Skip to main content

FM
Former Member

Russia Sending Warships on Maneuvers Near Syria

<h6 class="byline">By and RICK GLADSTONE</h6><h6 class="dateline">Published: July 10, 2012 reprint</h6>
 

MOSCOW — Russia said on Tuesday that it had dispatched a flotilla of 11 warships to the eastern Mediterranean, some of which would dock in Syria. It would be the largest display of Russian military power in the region since the Syrian conflict began almost 17 months ago. Nearly half of the ships were capable of carrying hundreds of marines.

<h6 class="sectionHeader flushBottom">Multimedia</h6>
<h6>Watching Syria’s War</h6>
<h6>In a Rebellious Part of Syria, a Makeshift Hospital</h6>

The announcement appeared intended to punctuate Russia’s effort to position itself as an increasingly decisive broker in resolving the antigovernment uprising in Syria, Russia’s last ally in the Middle East and home to Tartus, its only foreign military base outside the former Soviet Union. The announcement also came a day after Russia said it was halting new shipments of weapons to the Syrian military until the conflict settled down.

Russia has occasionally sent naval vessels on maneuvers in the eastern Mediterranean, and it dispatched an aircraft-carrying battleship, the Admiral Kuznetsov, there for maneuvers with a few other vessels from December 2011 to February 2012. There were rumors in recent weeks that the Russians planned to deploy another naval force near Syria.

But the unusually large size of the force announced on Tuesday was considered a message, not just to the region but also to the United States and other nations supporting the rebels now trying to depose Syria’s president, Bashar al-Assad.

Tartus consists of little more than a floating refueling station and some small barracks. But any strengthened Russian presence there could forestall Western military intervention in Syria.

The Russian announcement got a muted response in Washington. “Russia maintains a naval supply and maintenance base in the Syrian port of Tartus,” said Tommy Vietor, a spokesman for the National Security Council. “We currently have no reason to believe this move is anything out of the ordinary, but we refer you to the Russian government for more details.”

The announcement came as a delegation of Syrian opposition figures was visiting Moscow to gauge if Russia would accept a political transition in Syria that excludes Mr. Assad. It also coincided with a flurry of diplomacy by Kofi Annan, the special Syria envoy from the United Nations and the Arab League, who said Mr. Assad had suggested a new approach for salvaging Mr. Annan’s sidelined peace plan during their meeting on Monday in Damascus.

While the Kremlin has repeatedly opposed foreign military intervention in Syria, Russian military officials have hinted at a possible role in Syria for their naval power. The ships have been presented as a means either to evacuate Russian citizens or to secure the fueling station at Tartus.

A statement by the Defense Ministry said ships had embarked from ports of three fleets: those of the Northern, the Baltic Sea and the Black Sea, and would meet for training exercises in the Mediterranean and Black Seas. Taking part, the statement said, would be two Black Sea Fleet landing craft that can carry marines: the Nikolai Filchenkov and the Tsezar Kunikov.

Russia’s Interfax news agency cited an unnamed military official as saying that an escort ship, the Smetlivy, would stop in Tartus for resupplying in three days — though it had presumably recently left its home port of Sevastopol, in the Black Sea.

Another contingent, from the Arctic Ocean base of Severomorsk, in the Murmansk Fjord, will take longer to arrive. That convoy includes three landing craft with marines escorted by an antisubmarine ship, the Admiral Chabanenko.

The voyage to the Mediterranean was unrelated to the Syrian conflict, the official said, but the boats laden with marines would stop in Tartus to “stock up on fuel, water and food.”

Visits on Tuesday by Mr. Annan to Iran, the Syrian government’s most important regional ally, and Iraq, Syria’s neighbor to the east, which fears a sectarian spillover from the conflict, came as a deadline of July 20 approaches. That is when the United Nations Security Council is to decide whether to renew the mission of 300 observers in Syria charged with monitoring the introduction of Mr. Annan’s peace plan. The observers’ work was suspended nearly a month ago because it was too dangerous.

At a news conference in Tehran, Mr. Annan reiterated his view that the Iranians had a role to play in resolving the conflict, despite objections from the United States. Mr. Annan also said Mr. Assad had proposed altering the peace proposal so that the most violent areas of the country would be pacified first. The current plan calls for an immediate cessation of all violence everywhere as a first step.

“He made a suggestion of building an approach from the ground up in some of the districts where we have extreme violence — to try and contain the violence in these districts and, step by step, build up and end the violence across the country,” Mr. Annan told reporters in Tehran.

There was no immediate word on whether the suggested new approach would be accepted by Mr. Assad’s opponents. But in Moscow, a delegation from the Syrian National Council, the umbrella opposition group in exile, suggested they had no interest in engaging with him.

“What brings together the opposition today is our consensus on the need to topple Assad’s regime and build a new political system,” Bassma Kodmani, a member of the delegation, said at a news conference in Moscow.

The delegation members, who are to meet on Wednesday with Foreign Minister Sergey V. Lavrov, also said they would not ask that Russia grant Mr. Assad asylum — something Russian officials have said they are not considering anyway.

Replies sorted oldest to newest

This move by the Russians is mostly symbolic. It's only naval base in that part of the world has been treated like a step-child, with outdated and neglected old ships. Russia doesn't have the appetite to get involved in a fracas, especially not with NATO's might.

Kari
Originally Posted by Kari:

This move by the Russians is mostly symbolic. It's only naval base in that part of the world has been treated like a step-child, with outdated and neglected old ships. Russia doesn't have the appetite to get involved in a fracas, especially not with NATO's might.

I think the Georgians tested that and regretted.

FM
Originally Posted by Kari:

Let's see ......... Georgia = NATO.........

I don't want to think the West wants to mess relations with Russia.  On the other hand, the Russians certainly are hedging their bets and wants to retain influence in any post Assad regime.  Furthermore, a Russian shield could likely spur Iran into more material involvement.

FM
(Reuters) - President Vladimir Putin said on Monday the West's influence was waning as its economy declines but warned Russian diplomats to be on their guard against a backlash from Moscow's former Cold War enemies. In a biennial speech to Russian ambassadors, Putin also took a shot at the West by condemning any unilateral actions to solve international disputes and underlined the importance of resolving such conflicts through the United Nations. His remarks suggested that Russia, a veto-wielding permanent member of the Security Council, would keep on defending ally Syria at the United Nations over its military crackdown on an popular uprising that has evolved into an armed insurgency. "Domestic socio-economic problems that have become worse in industrialized countries as a result of the (economic) crisis are weakening the dominant role of the so-called historical West," Putin told a meeting of Russian ambassadors from across the world. He told the envoys, gathered in Moscow, that they should try to influence events where Russian interests were at stake. "Be ready for any development of the situation, even for the most unfavorable development," he said in the 20-minute speech, parts of which were televised. Putin's speech was sprinkled with the hawkish rhetoric that has made many foreign policy experts predict a turn for the worse in relations with the United States following his return to the Kremlin in May. The economic problems faced by the European Union are the "tip of the iceberg of unresolved structural problems that is facing the entire world economy," he said.
TI

Vlad Puts better worry about the BRICS slowdown - oil, gold and natural resources. He better worry about his lagging military (well, that's a money issue). The US frightening military might need not be restated.

 

Obama's foreign intervention is shaped by pragmatism, like old man Bush; and not by the unilateralist younger Bush and Reagan. Tunisia - go with the democratic forces and use diplomatic power. Egypt - go with democratic forces using its influence with the Egyptian military. Libya - go with the democratic forces and get NATO to do its work and side with the rebels. Iran - ignore the Green Movement (democratic movement) to get Iran's cooperation with Hamas, Hezbollah and its nuclear program. This is a pragmatic approach whose jury is still out, but the sanctions are hurting, and Obama hasn't inflamed the general populace. Syria - let events take shape while nudging Turkey to take sides with the disunited rebels. Give the Arab League and UN a chance to get a settlement, as the US's strategic interests are not clear cut here. Now you see how Obama can act without Congress's roadblock.

 

In all this whah de rass Putin can do to help? Nada - except stop blocking votes in the UN to apply pressure to Syria.

Kari
Originally Posted by sachin_05:

Any disturbance in the region at this time would be a perfect excuse for the Obama administration to respond and in turn get the support at the voting booth from conservatives... 

Sooo...where's the "CHANGE" promised?

FM
Originally Posted by Kari:

Obama's foreign intervention is shaped by pragmatism, like old man Bush; and not by the unilateralist younger Bush and Reagan. Tunisia - go with the democratic forces and use diplomatic power. Egypt - go with democratic forces using its influence with the Egyptian military. Libya - go with the democratic forces and get NATO to do its work and side with the rebels. 

 

Kari, where do you get this stuff? Did anyone find any "democratic forces" in Libya? All NATO did was provide a propaganda fig-leaf -- the US spent the money and launched all the missiles. And pragmatism? Obama's "foreign intervention" is shaped by blood lust and an election-campaign need to appear more murderously macho than the Republicans.

FM
Originally Posted by Henry:
Originally Posted by Kari:

Obama's foreign intervention is shaped by pragmatism, like old man Bush; and not by the unilateralist younger Bush and Reagan. Tunisia - go with the democratic forces and use diplomatic power. Egypt - go with democratic forces using its influence with the Egyptian military. Libya - go with the democratic forces and get NATO to do its work and side with the rebels. 

 

Kari, where do you get this stuff? Did anyone find any "democratic forces" in Libya? All NATO did was provide a propaganda fig-leaf -- the US spent the money and launched all the missiles. And pragmatism? Obama's "foreign intervention" is shaped by blood lust and an election-campaign need to appear more murderously macho than the Republicans.

The most dangerous thing about Obama, he is a wannabe strongman.  Obama has lost his compass, if he ever had one, and has become a poodle of the neo-cons.  Kari is like a stupid infant with his first "play-ting".

FM
Originally Posted by Henry:
Originally Posted by Kari:

Obama's foreign intervention is shaped by pragmatism, like old man Bush; and not by the unilateralist younger Bush and Reagan. Tunisia - go with the democratic forces and use diplomatic power. Egypt - go with democratic forces using its influence with the Egyptian military. Libya - go with the democratic forces and get NATO to do its work and side with the rebels. 

 

Kari, where do you get this stuff? Did anyone find any "democratic forces" in Libya? All NATO did was provide a propaganda fig-leaf -- the US spent the money and launched all the missiles. And pragmatism? Obama's "foreign intervention" is shaped by blood lust and an election-campaign need to appear more murderously macho than the Republicans.


Henry....Henry...."democratic forces" in this context doesn't mean that the people in the different groups and representing different interests and tribal fueds are democratic. By "democratic forces" 'I mean the movement to overthrow Qadaffi and end 4 decades of authoritarian rule. When the PPP, WPA and all the opther disparate forces joined together to oppopse the PPP it may not be that the different parts are all democratic. It simply means that the aim is a democratic one. Your comments betray a certain bias anyhow. You interpret "democratic forces" just to throw crap at the germ of my commentary that Obama sided with the democratic forces in Libya. If Obama had started a policuy of supporting Qadaffi I would have said he was opposoing "democratic forces". Not Henry, do you see where your bias shows through?

Kari
Originally Posted by baseman:
Originally Posted by Henry:
Originally Posted by Kari:

Obama's foreign intervention is shaped by pragmatism, like old man Bush; and not by the unilateralist younger Bush and Reagan. Tunisia - go with the democratic forces and use diplomatic power. Egypt - go with democratic forces using its influence with the Egyptian military. Libya - go with the democratic forces and get NATO to do its work and side with the rebels. 

 

Kari, where do you get this stuff? Did anyone find any "democratic forces" in Libya? All NATO did was provide a propaganda fig-leaf -- the US spent the money and launched all the missiles. And pragmatism? Obama's "foreign intervention" is shaped by blood lust and an election-campaign need to appear more murderously macho than the Republicans.

The most dangerous thing about Obama, he is a wannabe strongman.  Obama has lost his compass, if he ever had one, and has become a poodle of the neo-cons.  Kari is like a stupid infant with his first "play-ting".

BaseBoard I got a play-ting for you to play with....let me know when you're ready.

Kari
Originally Posted by Kari:
Originally Posted by baseman:
Originally Posted by Henry:

 

Kari, where do you get this stuff? Did anyone find any "democratic forces" in Libya? All NATO did was provide a propaganda fig-leaf -- the US spent the money and launched all the missiles. And pragmatism? Obama's "foreign intervention" is shaped by blood lust and an election-campaign need to appear more murderously macho than the Republicans.

The most dangerous thing about Obama, he is a wannabe strongman.  Obama has lost his compass, if he ever had one, and has become a poodle of the neo-cons.  Kari is like a stupid infant with his first "play-ting".

BaseBoard I got a play-ting for you to play with....let me know when you're ready.

I'm sure my house cat will find it funfull.

FM
Originally Posted by Kari:

Henry....Henry...."democratic forces" in this context doesn't mean that the people in the different groups and representing different interests and tribal fueds are democratic. By "democratic forces" 'I mean the movement to overthrow Qadaffi and end 4 decades of authoritarian rule. 

So, Kari, by "democratic forces" you mean the people acting to end 4 decades of authoritarian rule and replace it with 4 decades of a different authoritarian rule, along with some bloody fratricidal conflict as a bonus. Do I have that right? And would you say this is typical of Obama's "pragmatic foreign intervention"?

FM
Originally Posted by Henry:
Originally Posted by Kari:

Henry....Henry...."democratic forces" in this context doesn't mean that the people in the different groups and representing different interests and tribal fueds are democratic. By "democratic forces" 'I mean the movement to overthrow Qadaffi and end 4 decades of authoritarian rule. 

So, Kari, by "democratic forces" you mean the people acting to end 4 decades of authoritarian rule and replace it with 4 decades of a different authoritarian rule, along with some bloody fratricidal conflict as a bonus. Do I have that right? And would you say this is typical of Obama's "pragmatic foreign intervention"?

Very clairvoyant.....to know with god-given certainty that 4 decades of  "different authoritarian rule, along with some bloody fratricidal conflict" as you so delicately put it. Remove the name Obama and insert any other President's name and you will see how crystal clear your bias is to this African-American President.

Kari

U.S. foreign policy have always been to protect American interests whether it entails supporting democratic or undemocratic forces in any country or region. U.S. support for the Arab Spring is meant to weaken the position of her foes in the Middle East. Saudi Arabia, America's great friend in the M.E., is more undemocratic and repressive than the Syrian or Iranian regimes.

Billy Ram Balgobin

BillyB what you say may all be well and true. However I was drawing a line between some guru knowing with certainty that Libya will be effed up in the next 4 years and Obama will be the author of this support. I'm asking this shithead to own up that he has a builtin bias towards this black man. That's all.

Kari
Originally Posted by Kari:
Originally Posted by Henry:
Originally Posted by Kari:

Henry....Henry...."democratic forces" in this context doesn't mean that the people in the different groups and representing different interests and tribal fueds are democratic. By "democratic forces" 'I mean the movement to overthrow Qadaffi and end 4 decades of authoritarian rule. 

So, Kari, by "democratic forces" you mean the people acting to end 4 decades of authoritarian rule and replace it with 4 decades of a different authoritarian rule, along with some bloody fratricidal conflict as a bonus. Do I have that right? And would you say this is typical of Obama's "pragmatic foreign intervention"?

Very clairvoyant.....to know with god-given certainty that 4 decades of  "different authoritarian rule, along with some bloody fratricidal conflict" as you so delicately put it. Remove the name Obama and insert any other President's name and you will see how crystal clear your bias is to this African-American President.

Actually, Kari, perhaps you said it best yourself when you penned this gem: "democratic forces" in this context doesn't mean that the people in the different groups and representing different interests and tribal fueds are democratic. Indeed. Regarding Obama, I could remove his name and insert the name of G.W. Bush, and everything I said would still be true! It is really hard to tell where Bush's presidency stops and Obama's begins. It's like Bush walked out of the tanning salon and got re-elected to a third term.

FM
Originally Posted by Henry:

...Regarding Obama, I could remove his name and insert the name of G.W. Bush, and everything I said would still be true!......

Hey, don't mix up a strong leader like G. W. Bush with a "back of the pack" Obama.

FM

Henry, G.W. Bush (the son) had a neo-conservative unilateralist foreign policy. It was to exercise American power following the collapse of the Soviet Union. There was a disdain for multi-lateralism like the UN body. With actors like Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld and Paul Wolfowitz, I fail to see how you can equate that foreign policy with Obama's. It was only after 2006 that Condi Rice and Colin Powell started getting Bush's ear.

 

The First Bush - George Herbert Walker Bush (the Old Man) had a pragmatic foreign policy. This is more like Obama's.

 

You are so full of it to equate Obama with Bush when it comes to anything, period. Have you seen what Obama did in domestic policy - health care legislation, all the gender rights stuff, immigration,etc. Resuscitating the credit sector following the 2008 financial crisis and housing crash involved steps Bush took, yes, and Obama continued, as they were policies of demand gap financing that anyone other than Mitt Romney and these Republican TEA party hawks would have done. If anything Obama gets called out on the Left by not going farther.

 

Obama ended the Iraq war and is ending the Afghan one. Did you see any Bush people calling for this to happen? Obama went after bin Laden . Did any Bush people say bin Laden was important?

 

You are being disingenuous.

Kari
Originally Posted by Kari:

Henry, G.W. Bush (the son) had a neo-conservative unilateralist foreign policy. It was to exercise American power following the collapse of the Soviet Union. There was a disdain for multi-lateralism like the UN body. With actors like Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld and Paul Wolfowitz, I fail to see how you can equate that foreign policy with Obama's. It was only after 2006 that Condi Rice and Colin Powell started getting Bush's ear.

 

The First Bush - George Herbert Walker Bush (the Old Man) had a pragmatic foreign policy. This is more like Obama's.

 

You are so full of it to equate Obama with Bush when it comes to anything, period. Have you seen what Obama did in domestic policy - health care legislation, all the gender rights stuff, immigration,etc. Resuscitating the credit sector following the 2008 financial crisis and housing crash involved steps Bush took, yes, and Obama continued, as they were policies of demand gap financing that anyone other than Mitt Romney and these Republican TEA party hawks would have done. If anything Obama gets called out on the Left by not going farther.

 

Obama ended the Iraq war and is ending the Afghan one. Did you see any Bush people calling for this to happen? Obama went after bin Laden . Did any Bush people say bin Laden was important?

 

You are being disingenuous.

You must be drunk on sena or love the taste of barf or smell your fart.

 

Tracking Osama was a five-year CIA operation which preceded but materialized under Obama.  I think even Jimmy Carter would have issued the order to take him out.

 

What has Obama achieved in Foreign policy?  A withdrawal from Iraq is fine but we have virtually ceded it to Iran, thus the Syria conflagration to please the Saudis.  What is Afganistan, another mess, we are talking to the Taliban who are executing women and killing American soldiers up to yesterday....and we call it victory.

 

The most gripping ME issue is the Israeli-Palistian conflict, when last has Obama mentioned this.  He does not care to tackle tough issues, he prefers to "lead from the back" and let events play out then get in when the "home-run is in sight".  The guy has no defined foreign policy, just a reaction to events.  With all his failures, at least Jimmy Carter gave us Camp David, which BTW made it easier for Obama to throw Mubarak under the bus.

 

I don't see the celebration, domestic the US is a disaster, foreign policy he is a mess.  The dangerous thing with him now, he has no legacy, apart from Osama's scalp, and may be tempted to start a war with Iran to carve his place in history.  The guy has nothing of him own, he is living off of "inventory".

FM

The Russians are trying to prevent what happen in Libya.  What happen was thousands of Qatar well armed Libyan rebels, American and British special forces invaded the Libyan capital from the sea using a fleet of boats. As a result, Gaddafi's forces suddenly found themselves fighting three fronts at the same time.  The front, the back and the air and that is what cause them to lose so fast. 

Wally
Originally Posted by Kari:

Henry, G.W. Bush (the son) had a neo-conservative unilateralist foreign policy. It was to exercise American power following the collapse of the Soviet Union. There was a disdain for multi-lateralism like the UN body. 

Exactly. Obama is now undercutting the UN plan for Syria at every turn, and the vicious Susan Rice is muttering ominously about the US taking action outside of the UN Security Council. And when Obama decided to assassinate Osama bin Laden, instead of bringing him to trial (assuming that it was really bin Laden,) one of the few voices to loudly praise the decision was that of Dick Cheney.

FM
Originally Posted by Henry:
Originally Posted by Kari:

Henry, G.W. Bush (the son) had a neo-conservative unilateralist foreign policy. It was to exercise American power following the collapse of the Soviet Union. There was a disdain for multi-lateralism like the UN body. 

Exactly. Obama is now undercutting the UN plan for Syria at every turn, and the vicious Susan Rice is muttering ominously about the US taking action outside of the UN Security Council. And when Obama decided to assassinate Osama bin Laden, instead of bringing him to trial (assuming that it was really bin Laden,) one of the few voices to loudly praise the decision was that of Dick Cheney.

On that note, I do agree with the way it was handled.  Like our own terrorists in Guyana, phantomization/execution is the solution rather than providing them and their sick followers a platform for further propaganda, death and destruction.

FM

Execution is especially good if you do it to the wrong guy, because then no one will know. Also, if it is someone with whom you have closely collaborated in the past, as was the case with bin Laden who received $2.2 Billion from the U.S., there's a pretty good chance that he may have some embarrassing knowledge about the Americans he was in bed with, so in order to silence him, you just have him rubbed out, mafia-style. Dead men tell no tales.

FM
Originally Posted by Henry:

Execution is especially good if you do it to the wrong guy, because then no one will know. Also, if it is someone with whom you have closely collaborated in the past, as was the case with bin Laden who received $2.2 Billion from the U.S., there's a pretty good chance that he may have some embarrassing knowledge about the Americans he was in bed with, so in order to silence him, you just have him rubbed out, mafia-style. Dead men tell no tales.

I guess you were the US bagman for ben Laden so you know they funded him!

FM

Add Reply

×
×
×
×
×
Link copied to your clipboard.
×
×