Friday, December 14, 2012

Syria: Russian position unchanged. Russian missiles and US anti- missiles

A mishmash of news reports:
Russia regarding Syria. Russia's new missiles. US Patriots to Turkey (and troops)
Hillary Clinton Benghazi testimony, Susan Rice fall out from Benghazi incident.

The “big news” yesterday in the Western main stream media that Russia had “changed it’s position” regarding Syria. I read numerous reports and there was nothing in any of the statements made by the Russian diplomat that indicated this was even what was being implied. My take on the statements made fall in line with this.....

“The only conclusion we can make is that the Russian Foreign Ministry is very realistic about what is happening there,” he said. “There are no illusions about the trend. But we can understand the Russian position has not changed.”

It seems only rational that Russia has considered a multitude of possibilities regarding the outcome of the destabilization of Syria. As has the NATO war machine? The multitude of possible NATO justifications to overtly, as opposed to covertly, attack Syria run the usual gamut. Chemical Weapons!Terrorism ! Humanitarianism!  Lions, tigers and bears oh my!! NATO has embraced multiple possibilities. Why would anyone believe that Russia has not also embraced multiple possibilities? That would seem foolish. That said, the spin was over the top vis a vis the media yesterday. Therefore, it should come as no surprise to see multiple headlines such as this today

Russia Steps Back From Envoy’s Comments on Syria

"We have never changed our position and will not change it,” said the Foreign Ministry spokesman, Aleksandr K. Lukashevich, at a briefing. He rejected a comment made by a State Department spokesman on Thursday that Moscow had “woken up” and changed its position as dynamics shifted on the battlefield, saying “we have never been asleep."
 You know what they say about assuming?

Aleksander Lakashevich continues “In the given situation, we are not talking about the fate of leaders, we are talking about the fate of people,” he said.
More on that topic here 
Along with the corrections Russia auspiciously made this announcement today.

Russia developing new long-range ballistic missile MOSCOW - Agence France- Presse
Russia is developing a new intercontinental ballistic missile, the military announced on Friday, in an apparent attempt to remind the United States of Moscow's rocket capacities.

Revealing the existence of the project for the first time, rocket forces commander General Sergei Karakayev said that several test launches of prototypes had already taken place and the work was on the "right path", Russian state media said.

Karakayev said the latest test was on October 24 at the Kapustin Yar firing range in the Astrakhan region of southern Russia. (Did my anonymous link person leave info regarding these missile tests?)

He appeared to link the solid-fuel missile's development to controversial US plans to install missile defence systems in central Europe which have long angered Moscow.

"The solid fuel missile will allow us to realise possibilities like the creation of a high-precision strategic missile with a non-nuclear warhead with practically global range," Karakayev was quoted as saying by the state RIA Novosti news agency.

He said that the new 100-tonne missile would be able to overcome any existing missile defence system.

Karakayev added the missile would also be effective in combating any future missile defence system that the United States could install in space.

He said that the missile would ultimately replace Russia's new generation of intercontinental missiles the Yars and Topol-M.

Speaking of missiles.... or in this case Anti Missiles
United States to Deploy Anti-Missile Units in Turkey
Defense Secretary Leon E. Panetta signed an official deployment order on Friday to send 400 American military personnel and two Patriot air defense batteries to Turkey as cross-border tensions with Syria intensify.
The American batteries will be part of a broader push to beef up Turkey’s defenses that will also include the deployment of four other Patriot batteries — two from Germany and two from the Netherlands.
All six units will be under NATO’s command (US Command)and are scheduled to be operational by the end of January, according to officials in Washington.
Obama just has to say when.....

What about Hillary Clinton?  She, who allegedly has a stomach flu and skipped out on the latest  Enemies (Friends) of Syria meeting. Will this flu make it impossible for her to testify at the Benghazi hearing next week? If it does that must be one heck of a bug! Perhaps Hillary didn’t get her flu shot?  State Dept: Clinton may not testify on Benghazi next week

The House and Senate foreign relations committees have already announced that Secretary of State Hillary Clinton will testify on Benghazi next week, but the State Department said today that's not a done deal.

Moreover, the State Department may not even share the report of its own internal review on Benghazi with Congress, a top State Department official said today.

 The House Foreign Affairs Committee has also already announced its Dec. 20 hearing featuring Clinton's testimony. The title of the HFAC hearing is "Benghazi Attack, Part II: The Report of the Accountability Review Board"

But State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland said today that the ARB is not complete, might not be complete by Dec. 20, and Clinton has not agreed to testify on Dec. 20.
 Related to the Benghazi 'incident'

 Susan Rice withdrew from consideration for heading up the State Department
The reluctant announcement makes Massachusetts Sen. John Kerry the likely choice to be the nation's next top diplomat when Hillary Rodham Clinton departs soon.

John Kerry as the shoe in. Mr Skull and Bones. Of course,John Kerry is heavily involved with investigating what exactly went on in Benghazi. You know getting to the bottom of it. Leaving no stone unturned, etc., etc.

 Sen. John Kerry, chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee said in a statement today announcing the hearing.

"We ask our diplomats and development personnel to operate in some of the most dangerous places on the planet." "We owe it to them, and we owe it to the memory of Ambassador Chris Stevens and his three fellow Americans who lost their lives in Benghazi to get past the politics and focus on the substance of what happened and what it tells us about diplomatic security going forward."
John Kerry, the next head of the US State Department?....We just have to wait and see

Was this news story leaked to soon? You know before any 'scuds' actually flew? wink,wink.
Looks as if the msm was catapulting the propaganda to soon
A thought: the bogus "scud" or "scud like missiles" is more justification for the Patriots
But,what about those Iskanders????

Syrian Scuds land near Turkish border - NATO

Reuters UK - ‎33 minutes ago‎
BRUSSELS | Fri Dec 14, 2012 9:59pm GMT. BRUSSELS (Reuters) - Several Scud missiles fired at rebels by Syria have landed "fairly close" to the Turkish border, NATO's top military commander said on Friday in a blog explaining why Patriot anti-missile ...
Originating with the NATO news nerve centre in Brussels

When one actually clicks the link through to the story there is no mention of scuds at all
Headline and opening paragraph...

U.S., rebels urge gloomy Moscow to help oust Assad

Syria's rebel leadership and the United States seized on Russian pessimism over President Bashar al-Assad's future to urge Moscow to help push its ally into ceding power and end the battles closing in around his capital.
"We want to commend the Russian government for finally waking up to the reality and acknowledging that the regime's days are numbered," the U.S. State Department spokeswoman said after a senior Kremlin envoy conceded publicly on Thursday that Assad's opponents could win the 20-month-old civil war.

Why am I having a 9/11 flashback moment?: Building 7

Updating yet again!!! : Sat AM

Now when one clicks that link this story appears- note the time difference and the headline change
The wording has gone from scuds land near to scuds hit "near" Also the story is originating with Oliver Holmes in Beirut.

NATO says Syrian Scuds hit "near" Turkey
Fri Dec 14, 2012 11:27pm GMT
 NATO accused Syrian President Bashar al-Assad's forces of firing Scud missiles that landed near to the Turkish border, in explaining why it was sending anti-missile batteries and troops to the bloc's frontier.
 The Syrian government, which finds itself under attack from rebels in the capital Damascus and by a diplomatic alliance of Arab and Western powers, denies firing such long-range, Soviet-built rockets and had no immediate comment on the latest charge.

What is also interesting is that this is a rehash of the story from a few days ago written to appear as if it is just happening.
Crucial part:

"Over the past few days, a handful of Scud missiles were launched inside Syria, directed by the regime against opposition targets. Several landed fairly close to the Turkish border, which is very worrisome."
Over the past few days? Extremely vague. Over the past few days does not mean yesterday or today.

It appears the propaganda wasn't firmed up enough to properly catapult at the earlier time.
Later it seems the msm got their story lines straight? In order? Or properly prepared??
Or ready to launch?


  1. I agree Penny that the headlines quotes from the Russian official were spun to exaggerate Russia's "change." Russia has stuck to the same vague platitudes re Syria from the beginning . . . that Syrians must decide their own fate and armed rebellion isn't the answer.

    But I previously highlighted the one part of his speech that I thought was important:

    "Bogdanov, a deputy foreign minister and the Kremlin's special envoy for Middle East affairs, said the Syrian government was "losing control of more and more territory" and Moscow was preparing to evacuate Russian citizens if necessary."

    So Russia slips in support for the idea that the Syrian government has lost control of its territory which of course will provide justification for a no-fly zone or another "humanitarian" war by NATO. I have no idea if this Russian official let the truth slip, but I'm suspicious.

    First, this official does not speak and does not get promoted unless he has the support from the very highest levels of the Russian government. Second, why make this statement without further explanation or caveat? Why not say that no one knows the real facts on the ground? Third, we have seen a concerted effort to advance this meme of rebels gaining ground for a while now and I'm positive we have seen many false reports. War propaganda. So the Russian claim of rebel gains seems consistent with that plan. The timing is suspicious because all the previous claims have led up to this Russian claim which is supposed to carry extra weight because the Russians are putative allies of Syria.

    Lastly, why doesn't Russia punish the West for its aggressive wars? Why not refuse to join the WTO, refuse to allow NATO use of bases and territory, object to all missile placements from Poland to Turkey to Bulgaria, and also sell Syria advanced weapons?

    1. WWM: You ask so many tough questions. I wish that I could answer them and yet I cannot..sigh

      I haven't been able to ascertain the context in which this comment was made. What came before, what followed after
      This would shed more light on things for sure.

      "Lastly, why doesn't Russia punish the West for its aggressive wars?"

      I am really not so sure that they can? I just don't know?
      Russia taking on NATO??

      Russia has supplied Syria with currency, that has enabled Syria to keep itself running
      I would also think that Russia is offering help with intelligence, surveillance etc?
      Remember when the Turkish drone was taken out? I suspected Russia had more to do with that then let on.
      Then there is the question of the Iskander missile?
      Wish I knew Walt. I wish I knew????

  2. But I agree there is nothing sinister in admitting Syria will probably fall to its more powerful attackers. Even many of us that oppose war still admit this reality. But Russia is not taking the proper lessons from this reality. Why work with and support the people that illegally attacked Syria? Why would Russia support any NATO country anymore? Why have relations (especially favored relations) with your supposed adversary that is illegally attacking your allies?

    As I've said all along, Russia has no interest in defending Syria and has said as much about a year ago. They already had the chance to transfer (for a profit) advanced weaponry (such as anti ship missiles) to Syria and chose not to at the request of Israel and NATO. Russia has agreed to allow Patriot missiles in Turkey.

    Sure, Russia can throw their hands up in the air like they did with Libya and pretend they got rolled, but I'm not buying it. It does not make sense that a country that really wanted to oppose Western hegemony would act so naively.

    Russia sticks to platitudes for the cover story. Just like the Democrats. For instance, the Democrats pretended like they wanted socialized health care or at least single payer health care (or even the "public option") and kept repeating the same platitudes over and over while their actions slowly gave away the game. They were really working for the insurance and pharmaceutical companies Russia and the Democrats exist to control the opposition.

    1. Hey WWM

      I am going to point you over to Syrian Perspective

      Certain you have seen this blog previously

      Ziad being Syrian born offers a perspective I cannot

    2. I think Freethinker or Felix pointed me to Syrian Perspective before.

      I found the 2nd post of Dec. 13 overly optimistic re Russia, but some of it was interesting:

      Here is how we read Mr. Bogdanov's statement. It was meant to be understood that Russia might intervene, and soon, on the ground in Syria to prevent a NATO-Terrorist victory of the kind seen in Libya. There has to be a justification for such intervention; the West needed it for Libya and used its specious argument for "defending civilians" as the basis. When Sergei Lavrov announces clearly that the United States has violated its agreement under the Geneva Declaration; that NATO is, in fact, directly involved in fighting in Syria; you will know that the atmosphere is right for a full Russian commitment to Syria's defense. Once Russia makes this announcement, Iran's forces will begin pouring across Iraq to begin the much-anticipated process of exterminating the Jihadist garbage infesting Syria. . . .

      The CIA hasn't predicted this yet. But, we will. Dr. Assad is going to pull all the stops on the traitors in Lebanon. Hizbollah will nullify its previously cultivated neutrality and join in the affray. Iranian troops are waiting for the legitimization of Russia's announcement that the Geneva Declaration is dead and, then, adopt a policy of constructive involvement. Russia will begin flying MiG31Bs in our airspace. Then, the Big Rat in Washington will know when the endgame started; the Big Bear will have begun its last gambit . Ziad Amin Abu Fadel.

      I see no chance of Migs fighting NATO planes in Syria or sending troops to fight. I wonder how many average Syrians hold out for the same false hope.

      Now the Iranian angle is interesting. I don't know why Syrian Perspective thinks Iran needs Russia to declare the Geneva Declaration dead before Iran intervenes. Remember Iran and Syria have a mutual defense pact and they have not shared the exact terms of this agreement but one must assume Iran is obligated to defend Syria as long as it is under attack and Syria requests help. It's obvious Syria is under attack from the GCC and Turkey and NATO countries. Iran has previously said they remain willing and able to send troops but Syria has not requested this as they are dealing with the attacks on their own just fine now.

      I don't know how easily Iran could deploy its troops to the Golan Heights as Syrian Perspective states.

      I will be watching to see if this war quickly spreads throughout the region. In fact, it may be in Syria's interest to bring Iran in as quickly as possible. I do have a few doubts about Iran; that like Russia they may be punking Syria. But who knows. Things are even more murky now than before.

    3. And notice what a strong power does when it wants to intervene militarily . . . it just does it. The U.S. sent 400 troops to man their advanced missiles. Russia is alleged to have sent Iskander missiles to Syria. But it's *weird* that the story originates with the Iranian Republican Guard Media arm, via WND, and there are no Russian officials confirming this. Why not announce the transfer of these missiles? Did Russia even send these or did Iran? Did it even happen? Can someone translate the Farsi article? And of course there are no Russian troops there which of course would really show Russia is serious. Who is going to man the missiles? Russia has even more of a justification and right to send troops to the region so the fact they did not and NATO is tells the whole story.

      And how is Russia going to send Migs? The U.S. has around 11 aircraft carriers and Russian's sole carrier is in dry dock. France is reported to have already sent a carrier but this may be Western disinformation or Iranian/Russian propaganda (or the truth) as the story only appears in Voice of Russia and PressTV, etc..

  3. on massacre of alawites
    locals say killers were not syrian

  4. The counter insurgency battle is now fully functioning. The triumph of the SAAF against the rats in Damascus and Homs shows that in the not too distant future (I give 2-3 months) they will triumph, there is too be a major counter attack very soon. While having Russian political support is important, it is more important Iranian counter insurgency tactics. The Iranians are experts in asymmetrical and counter insurgency war. They have been preparing against an enemy which they could never defeat in open warfare. As the winter solstice approaches, Saudi, Japan will start to crumble, natural disasters will rock the world and USaians will begin to protest more vigorously(60 million still leaving from hand to mouth from the effects of hurricane Sandy). Do not despair WWW and dearest Penny. When you har the settlers running out of the Hate state called Israel you know the end is near for the Khazaars.

  5. "What about Hillary Clinton? She, who allegedly has a stomach flu and skipped out on the latest Enemies (Friends) of Syria meeting. Will this flu make it impossible for her to testify at the Benghazi hearing next week? If it does that must be one heck of a bug! Perhaps Hillary didn’t get her flu shot?"

    Hillary Clinton feints (sic)
    "Washington (CNN) -- U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton sustained a concussion after becoming dehydrated and fainting, and will no longer testify Thursday before the House Foreign Affairs Committee on the deadly attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya."

    1. Shoot. That totally screws up my fantasy political team.

      Ha. What a charade.

      "Sic" may not be necessary, as "feint" works pretty well:

      feint (fnt)
      1. A feigned attack designed to draw defensive action away from an intended target.
      2. A deceptive action calculated to divert attention from one's real purpose.

  6. I guess the 'Admiral Kuznetsov', Russia's sole aircraft carrier, is currently in the Med and near Syria:

    I guess the plans to put the ship in dry dock (which I note above) have been delayed/cancelled? Odd there is no MSM coverage of the aircraft carrier news (including French, U.S., and Russian--are these now state secrets or hard facts to report?).

    What's this mean?

    Russia to save the day, per SyrPer?

    Russia to make one more visit to Tartus as disinformation/feint, i.e. Russia is pretending it is going to save the day?

    The Admiral Kuznetsov will be used in a false flag attack and not the USS Enterprise, as some feared?

    Russia is sending its ships to protect its interests (but not defend Syria) as it knows a Western attack is imminent?