Thread: Syria

Originally Posted by Crocodile

Evidence you say? I think we don't have any reliable evidence whatsoever.

There are already plenty of reports from locals that the SAS and SBS are operating in the area.
It is virtually guaranteed that they do - this is exactly the type of situation that those operations exist for. They'd lose their funding if they did not get in there, and get some action going that serves the UKs interests.

That aside - there is a GIGANTIC Wikileaks email archive relating solely to Syria being released onto Wikileaks today.
It is said to be hugely embarassing not only for Syria but for a number of Western powers.

So let's see how much evidence there is, or isn't! I'd say this is a considerably more violent take on the "colour revolutions" and how much foreign influence was behind this is a question that is under debate, as far as I understand it.

I think the Syrians will find that they were considerably better off BEFORE any Western invasion, or before letting the country descend into total chaos and lawlessness. No Syrians qualified for refugee status in the EU prior to this - which essentially means that the treatment of people in Syria (including dissidents) was considered to be so lenient that there was no reason why any would-be refugee could not be sent straight home - i.e. there was no point for them to claim asylum. This, to me, means there was no huge problem with a draconian state that persecuted people. As a comparison, a politically active Kurd from Turkey who seeks political asylum, ususually gets it eventually. Same with anyone who had problems with the state in the USSR, in the 80s, or people from Uzbekistan today, who claim to be religious moslems. The situation in Syria was that people could be members of opposition groups and nothing much happened.

Originally Posted by Yale Underground Journal of Politics

Despite decades of political repression in Syria, Harvard graduate and Arabic teacher Richard Cozzens notes the complete absence of palpable tension during his stays in Syria from 2005-2009. Quite the opposite, he pointed to visible Syrian unity. “People were waving flags and putting up pro-government signs and propaganda on a constant basis.” The people loved Assad. He was perceived as a charismatic leader who ushered in a wave of growing consumerism that was altogether foreign during his father’s control. After the invasion of Iraq, Syrians were united by their hatred of President Bush. They rallied behind intense patriotism; Assad’s anti-Bush declarations fueled his popularity as national pride soared.

The question is, what happened next. They all changed their mind - why?

Originally Posted by Hanna

The question is, what happened next. They all changed their mind - why?

Have they all loved Assad and now they all hate him?

Originally Posted by Crocodile

Have they all loved Assad and now they all hate him?

It is a manner of speech as you very well know.

Originally Posted by Hanna

It is a manner of speech as you very well know.

Some people were happy with Assad and some were not. The popularity of a politician changes as the events occur and the politician's reaction is scrutinized by the public. Putin was much more popular in 2005-2009 than he is in 2012. Is that the evidence for the SAS and SBS working actively in Moscow? Yeltzin was very popular in 1991 and was very much unpopular several years later. The question is, what happened next. They all changed their mind - why?

Based on what your quote said, "Assad’s anti-Bush declarations fueled his popularity as national pride soared." So, Bush is not in the office for long time. A gazillion of other things happened in Syria and other countries in the region. Some people disliked the way Assad treated "the bandits and hooligans" as the official propaganda mentioned, some military officers left the army and joined the insurgents, and many more things which might have affected the popularity of Assad. And if you absolutely write off all domestic reasons, why the US again? Why not Israel, for a change? Israel and Syria are not the best friends, won't you think? Assad threatened to attack Israel, if foreign countries intervene, remember? So, wouldn't that be in the best interest of Israel to support the seemingly domestic revolt in Syria so that Assad steps down? All I'm saying is that 'all roads lead to Rome' is an overly-simplistic approach. And paranoid, yes.

Originally Posted by Crocodile

Why not Israel, for a change? Israel and Syria are not the best friends, won't you think?

Lol because Quatar and Turkey(especially under Erdogan) are not the best friends of Israel either. Israel seems to try to be uninvolved unlike the USA and Turkey.

Originally Posted by Crocodile

Assad threatened to attack Israel, if foreign countries intervene, remember? So, wouldn't that be in the best interest of Israel to support the seemingly domestic revolt in Syria so that Assad steps down? All I'm saying is that 'all roads lead to Rome' is an overly-simplistic approach. And paranoid, yes.

Israel has a 30-years old signed armistice with Syria. Why would it need Assad removed and islamists at power?

The Syrian regime has strong opposition and under pressure - it cannot make a successful invasion in Israel at any rate. Assad is also well influenced by Russia.

Bombing of Syria on the other hand may lead to unpredictable consequences for Israel - for example, involvement of Iran, involvement of Israel in the war etc.


But there is one serious reason why Israel may consider supporting the USA the best way. We all know that the USA will win this conflict. They will bomb Syria, then bomb Iran, then they will breakup Russia and China. I have no doubt that this will happen soon. And being on the side of the winners is always beneficial. If Israel sided with the USSR during the Cold War, there would be no Israel by now.

Originally Posted by Anixx

Israel has a 30-years old signed armistice with Syria. Why would it need Assad removed and islamists at power?

Excellent question. And why the US would want Assad removed and the islamists at power? Why the US would want Mubarak removed and islamists at power?

I'm not 100% thrilled with what the US was and is doing, but to say the US is responsible for just about anything (which I think is implied from some posts of some people on this forum) is paranoia.

Originally Posted by Anixx

The Syrian regime has strong opposition and under pressure - it cannot make a successful invasion in Israel at any rate.

I would agree with you here, Syria could probably not make a successful invasion right now, and it probably couldn't make it around 2005-2009 either despite the alleged popularity of Assad back then. But "attacking" does not necessarily mean "invasion". Attacking would be provoking Israel for retaliation and thus igniting the entire Middle East and possibly other regions.

Originally Posted by Anixx

Bombing of Syria on the other hand may lead to unpredictable consequences for Israel - for example, involvement of Iran, involvement of Israel in the war etc.

I agree, so there would probably be no bombing, only the civil war.

Originally Posted by Anixx

But there is one serious reason why Israel may consider supporting the USA the best way. We all know that the USA will win this conflict. They will bomb Syria, then bomb Iran, then they will breakup Russia and China. I have no doubt that this will happen soon. And being on the side of the winners is always beneficial.

That is a scenario which I'm afraid of. Back in December last year (Protests in Syria) I tried to discuss it, but the conversation kind of switched to.. as usual. You see, I think if the US is involved in just another big conflict, it will not win it. There has been lots of political work done to popularize the opinion that the US is trying to own every corner of the world, enough for most people on the plant to dislike it. On the other hand, the economy of the US probably incapable of taking on such huge undertaking. At the same time, Americans are tired of the situation when the country is constantly at war, the public money is spent lavishly on nothing productive and people are constantly dying somewhere on the other side of the globe for many years. The real motivation of 'fighting terrorism' is something of the past. Also, take into consideration other purely technical economic factors like the real dollar value, huge deficit, etc. Meaning, a big war might likely cause the shift of the entire global economic focus, from the countries involved and devastated by the war and the countries uninvolved or involved to the lesser extent. Something similar to the outcome of the previous world wars - European Empires lost the focus as it had shifted to the less involved/devastated US. Now, let's look at the countries which are going to be actively involved in the WWIII: Middle East (oil suppliers), the US, Israel, China, Russia. All these countries would eventually lose their economic power (and might even be divided). However, I agree the NATO would most likely be the winner (with the US ultimately losing dominance). Who stays in the global economic game? Germany, France, Italy. Most notably - Germany (as it is presently economically dominant even under the very tough conditions). Germany is keeping relatively quiet, but that is who I think is behind the Arab Spring. (And 9/11 for that matter.) Germany does not talk much - it acts. And I think it will be the ultimate winner.

Originally Posted by Anixx

If Israel sided with the USSR during the Cold War, there would be no Israel by now.

An interesting thought, maybe a bit off topic. I think you mean that the capitalist US is crushing the socialistic regimes? You see, as far as I know, Israel had been sided with the USSR at the earlier stages - the secular Jews were, at their majority, socialists. I'm not exactly sure what went wrong between the USSR and Israel, maybe Israel was a way too nationalist, or the formation of Israel inspired nationalistic Jewish movement inside the USSR, which was crushed by Stalin, and Israel did not like that.. not sure. Anyway, I think the nationalistic considerations prevail any other in Israel, so Israel would probably be less sensitive to the socialism-capitalism shift. Meaning, there would still be Israel by now.

Originally Posted by Crocodile

Excellent question. And why the US would want Assad removed and the islamists at power? Why the US would want Mubarak removed and islamists at power?

It can be definitely seen that the US vocally supported the overthrow of Mubarak and Israel was against that (they even issued an official call to the European powers to keep Mubarak at power).
This is a fact. Now why it is so? This is another, more difficult question. But the Islamists are generally considered more right-wing regimes than the socialists and the secular nationalists. And the USA usually supports the right.
This is not the first time the USA supported islamists. They did so in Afghanistan, in Chechnya, in Kosovo, in Libya etc etc. Their most close allies are the fundamentalist monarchies of the Persian gulf.

Originally Posted by Crocodile

I'm not 100% thrilled with what the US was and is doing, but to say the US is responsible for just about anything (which I think is implied from some posts of some people on this forum) is paranoia.

Have you seen the film "Revolution.com - USA: The Conquest of the East"? The USA are the professional revolution and rebellion exporters worldwide, in Asia, in Africa, in Europe and in Latin America.
Even if somebody does the dirty work, the USA supports them in international organizations and with money.

Originally Posted by Crocodile

I would agree with you here, Syria could probably not make a successful invasion right now, and it probably couldn't make it around 2005-2009 either despite the alleged popularity of Assad back then. But "attacking" does not necessarily mean "invasion". Attacking would be provoking Israel for retaliation and thus igniting the entire Middle East and possibly other regions.

There is no need (and ability) for Syria to engage in war with Israel in peacetime. As I already said, the Syrian regime is weak, has strong domestic enemies and values good relations with Russia. Syrian nuclear objects had been attacked by Israel about 2007 but Syria did not make any retaliation. They missed a good opportunity to "ignite the entire middle East" if this was their aim. But it is not.

Originally Posted by Crocodile

I agree, so there would probably be no bombing, only the civil war.

I am not sure in that. Israel definitely does not want to be involved but for the West attack on Israel would be an excellent PR excuse for full-scale invasion in both Syria and Iran.

Originally Posted by Crocodile

That is a scenario which I'm afraid of. Back in December last year (Protests in Syria) I tried to discuss it, but the conversation kind of switched to.. as usual. You see, I think if the US is involved in just another big conflict, it will not win it. There has been lots of political work done to popularize the opinion that the US is trying to own every corner of the world, enough for most people on the plant to dislike it.

LOL. It does not matter what the people wants in the USA. No US political force as of now promotes non-involvement. The only thing that can make the US retreat are the heavy losses among ordinary people. But since Vietnam war the army in the US is not conscripted and the losses are negligibly small (less than of a comparable group of civilians). With the Obama's technology of non-contact war (for which he is widely praised) the costs become negligible as well.

Originally Posted by Crocodile

On the other hand, the economy of the US probably incapable of taking on such huge undertaking. At the same time, Americans are tired of the situation when the country is constantly at war, the public money is spent lavishly on nothing productive and people are constantly dying somewhere on the other side of the globe for many years. The real motivation of 'fighting terrorism' is something of the past. Also, take into consideration other purely technical economic factors like the real dollar value, huge deficit, etc.

You possibly do not understand what keeps the value of dollar. It is instability in every country except the USA. With any war and crisis in any part of the world the value of dollar sharply rises. The investors have to take their money from Middle East, Asia, Europe and invest them in the "safe heaven" of American treasuries and other dollar-valued assets. This way any war without exception is highly profitable for US economy. Even more profitable would be instability in Russia, China or other big country.

Originally Posted by Crocodile

Meaning, a big war might likely cause the shift of the entire global economic focus, from the countries involved and devastated by the war and the countries uninvolved or involved to the lesser extent. Something similar to the outcome of the previous world wars - European Empires lost the focus as it had shifted to the less involved/devastated US.

The US has so much military superiority over every country in the world except maybe China and Russia that there is no possibility of a "big war" at all. Any US military involvement is just one-way beating.

Originally Posted by Crocodile

Now, let's look at the countries which are going to be actively involved in the WWIII: Middle East (oil suppliers), the US, Israel, China, Russia. All these countries would eventually lose their economic power (and might even be divided). However, I agree the NATO would most likely be the winner (with the US ultimately losing dominance). Who stays in the global economic game? Germany, France, Italy. Most notably - Germany (as it is presently economically dominant even under the very tough conditions). Germany is keeping relatively quiet, but that is who I think is behind the Arab Spring. (And 9/11 for that matter.) Germany does not talk much - it acts. And I think it will be the ultimate winner.

This is completely senseless idea. Germany is under strict US control. USA actually still has Germany occupied. And any instability in Europe as I said before only means that the money will leave it for the USA.

Originally Posted by Crocodile

An interesting thought, maybe a bit off topic. I think you mean that the capitalist US is crushing the socialistic regimes? You see, as far as I know, Israel had been sided with the USSR at the earlier stages - the secular Jews were, at their majority, socialists. I'm not exactly sure what went wrong between the USSR and Israel, maybe Israel was a way too nationalist, or the formation of Israel inspired nationalistic Jewish movement inside the USSR, which was crushed by Stalin, and Israel did not like that.. not sure. Anyway, I think the nationalistic considerations prevail any other in Israel, so Israel would probably be less sensitive to the socialism-capitalism shift. Meaning, there would still be Israel by now.

No. The Jews consciously choose the USA because they expected it to win the Cold War.

Originally Posted by Throbert McGee

Maybe. Officially, the главная вина of Syria (as far as I know) is its support of Hezbollah, which does NOT recognize Israel's right to continue existing.

Look. This is a first sane comment here from the pro-US side. And this is a valid argument.
But I am quite sure that

- nobody ever put any real pressure on Syria to discontinue the support for Hezbollah. The most current pressure is for that Assad to resign.

- Hezbollah is accused by the UN in killing the Lebanon prime minister. As far as I know, this this the most heavy charge against Hezbollah by the UN. Hezbollah promised to cooperate in investigation

- Hezbollah positions itself as a patriotic pro-Lebanon party. They do not declare an aim to invade Israel. There was a kidnapping incident that provoked the last Israel-Hezbollah war but Hezbollah came under heavy criticism in Lebanon after that
and Nasralla had to apologize before the Lebanon public saying that they would not do so if they knew it will lead to a war with Israel.

- When asked Nasralla said he is not against peace with Israel if Israel reaches a peace agreement with the Palestinians.

Notice also that the most close US allies such as Saudi Arabia, Quatar, Bahrain do not recognize Israel as well. Should not the US be bombed for support of them?

Originally Posted by Crocodile

An interesting thought, maybe a bit off topic. I think you mean that the capitalist US is crushing the socialistic regimes? You see, as far as I know, Israel had been sided with the USSR at the earlier stages - the secular Jews were, at their majority, socialists. I'm not exactly sure what went wrong between the USSR and Israel, maybe Israel was a way too nationalist, or the formation of Israel inspired nationalistic Jewish movement inside the USSR, which was crushed by Stalin, and Israel did not like that.. not sure. Anyway, I think the nationalistic considerations prevail any other in Israel, so Israel would probably be less sensitive to the socialism-capitalism shift. Meaning, there would still be Israel by now.

My impression is that the US essentially "bought" Israel's support, with the backing of American Jews and evangelical Christians. And that is probably very lucky for Israel...

They got aid, gifts, weapons etc, etc... Not that the USSR could not have supplied that, but perhaps not immediately at the time when Israel needed it the most, in the very early days of the new state, when the USSR too, was in a bad condition after the War. Israel got into wars early on in its history and could not be too fussy about who to liaise with, when its very survival as a nation was at stake. That's my personal guess based on what little I know of Israels history.

I also think the USSR would have judged Israel to be behaving in an imperialistic way after it annexed the West Bank... The PLO was socialist, and so was Syria. I guess the USSR from an ideological standpoint did not have much choice other than to support the obvious socialists and/or "imperialistically opressed" party in the conflict, i.e. the Palestinians. Plus, they were already supporting several socialist Arab states and could not very well support the arch enemy of these countries at the same time!

Originally Posted by Crocodile

I'm not 100% thrilled with what the US was and is doing, but to say the US is responsible for just about anything (which I think is implied from some posts of some people on this forum) is paranoia.

Nobody has been claiming that, other than you yourself, when making that accusation towards me!

There are no doubt plenty of popular movements or conflicts going on around the globe that the US have no finger in supporting. I do not see the US trying to influence the EU greatly in how to solve the Euro crisis (good!) and the US does not show any interest in several long running conflicts in Africa. The US has not had any opportunity to get involved in most of the internal problems in China. Neither is it supporting either side or manipulating at all in the long running Falklands saga.

However, in the case of Syria, I believe that the US and UK are involved, based on reports, and based on the very one-sided media coverage. The same was (obviously) true in the case of Libya.

There have been plenty of suggestions about US involvement in revolutions etc, etc recently, as I said earlier. Organising coups and uprisings, is and has been standard fare for US intelligence agencies for many decades. It is well known and documented that this has happened in South and Central America and I would be very surprised if you are not aware of this fact.

Several eyewitnesses report having seen SAS operatives in Syria, and that the rebels are covertly armed by Western forces.

There is nothing paranoid in saying that there usually is no smoke without fire, which is all I am doing. I'll await the proof that might well come with the latest Wikileaks!

The final point on this is that the press and state officials in both Russia and China seem to be holding the same opinions, along with the majority of the poulation there. Plus no doubt many, many more countries that I do not keep track of.
So if I am paranoid I am in good company with the world's future super power, China, and a country that has excellent political analysts and probably has much better insight in Syria than any other major power (Russia).

Originally Posted by Crocodile

At the same time, Americans are tired of the situation when the country is constantly at war, the public money is spent lavishly on nothing productive and people are constantly dying somewhere on the other side of the globe for many years. The real motivation of 'fighting terrorism' is something of the past.

In this, I agree with you. I think "regular" Americans to a large degree are taken for a ride by a government that does not necessarily represent their best interests and that allows media to manipulate them.

These wars and constant manipulations around the world is not in the economic interests of the nation, or its people. They are however in the interest of large corporations that have managed to manipulate the government and even public opinion. I believe that the US is largely run by its multinational corporations, contrary to the interests of its people.

Compare with the USSR and its various undertakings, such as the Afghanistan war and economically supporting regimes around the world, like North Korea and Cuba. How did this help regular citizens? Not at all, probably, but I suppose some elite group(s) somewhere benefited from what was going on (while some of it might have been motivated by a feeling of being under constant threat and having to maximise the number of allies and buffer states.)

Originally Posted by Anixx

...They... will breakup Russia and China. I have no doubt that this will happen soon.

Sounds like execrable abomination masterminded and perpetrated by nefarious miscreants. Any chance you could shed light on details of these mendacious machinations. I mean when and how it is doomed to occur. What is the source of your apocalyptical certainty, btw. Channeling?

It's quite interesting that the USA and UK are putting increasingly more pressure on Russia about Syria. Kudos to Putin for standing up against pressure. I for one am not scared of a Russia that dares to show a bit of spine. We need some influence from the East to balance the out-of-control influence from the West. Can't say about the internal politics of Russia, but the foreign policies, at least, are good at the moment, I think.

It is interesting that media in "Western" countries are singling out Russia as the obstruction to intervention or whaterver it is that NATO would like to do in Syria. At the same time they are not critisizing China as much. Is it a case of "don't dare to bite the hand that feeds you...?" (I am thinking about the enormous debt of the USA to China..) Or is it something else? Or is Russia a bigger obstacle for some reason... nukes? better relationship with Syria than what China has? I hope Putin will not let his vote be bought, or do some underhanded compromise in this matter! The problems that the Syrian people are having will only get worse if Nato & co get involved.

Revealed: CIA secretly operates on Syrian border, supplies arms to rebels — RT

Probably Russia sells more weapon to Syria, has a sea base there (there are no ships permanently), arranges war exercises near the Syrian shore.

Думаю, что они задавят Сирию и без санкции Совета Безопасности ООН. Там же боевиков около 10 000 и финансирование практически без ограничений. А у Сирии ограничены и людские и финансовые ресурсы (и снабжение).
России остаётся только сохранять лицо, не меняя позицию в ООН. Как говорится, делай, что должно, и будь, что будет.

Originally Posted by Юрка

Думаю, что они задавят Сирию и без санкции Совета Безопасности ООН. Там же боевиков около 10 000 и финансирование практически без ограничений. А у Сирии ограничены и людские и финансовые ресурсы (и снабжение).
России остаётся только сохранять лицо, не меняя позицию в ООН. Как говорится, делай, что должно, и будь, что будет.

Опыт показывает, что без прямого военного вмешательства обычно не обойтись.

Never seen such an extreme propaganda war as in the case of Syria!
The killings of the rebels are reported as killings of the government....
The creepy thing is that LOTS of people obviously support the current government, or the other side would have won over a year ago. Whole cities and ethnic groups, no doubt about it.

Kudos to Russia for staying impartial and not jumping on the propaganda bandwagon.

The UK is not a bit better than the US in this particular situation. Compare the old Beeb, with RT. One of them is lying, and I'd say that in this particular case it is actually the beeb. I swear not to pay my licence fee when I am back in the UK! I refuse to support their angled reporting and propaganda war. The BBC is impartial up to a point, but when the government has a clear agenda, they step in line which is what's happened here....

And the agenda of the US, UK and their European fan club couldn't be more clear.

They've found a new formula it seems, for how to take down a regime they don't like, without even going to war. This is Libya take 2, only this regime is not particularly bad and there were only a very small group of rebels when this started out. Now, through the media war and covert actions and stirring up of the situation by the SAS, CIA and lord knows who else... it's a civil war.

Arm some rebels and start a God-awful propaganda war that is out of all proportions, including blatant lies and horrendous exaggerations.

I wonder which regime is next?

Originally Posted by Hanna

I wonder which regime is next?

Iran, obviously. They are trynig to perform this thrick with Russia constantly, but it doesn't work for for now. I wonder for how long?

Originally Posted by Hanna

Never seen such an extreme propaganda war as in the case of Syria!
The killings of the rebels are reported as killings of the government....
The creepy thing is that LOTS of people obviously support the current government, or the other side would have won over a year ago. Whole cities and ethnic groups, no doubt about it.

The same was against Iraq in 1990-91 and in 2002-2003, against Serbs during the whole decade from 1991 to 1999 and in many other cases. Unfortunately, it's a norm, not an exception. The goal of media is not to inform the people, but to change their mind in a necessary way.

Kudos to Russia for staying impartial and not jumping on the propaganda bandwagon.

Russia is not completely impartial. It sells weapon to the Syrian government and it blocks all the resolutions against Syria in the UN. The media cover of the events is rather pregovernmental too.

Originally Posted by Basil77

Iran, obviously. They are trynig to perform this thrick with Russia constantly, but it doesn't work for for now. I wonder for how long?

No one really knows. They have threatened Iran for almost seven years. And no one expected the attack on Lybia.

Originally Posted by Marcus

The same was against Iraq in 1990-91 and in 2002-2003, against Serbs during the whole decade from 1991 to 1999 and in many other cases. Unfortunately, it's a norm, not an exception. The goal of media is not to inform the people, but to change their mind in a necessary way.

Russia is not completely impartial. It sells weapon to the Syrian government and it blocks all the resolutions against Syria in the UN. The media cover of the events is rather pregovernmental too.

Yes, you are probably right, but in the case of the Serbs, I simply did not see it. It was just at the time when new human rights abuses by socialist governments were "discovered" practically every week. I was totally fed up and disillusioned with all of it and just ignored any news to do with Eastern Europe... The other problem was that I had not been aware that Yugoslavia consisted of so many different countries. It was pretty confusing unless you had the time and interest to get up to speed on the background, which I did not at the time. But previously nobody every talked about separate nations there, just of Yugoslavians, the Adriatic coast etc. When media started to talk about "ethnic cleansing" and concentration camps, they did not leave much room for sympathising with the Serbs even though they they were Christians, Slavs etc, etc.
Back in the 1990s there was no access to alternative news sources like we can find online today.

Iraq - Yes, I remember that I did not believe that Iraqi soldiers had yanked Kuwait babies out of incubators out of sheer spite, or that surrendering Iraqis in the second Gulf War had asked the Americans for a Big Mac when surrendering... The propaganda onslaught was pretty all encompassing and there was no access to anything else.

I agree that RT is NOT a neutral source of news. I like it anyway, but it is obvious that they have a few agendas going on, like a small paypack on the UK for all the diplomatic troubles recently..... Gleeful reporting on the problems with the Euro and immigration in Western Europe.... An obsession with "Neo Nazis" in the Baltic... But there is a lot of substance behind the majority of their claims on these matters, even though it irritates me!

So you really think that Russia is secretly supporting the current regime despite their claims to the contrary? If I hear that some Russian special commandos are there and stirring up trouble I'll be just as annoyed as I feel with the UK/US about their involvement. If Russia is meddling they should stay out of it! Holding up existing contracts and obligation is not meddling though. They could not have anticipated this when they agreed to service helicopters or set up the Russian naval port there. But it seems to me that Russia is making an effort to try to stay out of it even though it had friendly relations with Syria in the past.

Originally Posted by Basil77

Iran, obviously. They are trynig to perform this thrick with Russia constantly, but it doesn't work for for now. I wonder for how long?

Yes, I guess Russia is a bit vulnerable to that..... First the Soviet states fell away for better or worse, and then there was troubles in the "outskirts" of Russia proper and the Chechen war....
Even the UK is not immune, with the Scots and sometimes Northern Ireland sometimes talking seriously of going their own way.

Since Russia has basically never shown the slightest bit of aggression towards my country, and since I largely like the people and the culture, I really want to see Russia as a confident country with internal stability.... I guess to some extent Russia can "buy" the loyalty of the outer regions with oil money...
And why not try some nationalistic campaigns....
It seems like lunacy for parts of Russia to break away... Isn't most of the country supported out of Moscow and the central regions anyway? Thy couldn't even extract their oil and transport their gas with out central help, could they? Do people see this as a risk, I mean the Russian Federation breaking up in a similar way to the USSR?


And in case anyone was in any doubt about what I have been saying...

Britain’s former Special Air Service (SAS) commandos are reportedly training armed opposition groups fighting against the government of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, reports say.

The Daily Mail and Sunday Express have revealed that the mercenaries have set up training camps in Iraq and on the Syrian border for the armed rebels.

British army sources, speaking on condition of anonymity, have said the militants are receiving instructions in military tactics, weapons handling and communications systems.

Groups of 50 militants at a time are being trained by two Mideast-based private security firms which employ former SAS personnel.

More than 300 rebel forces have completed the commando training program, and are said to account for a number of the opposition’s combatant units fighting Syrian security forces in Damascus.

Britain has also placed more than 600 troops on standby over the unrest in Syria.

UK Foreign Secretary William Hague says London should be acting outside the UN Security Council and step up its support for militant groups in Syria.

So you really think that Russia is secretly supporting the current regime despite their claims to the contrary? If I hear that some Russian special commandos are there and stirring up trouble I'll be just as annoyed as I feel with the UK/US about their involvement. If Russia is meddling they should stay out of it! Holding up existing contracts and obligation is not meddling though. They could not have anticipated this when they agreed to service helicopters or set up the Russian naval port there. But it seems to me that Russia is making an effort to try to stay out of it even though it had friendly relations with Syria in the past.

If you mean this, then Russia is not involved, at least there is no any evidence. But even acomplishing previous contracts is a support in this situation. I'm proud of my country in Syria as much as I was ashamed in the case of Lybia.

It seems like lunacy for parts of Russia to break away... Isn't most of the country supported out of Moscow and the central regions anyway? Thy couldn't even extract their oil and transport their gas with out central help, could they?

The same could be said about the former Soviet republics.

Do people see this as a risk, I mean the Russian Federation breaking up in a similar way to the USSR?

Sure.