Syrian Civil War: News

flamming python, GarryB:
Ok, you managed to convince me

Regular wrote:Well to have Russia as sole energy supplier could cost you arm and leg. Gazprom is known to use political channels to pressure You. It's happening right now - our trucks and even light cars are not being let to enter Russia for days. Reason for that is our pro Russian government was trying to get agreement on gas prices. What happens next is that our trade will be more focused towards west and we are actively seeking diversity in energy suppliers. Gazprom will be sued for it's practices and hopefully we will win a fair reduction. I don't want American companies comming to my country and digging for shale gas, but now same government refused this proposal now is lighting a green light.

Lithuania has a pro-Russian government?
It arguably has the most anti-Russian government right now in the entire world.

And that's probably why the gas prices are high and you're getting other difficulties.

Count your blessings Regular; if instead Lithuania was as anti-American as it is anti-Russian right now; it would have ended up like Syria long ago.

As Sa'iqa wrote:We don't need to be independent.

You don't " need to be independent " and yet you don't want to be dependent on Russia ? I failed to figure out this contradictory thought process.

As Sa'iqa wrote:North Korea, Cuba, Zimbabwe etc. are all "independent" and everyone knows what they look like.

Wait ! Who is this everyone who is selling you such news ? BBC , Fox , CNN . For starters these countries escaped the financial crisis while I was getting my ass kicked in the Occupy Wall Street protests .

As Sa'iqa wrote:In fact, Russia has been the main archenemy of Poland since at least 16th century, there is a conflict of interest between Russia and Poland but not between Poland and Arab states.

I ain't a Pole but Poland's problems just like that of Germany or Czech Republic or Romania are internal and they come in the form of Neo Nazism .

Last heard , Arab states don't consider Poland to be a friend either . Their only friends are other Muslims with deep pockets . They use poverty stricken Muslims from 3rd world states as cannon fodder and will not hesitate to export these jihadis to Poland as well .

Sorry for derailing. I wouldn't call them anti-russian as a whole. They are anti-lithuanian What did we do to Russia lately? We can't do much unlike our neighbour. We have our version of Zhirnovski, but he is out of politics for years. Surpsingly anti-russian element is mostly composed of ex commies, they have ties with shady Russian businessmen and etc. We have socdemocrats as a ruling party now - they don't need to have Russia as boogie man to gain support, unlike rightwing conservatives. Bigger pensions and wages please the crowd. No more unpopular support for Georgia, Ukraine and no more investment in Afghanistan. Trade and relationship with Russia went up in last years and it's blessing for our tourism and services. If everything goes well we will join Russias custom union and Eurasian Union.
Compare it to rethorics comming from the likes like Baltic relationship institute or Zhirnovski- when they openly say baltics have to be wiped of the map or occupied. It's trolling on major scale.
Gas prices are high are because Gazprom makes our socialist PM shake from fear, they can enforce it on us. Hopefully in the court we will come to fair agreement. Alternatives are not good imho, shale fracking has it's negative side too.
Lithuanian government is not anti American, there would be serious consequences if we were, there is no denying in that. America plays very small role in Lithuania and thanks god. People don't trust big derzhavas, especially when they are meddling and establishing foreign fonds.
I like Russia as a country and would finally love to see proper relationship thst would benefit both.

Putin Oped in NYT on Syria

A Plea for Caution From Russia
What Putin Has to Say to Americans About Syria

MOSCOW — RECENT events surrounding Syria have prompted me to speak directly to the American people and their political leaders. It is important to do so at a time of insufficient communication between our societies.

Relations between us have passed through different stages. We stood against each other during the cold war. But we were also allies once, and defeated the Nazis together. The universal international organization — the United Nations — was then established to prevent such devastation from ever happening again.

The United Nations’ founders understood that decisions affecting war and peace should happen only by consensus, and with America’s consent the veto by Security Council permanent members was enshrined in the United Nations Charter. The profound wisdom of this has underpinned the stability of international relations for decades.

No one wants the United Nations to suffer the fate of the League of Nations, which collapsed because it lacked real leverage. This is possible if influential countries bypass the United Nations and take military action without Security Council authorization.

The potential strike by the United States against Syria, despite strong opposition from many countries and major political and religious leaders, including the pope, will result in more innocent victims and escalation, potentially spreading the conflict far beyond Syria’s borders. A strike would increase violence and unleash a new wave of terrorism. It could undermine multilateral efforts to resolve the Iranian nuclear problem and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and further destabilize the Middle East and North Africa. It could throw the entire system of international law and order out of balance.

Syria is not witnessing a battle for democracy, but an armed conflict between government and opposition in a multireligious country. There are few champions of democracy in Syria. But there are more than enough Qaeda fighters and extremists of all stripes battling the government. The United States State Department has designated Al Nusra Front and the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, fighting with the opposition, as terrorist organizations. This internal conflict, fueled by foreign weapons supplied to the opposition, is one of the bloodiest in the world.

Mercenaries from Arab countries fighting there, and hundreds of militants from Western countries and even Russia, are an issue of our deep concern. Might they not return to our countries with experience acquired in Syria? After all, after fighting in Libya, extremists moved on to Mali. This threatens us all.

From the outset, Russia has advocated peaceful dialogue enabling Syrians to develop a compromise plan for their own future. We are not protecting the Syrian government, but international law. We need to use the United Nations Security Council and believe that preserving law and order in today’s complex and turbulent world is one of the few ways to keep international relations from sliding into chaos. The law is still the law, and we must follow it whether we like it or not. Under current international law, force is permitted only in self-defense or by the decision of the Security Council. Anything else is unacceptable under the United Nations Charter and would constitute an act of aggression.

No one doubts that poison gas was used in Syria. But there is every reason to believe it was used not by the Syrian Army, but by opposition forces, to provoke intervention by their powerful foreign patrons, who would be siding with the fundamentalists. Reports that militants are preparing another attack — this time against Israel — cannot be ignored.

It is alarming that military intervention in internal conflicts in foreign countries has become commonplace for the United States. Is it in America’s long-term interest? I doubt it. Millions around the world increasingly see America not as a model of democracy but as relying solely on brute force, cobbling coalitions together under the slogan “you’re either with us or against us.”

But force has proved ineffective and pointless. Afghanistan is reeling, and no one can say what will happen after international forces withdraw. Libya is divided into tribes and clans. In Iraq the civil war continues, with dozens killed each day. In the United States, many draw an analogy between Iraq and Syria, and ask why their government would want to repeat recent mistakes.

No matter how targeted the strikes or how sophisticated the weapons, civilian casualties are inevitable, including the elderly and children, whom the strikes are meant to protect.

The world reacts by asking: if you cannot count on international law, then you must find other ways to ensure your security. Thus a growing number of countries seek to acquire weapons of mass destruction. This is logical: if you have the bomb, no one will touch you. We are left with talk of the need to strengthen nonproliferation, when in reality this is being eroded.

We must stop using the language of force and return to the path of civilized diplomatic and political settlement.

A new opportunity to avoid military action has emerged in the past few days. The United States, Russia and all members of the international community must take advantage of the Syrian government’s willingness to place its chemical arsenal under international control for subsequent destruction. Judging by the statements of President Obama, the United States sees this as an alternative to military action.

I welcome the president’s interest in continuing the dialogue with Russia on Syria. We must work together to keep this hope alive, as we agreed to at the Group of 8 meeting in Lough Erne in Northern Ireland in June, and steer the discussion back toward negotiations.

If we can avoid force against Syria, this will improve the atmosphere in international affairs and strengthen mutual trust. It will be our shared success and open the door to cooperation on other critical issues.

My working and personal relationship with President Obama is marked by growing trust. I appreciate this. I carefully studied his address to the nation on Tuesday. And I would rather disagree with a case he made on American exceptionalism, stating that the United States’ policy is “what makes America different. It’s what makes us exceptional.” It is extremely dangerous to encourage people to see themselves as exceptional, whatever the motivation. There are big countries and small countries, rich and poor, those with long democratic traditions and those still finding their way to democracy. Their policies differ, too. We are all different, but when we ask for the Lord’s blessings, we must not forget that God created us equal.

Vladimir V. Putin is the president of Russia.

What a brilliant move by Putin.
The man keeps surprising me...
Great stuff Владимир Владимирович!
Great stuff.

He has a great speechwriter alright  

flamming_python wrote:He has a great speechwriter alright  

On top of being a master strategist.

Regular wrote:Sorry for derailing. I wouldn't call them anti-russian as a whole. They are anti-lithuanian :DWhat did we do to Russia lately? We can't do much unlike our neighbour. We have our version of Zhirnovski, but he is out of politics for years. Surpsingly anti-russian element is mostly composed of ex commies, they have ties with shady Russian businessmen and etc. We have socdemocrats as a ruling party now - they don't need to have Russia as boogie man to gain support, unlike rightwing conservatives. Bigger pensions and wages please the crowd. No more unpopular support for Georgia, Ukraine and no more investment in Afghanistan. Trade and relationship with Russia went up in last years and it's blessing for our tourism and services. If everything goes well we will join Russias custom union and Eurasian Union.
Compare it to rethorics comming from the likes like Baltic relationship institute or Zhirnovski- when they openly say baltics have to be wiped of the map or occupied. It's trolling on major scale.
Gas prices are high are because Gazprom makes our socialist PM shake from fear, they can enforce it on us. Hopefully in the court we will come to fair agreement. Alternatives are not good imho, shale fracking has it's negative side too.
Lithuanian government is not anti American, there would be serious consequences if we were, there is no denying in that. America plays very small role in Lithuania and thanks god. People don't trust big derzhavas, especially when they are meddling and establishing foreign fonds.
I like Russia as a country and would finally love to see proper relationship thst would benefit both.

I hope for good Russian-Lithuanian ties too but right now Lithuania is one of the biggest cheerleaders of pulling the Ukraine and other ex-Soviet nations into the EU and NATO (Eastern Partnership for now), no matter what the cost in terms of killed-off industrial potential, instability and so on.
Lithuania's president, Dalia Grybauskaite personally argued for the inclusion of the Ukraine in the Eastern Partnership Association Agreement, despite Yanukovich rejecting the EU's conditions of releasing Timoshchenko from prison over a year ago.

Lithuania is also one of the firmest advocates of the EU's third energy package and in fact is the only country in the EU that implemented these measures in full; attempting to nationalise Gazprom-owned pipelines on its territory and suing Gazprom.

During the 2008 August war with Georgia, Lithuania, in addition to other Eastern European states, seemed to offer their unconditional political support to Georgia; no matter that Georgia was the country that start the war - and indeed the media networks in these countries were completely shameless in their biased reporting verging on Soviet-style propaganda.

Lithuania was a firm opponent of the Nord Stream pipeline project between Russia and Germany; constantly alleging environmental hazards and demanding additional documentation on risks and so on.

Starting from several years ago, Rosatom time and time again offered Lithuania participation in its NPP project in Kaliningrad or rather some joint-venture that will be able to generate power for both countries.
The Lithuanians rebuffed Rosatom on every occasion and subsequently signed an agreement with Japan's Nuclear agency (not long after the Fukushima disaster), electing to go for a joint-project with Latvian and Estonian participation. To date it all remains a paper-project; the Baltic states have agreed in principle; but details are elusive, construction hasn't started, the Japanese are starting to get frustrated with the wait and its future is unclear.
Rosatom on its part has got its project in Kaliningrad well-underway, but there are concerns about who to sell such a large volume of electricity too, and construction seems to have gotten temporarily frozen recently over some issue.
More over, the Lithuanians started demanding environmental surveys on the NPP that Rosatom is now busy building in Kaliningrad as well as the ones under construction in Belarus.

Of course Lithuania has its own issues towards Russia too that cannot be ignored. Like the issue with the broken oil pipeline, high gas prices and the oil refinery sell off to Polish investors as opposed to Russian. There are 2 sides to the story; Lithuania is attempting to strong-arm Russia by pulling the EU into its arguements, while Russia, by virtue of being such a huge neighbour to such a small country; sees itself as having some measure of influence in Lithuania that it's entitled to; when in fact nor it or any other nation is entitled to any influence in a foreign country at all and every country must first bring something to the table before it gets it.

Compare it to rethorics comming from the likes like Baltic relationship institute or Zhirnovski- when they openly say baltics have to be wiped of the map or occupied. It's trolling on major scale.

'Baltic relationship institute'? Yeah the first I heard of it (or something like that), was when its alleged rector called for the occupation of the Baltics in response to an American attack on Syria.
I wouldn't worry about it. No-one in Russia's eager to start WW3
And Zhirinovskij is a clown that literally - no-one takes seriously at all.

If everything goes well we will join Russias custom union and Eurasian Union.

Grybauskaite has also gone on record attacking the Eurasian Union as another attempt to restart the USSR. So I wouldn't bet on it for the time being.
First things first; boot these vultures out of your government, and move some pragmatical people in instead that are ready for wide-scale co-operation with Russia and put Lithuanian interests ahead of Russian/EU/American.

macedonian wrote:

flamming_python wrote:He has a great speechwriter alright  

On top of being a master strategist.

There are more people in countries such as the Ukraine, Moldova, probably the Balkans too that trust Putin more than they do their own leaders.
Let's see if we can get America on that list too  

flamming_python wrote:There are more people in countries such as the Ukraine, Moldova, probably the Balkans too that trust Putin more than they do their own leaders.
Let's see if we can get America on that list too  

As long as he speaks the truth, and takes the side of what most find to be just and legal under international law Americans are bound to trust him...as is every normal human being on the planet. Even with anti-Russian propaganda in the media on the rise.

As far as citizens of other countries are concerned, especially here in the Balkans, people are fed-up with their governments playing the who's-Washington's-favorite-lap-dog game. We send our soldiers in harms way just to support American colonialism. People can feel the injustice, but their governments are either not powerful enough, or simply easily bought (or threatened, take your pick) to make a moral stand against America.

So, I'd say: There's nothing revolutionary in telling the truth, what's revolutionary is the truth being told by a politician. That's what earns Putin respect across many countries' populations. Knowing exactly when he should tell it, is what makes him a great strategist (at least that's my view on his move).

flamming_python wrote:He has a great speechwriter alright  

x2.

macedonian wrote:

flamming_python wrote:There are more people in countries such as the Ukraine, Moldova, probably the Balkans too that trust Putin more than they do their own leaders.
Let's see if we can get America on that list too  

As long as he speaks the truth, and takes the side of what most find to be just and legal under international law Americans are bound to trust him...as is every normal human being on the planet. Even with anti-Russian propaganda in the media on the rise.

As far as citizens of other countries are concerned, especially here in the Balkans, people are fed-up with their governments playing the who's-Washington's-favorite-lap-dog game. We send our soldiers in harms way just to support American colonialism. People can feel the injustice, but their governments are either not powerful enough, or simply easily bought (or threatened, take your pick) to make a moral stand against America.

So, I'd say: There's nothing revolutionary in telling the truth, what's revolutionary is the truth being told by a politician. That's what earns Putin respect across many countries' populations. Knowing exactly when he should tell it, is what makes him a great strategist (at least that's my view on his move).

You're in love with him, aren't you?

Seriously though; there are some of his domestic policies and rulership that I don't care much for; but on foreign policy he's top dog and has been for the last 13 years, no doubt.

flamming_python wrote:You're in love with him, aren't you?

Seriously though; there are some of his domestic policies and rulership that I don't care much for; but on foreign policy he's top dog and has been for the last 13 years, no doubt.

Well, considering what I thought of him during the start and the progressing of this crisis, and how he changed my opinion time and again - I now think that he's a stand-up bloke. He's much smarter than what I thought previously. I hope he doesn't disappoint me though...
On domestic policy, I can see why he's paranoid. He's got many foreign players that want to 'play their own game by their own rules' in Russia (yes NGOs too), and many Russians willing to support them. So I'd be a tad paranoid if I were him too. That is not to say that I approve of his domestic policy though. But what he did in a decade many Russian Tzars couldn't do in their lifetime. Russia was the laughing stock of the west during Yeltsin, it is by no means a laughing stock under Владимир. As for further progress - you'd have to change the mentality of the people, and that's not going to happen in the near future.

Syria: Russia rises to the world stage again

A member of Al Abbas Brigade, an Iraqi Shiite militia fighting in Syria. These guys are starting to look more and more like a standing army:

Austin wrote:Syria: Russia rises to the world stage again

saudis?
heh they dont have spare capacity their oil is not that plentifull today in 2013, they cant drown the world in oil and crush the prices like they did to ussr in 80s ,and harm russia in that way .the expensive and more rarer conventional oil days is here to stay. new oil in us is not cheap to extract and its more of buying time for usa.

As Sa'iqa wrote:Looks like Syria has large shale gas resources. Good news. If our (Polish) politicians had balls, they would be able to get hands of them in exchange for aid to the rebels.
Additionally my country has a lot of ex Soviet equipment that could be sold to the rebels for Saudi or Qatari money... Unfortunately, our politicians don't care much. 

Your politicians (same as ours) are acting only when told to by Washington.
No matter what they plan to do, if Washington doesn't like it - they won't do it.
And no matter how much they dislike doing something - if Washington tells them to do it, they'll do it.
You were the guy that said 'We don't need independence' right?
Well, there you go...

Our politicvians said clearly that they won't take part in the intervention.

Quite foolish considering the fact that later on we should be able to secure contracts for Polish companies (rebuilding the country).

As Sa'iqa wrote:Our politicvians said clearly that they won't take part in the intervention.

I told you - what your politicians say, holds no weight. It means sqwat.
If ordered to take part in an intervention (by Washington), they'll play dumb and say how they always said they would take part...


I do like that you have the NATO reasoning going on though:

As Sa'iqa wrote:Quite foolish considering the fact that later on we should be able to secure contracts for Polish companies (rebuilding the country)

What are a few soldiers to lose to fight an illegal war, when you get paid serious money in the end, right?

Sorry for offtopic, just quick reply.

flamming_python wrote:....

No denying, but You are thinking about Lithuania like a Sauron eye of anti-Russian coalition, in fact I personally would be happier if that would be truth. Reality is sad. And it's hard to explain if You are not drunk. It can make little sense for outsider.
It's not secret that our government is run by majority of people that were party members in Soviet union so don't expect quality grade politicians out of them. Cheap raw material.
Imagine parliament where every single on of them is a Yeltsin. Russia is happy to have silovik Putin that keeps all balls in one fists and has power to squeeze it. No such luck here.
Our politics towards Russia are not consistent and I would be lying if I would admit that it's biggest anti-Russian country. Our PM has no beef with it and only said positive things. He has "Torgovat o ne voyovat" logic. Russia who happens to be our biggest trade partner and who considers Lithuania to be somewhat significant in this small region should be 100 times more important than Ukraine who has very questionable ties with us.
Russia still has influence in post Soviet countries, but instead of being so blatantly open like some Russia acts cunningly and the most anti-Russian person in the government could be on a payroll, it happened more than once.
So I ask myself why almost all of our governments have balls to be so erratic and amateurish with our neighbor. What we gain? Let's ask our truck drivers who cannot enter Kaliningrad. We gain fuck all and loose everything.
It seems other countries have no beef with Russia, Finland for example and it's doing fine. Our president came to power while boasting about how she will "fix" relationship with Russia and now it looks that she took personal venture to get warm spot in Brussels after her cadence is over, otherwise I can't explain whats going on and why. We have our own "Timoshenko", a Russian born politician and...professional wielder Viktor Uspaskich who stole millions, but we don't see Putin or anyone else visiting him. If there was a need he could become political card.

I'm starting to think our politicians actually get bribes from Gazprom just to stir some water, miserably fail and go on in same post without any personal consequences.  Especially funny when there was hysteria about Russian monopoly and *puff Gazprom privatized Lithuanian Gas and now we want it back. Cunt that is our president started meddling in cases like the one with Gazprom and she managed to discredit a valid reason to score some popularity points. I better stop here

On topic
A question for people who are following the conflict closer than I am.
Is it true that not whole Syrian army is engaged in fighting rebels? Majority in the army didn't even see any single battle?

Is it true that not whole Syrian army is engaged in fighting rebels? Majority in the army didn't even see any single battle?

That is a good question.
The Syrian army was close to 3 lakhs but 90% are either sunnis or from FSA.So in all I cant answer your question mathematically.
I guess overall only 30 to max 40,000 solders ,officers, lieutenants,  generals are taking part in this civil war from Government side.

Remaining all are non-noncombatants.I  can understand why this question came  to your mind.
Because it is a hell of a question which is difficult to answer on the face of looking at day to day war in Syria.
Majority of the Syrian Army have either disappeared or have sided with the rebels or left the country.

At the beginning Assad deployed only most loyal one third of the army, due to fear of massive defections from mostly Sunni units.

I guess SAA has similar problem Iraq had - that when the war broke out, a sizable portion of the army simply... went home, with some joining the rebels.