!

    1. Hi Anonymous

      "Russia has the UNSC veto but that would not hinder the Zionists."

      I completely agree with that! In my response to WWM that is what I stated

      "Personally, I do not think there will be any more attempts made to get this war on through the Security Council"

      I don't think Russia has the best Navy
      Nor do I think they have the capabilities to stop an attack
      I had a map up showing the US bases surrounding Syria, including the one in Turkey, used also by Israel.

      What has been going on between Russia/China and the US is a battle for the mind.
      And the realization that someone may take out the big guns.

      As for OPEN ID not working? I really have no idea why?
      I know yesterday, I was having a heck of a time just seeing comments. It was weird!

      Patriarch Krill- Saw something about him the other day???
      I will keep my eye on what he is saying. Thanks

    2. Anonymous: have you tried just commenting with your google account as opposed to OpenID?
      Just a thought?

    3. I think you're right anonymous about Iran.

      I'm far from an expert, but I get the sense that Iran, Syria, and Hizbullah could pack a punch if they counter attacked together. I suspect this trio has figured out they are a target and probably realize their best defense would be a full counter attack as soon as one of them is attacked or invaded.

      I wonder if there is a way for Iran to get its missiles on Syrian soil. By sea I guess. This would expand their area of potential attack so they may be able to reach France? UK?

      I would guess the counter attack would focus on oil targets. But who knows, maybe they focus all attention on U.S. ships in the region, and then maybe U.S. bases in Iraq and Afghanistan. Maybe they focus on the Gulf state governments like Saudi Arabia.

  9. hi Pen, I'm sorry this reply isn't under the relevant comment of yours but the little "reply" button under the individual comments doesn't work for me for some reason.

    You wrote, "I didn't come away with the idea he was talking about a civil war happening at this time. But, does mention it will happen.
    As in Libya.

    Yes, granted. But my point is that the reader is being led into the idea with all the mentions of other civil wars; that the trouble is between two legitimate internal interest groups who can claim to legitimately represent a large faction of Syrians.

    Not true! The 'opposition' is by and large a foreign invasion force who have no right to be sitting down with the Syrian govt and claiming to represent Syrians. It's a mind job.

    Case in point, Libya was not a civil war. It was an invasion by NATO and some proxies giving it some 'fig leaf' cover.

    "The Telegraph had nothing to lose in publishing it."

    Exactly. It's op-ed pieces like this from Ambassador Yakovneko that lead people like 'anonymous' to claim it is all theatre and there is no real conflict because the elite control everything. But it is not that simple as the fight over IMF leadership last year exposed and the Georgian/South Ossetia war before that. I'm hoping Yankovenko will get his chain pulled in a month's time by Putin.

    Anonymous, you can click on the "Name/URL" option and fill in the 'name' box and leave the url box unfilled. Or simply sign your name at the bottom of your comment.

    1. I would be interested in revisiting the Georgian/South Ossetian war as well as the IMF leadership issue to test the competing hypotheses. I wonder if there is any evidence that these incidents were theatrical productions (although deadly theater in the case of South Ossetia).

    2. Yes James, there is a danger of thinking that the 'elite' are omni-powerful and micro-manage all situations. Rather I think they set players on a stage with some direction then let them play their interacting parts - so there is a degree of 'free-will' and chaos involved. Old Nick has to keep himself amused somehow after-all (forgive my whimsy).

      Of course Russia, and the BRICs as a whole, might be getting set up as the dialectical opposition to NATO and the NWO. The game will play out soon enough. We live in interesting times.

    3. Penny, it might seem that I'm belittling the situation here with my whimsy and gallows humour but I'm well aware that these elite creeps are playing god with real people. Things are bad when old folk in Greece would rather kill themselves than live in misery and abject poverty. Our Police-States are being built up for a reason - they just haven't bothered to tell us why yet.

  10. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

  11. Hey James; I deleted your comment because it was a double of the one above.
    I checked the spam and it was just full!
    Yesterday, I was having a hell of a time seeing comments, right up until this am.
    Nothing would show!
    The comment count was off and everything.

    Now to your comment :)

    "But my point is that the reader is being led into the idea with all the mentions of other civil wars; that the trouble is between two legitimate internal interest groups who can claim to legitimately represent a large faction of Syrians."

    That is a good point and one I had not thought of. Sometimes... because I have followed this for so long I don't think from the perspective of one who knows far less. Since I am aware it is an armed destabilization I wrongly think all others should be aware of that too
    So, good point James!

    In reference to the comment about the Telegraph publishing that piece.

    "It's op-ed pieces like this from Ambassador Yakovneko that lead people like 'anonymous' to claim it is all theatre and there is no real conflict because the elite control everything."

    I feel very ambivalent about those types of statement, letting them stand, but is it "theatre" to the people dying and their families?
    It isn't. And when statements such as that are made, the impression can be taken from them that the situation is belittled.
    I don't feel comfortable with that when I know human beings are suffering and dying.

    Alternatively I do realize that there is a lot of games/angles/agendas at play especially via the media.