Good common sense from Joaquin Flores
Untangling Media from Reality - Russian Boots Syria? - Joaquin Flores
Untangling Media from Reality - Russian Boots Syria? - Joaquin Flores
Are
Russians Fighting in Syria? [video]
2
September, 2015
Fort
Russ Team
Are
Russians Fighting in Syria? This can mean three things - the
Russian government sending soldiers, individual volunteers and
experts who 'only' happen to be Russian, or something in between.
Hours
after their Sept 1 statements, RT released an official statement
confirming that this was Russia's official position.
Videos
on liveleak and youtube are surfacing which seems to indicate that at
least 'some kind of Russians' are fighting against ISIS and alongside
Syrian Army formations.
This
footage is from the important port city of Latakia, Syria.
A translation from 2:03 to 2:30 of the video is provided below:
2:03:
''Давай!'' - Give me/Come on!
2:06:
''Бросай!'' - Throw!
2:10:
"Ещё раз! Ещё давай!'' - Once again! Do it
again!
2:30:
"Павлин, павлин, мы выходим" -
Peacock, Peacock [callsign], we are moving out."
From US propaganda
Ominous sign: Russia sets up camp near Syrian port
In
a development that caught U.S. intelligence by surprise, Russia has
set up an air traffic control tower and modular housing units for
hundreds of personnel at an airfield near Syria's Mediterranean Port
of Latakia. CBS News correspondent David Martin reports on the
implications.
White House: Russian Military Action Against ISIS in Syria Would be 'Destabilizing'
4
September, 2015
Today's
lesson in how propaganda works: The rumor mill turns a trickle of
astory early
this week about "thousands" of Russian soldiers deploying
to Syria any day -- a wholly unsourced story originating on an
Israeli website -- into a torrent of hyperventilating about the
"Russian invasion" of Syria.
Today neocon convicted felon Eliot Abrams took to the Council on Foreign Relations website to amplify the Israeli article (again with no sources or evidence) to a whole new and more dramatic article ominously titled "Putin in Syria."
Abrams adds "reporting" by Michael Weiss, who has long been on the payroll of viscerally anti-Putin oligarch Michael Khodorkovsky, without revealing the obvious bias in the source. Never mind, all Weiss adds to Abrams' argument is that the Pentagon is "cagey" about discussing Russian involvement in Syria before again referencing the original (unsourced) Israeli article.
See how this works? Multiple media outlets report based on the same totally unsourced article and suddenly all the world's writing about the Russian invasion of Syria.
Now the White House has gotten into the game. According to an article by Agence France Press, the White House is "monitoring reports" that the Russians are active in Syria.
What reports? The article does not say nor does the White House. Presumably the White House is referring back to the original (unsourced) Israeli article.
But in the category of never let a good "crisis" go to waste, the White House, which began bombing Syria last August in violation of both international and US law, has declared that any Russian involvement in the Syria crisis would be "destabilizing and counterproductive."
Apparently a year of US bombs is not "destabilizing."
This is where the hypocrisy is so thick you could cut it with a knife. The US is illegally bombing Syria, illegally violating Syrian sovereignty, illegally training and equipping foreign fighters to overthrow the Syrian government, and has backed radical jihadists through covert and overt programs.
ISIS and al-Qaeda in Syria were solely the products of the 2003 US invasion of Iraq under false pretenses -- the lies of the neocons -- and after a year of US bombing ISIS seems as strong as ever while scores of civilians are killed by US attacks.
All of this is perfectly fine and should never be questioned. But even the hint that the Russians, who have had to contend with their fair share of radical Islam and are much closer to Syria than the US, may have an interest in joining the fight against ISIS is met with hysterical reproaches by a White House that admits it has no evidence.
What is the White House afraid of? While the stated goal of the Obama Administration is to defeat ISIS, the real, long-term goal is to overthrow Assad.
The Russians disagree with the US insistence that Assad's departure must be the starting point of any political settlement of the crisis. The Russians have long ago come to understand that Assad may be key to saving Syria from the kind of jihadist chaos that has engulfed Libya after its "liberation" by the US and its allies.
That is why the US government is flirting with the (unsourced Israeli) rumors of a massive Russian invasion of Syria. Regurgitated cries that the Russians are coming may serve to divert attention from another failed US intervention in the region.
One might think that if the US was serious about defeating ISIS it would welcome involvement from Russia and Iran, both of which would like nothing more than to see the back of the Islamic State. One might think if the US was serious about defeating ISIS it would rethink its "Assad must go" policy and allow the one force that has the most incentive to defeat ISIS -- the Syrian Arab Army.
Yet the US will only work with the same states that have trained, funded, and turned a blind eye to the radical Islamic fighters as they have poured into Syria over the past four years -- Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Turkey, etc.
Conspiracy-minded people must be wondering why the US is so reluctant to accept assistance from forces that so earnestly and with such military capacity seek the end of ISIS while partnering with those forces that have done so much to create ISIS.
Today neocon convicted felon Eliot Abrams took to the Council on Foreign Relations website to amplify the Israeli article (again with no sources or evidence) to a whole new and more dramatic article ominously titled "Putin in Syria."
Abrams adds "reporting" by Michael Weiss, who has long been on the payroll of viscerally anti-Putin oligarch Michael Khodorkovsky, without revealing the obvious bias in the source. Never mind, all Weiss adds to Abrams' argument is that the Pentagon is "cagey" about discussing Russian involvement in Syria before again referencing the original (unsourced) Israeli article.
See how this works? Multiple media outlets report based on the same totally unsourced article and suddenly all the world's writing about the Russian invasion of Syria.
Now the White House has gotten into the game. According to an article by Agence France Press, the White House is "monitoring reports" that the Russians are active in Syria.
What reports? The article does not say nor does the White House. Presumably the White House is referring back to the original (unsourced) Israeli article.
But in the category of never let a good "crisis" go to waste, the White House, which began bombing Syria last August in violation of both international and US law, has declared that any Russian involvement in the Syria crisis would be "destabilizing and counterproductive."
Apparently a year of US bombs is not "destabilizing."
This is where the hypocrisy is so thick you could cut it with a knife. The US is illegally bombing Syria, illegally violating Syrian sovereignty, illegally training and equipping foreign fighters to overthrow the Syrian government, and has backed radical jihadists through covert and overt programs.
ISIS and al-Qaeda in Syria were solely the products of the 2003 US invasion of Iraq under false pretenses -- the lies of the neocons -- and after a year of US bombing ISIS seems as strong as ever while scores of civilians are killed by US attacks.
All of this is perfectly fine and should never be questioned. But even the hint that the Russians, who have had to contend with their fair share of radical Islam and are much closer to Syria than the US, may have an interest in joining the fight against ISIS is met with hysterical reproaches by a White House that admits it has no evidence.
What is the White House afraid of? While the stated goal of the Obama Administration is to defeat ISIS, the real, long-term goal is to overthrow Assad.
The Russians disagree with the US insistence that Assad's departure must be the starting point of any political settlement of the crisis. The Russians have long ago come to understand that Assad may be key to saving Syria from the kind of jihadist chaos that has engulfed Libya after its "liberation" by the US and its allies.
That is why the US government is flirting with the (unsourced Israeli) rumors of a massive Russian invasion of Syria. Regurgitated cries that the Russians are coming may serve to divert attention from another failed US intervention in the region.
One might think that if the US was serious about defeating ISIS it would welcome involvement from Russia and Iran, both of which would like nothing more than to see the back of the Islamic State. One might think if the US was serious about defeating ISIS it would rethink its "Assad must go" policy and allow the one force that has the most incentive to defeat ISIS -- the Syrian Arab Army.
Yet the US will only work with the same states that have trained, funded, and turned a blind eye to the radical Islamic fighters as they have poured into Syria over the past four years -- Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Turkey, etc.
Conspiracy-minded people must be wondering why the US is so reluctant to accept assistance from forces that so earnestly and with such military capacity seek the end of ISIS while partnering with those forces that have done so much to create ISIS.
Is the Russian Army Fighting in Syria? Western Journalism taken to Task
6
September, 2015
Translated
for Fort Russ by Soviet Bear -
The "Arab spring" with all long-lasting consequences has become a cemetery not just for the military-political experts and analysts, but also for so-called "honest Western journalism." Despite the fact that the very fact of its existence was put under serious doubt in the course of Soviet-American and Palestinian-Israeli conflicts, the belief in its existence proved to be extremely tenacious. Including in our country, which still cannot get rid of the remnants of the Russia’s 1990’s national idea of bowing before "white man from the West".
Photo:
turkishnavy.net / "Nikolai Phylchenkov" with "unknown
cargo" on deck.
Photo:
turkishnavy.net / And a little closerПосмотреть
полностью:
http://politrussia.com/world/rossiyskaya-armiya-otpravlyaetsya-214/The war in Syria in which Russia is actively involved (logistically, advisory and politically) raises the problem of adequate perception of information. It is unlikely that we will be mistaken if we assume that for most the Russians who are concerned about politics this conflict is a logical continuation of the global Russian-American confrontation, the beginning of which can be considered an operation of forcing Georgia to peace. Therefore, any information regarding the failure of the Russian party in Syria faces very painful reaction of the Russian public.
Any
local victories and successes of Moscow in the framework of the
Russian-American confrontation — which, to our infinite surprise
many interpret solely as “failures” is invariably accompanied
by the activation of local and Western “unbiased” journalism.
Servants of the pen and keyboard take the old notes of "cold
war" from the bottom of their chests and begin to write. In
particular, the adaptation of slightly outdated propaganda
postulates led to a very exciting quest called: "Find a
Russian soldier!” In combination with the legendary quiz called:
"Predict the Russian aggression" the effect is just
fantastic.
So, the American publisher - "The Daily Beast" in its fresh material from the first lines adds the emphasis: "It seems that games in Ukraine is not enough for Moscow, because last month there was a whole stream of messages about the build-up of Russian military presence in Syria."Well, then the author begins to “expose”.
In
confirmation of the thesis of strengthening of the Russian military
presence in Syria Michael Weiss cites a number of arguments. In
particular, refers to the "Bosphorus Naval News", which
were published on August 22, pictures of Russian ship "Nikolai
Filchenkov" passing the Bosphorus strait with military cargo
on the deck. [see photos above]
The
photos are really very exciting, but the reaction of the writer is
somewhat surprising. Deliveries of Russian military equipment to
the Syrian government, as well as providing logistical support,
held in the framework of the contracts signed even before the civil
war (2007-2010). It should also be noted that Russia agreed with
the “international community” and suspended fulfillment of arms
contracts with Syria, but after the decision of the EU concerning
the non-renewal of the embargo on arms supplies to the so-called
"Syrian opposition" the appropriateness of this gesture
was multiplied by zero.
Here it is necessary to evaluate the comedy of the story-line. Western and Arab journalists in a fit of righteous anger denounce Russia for providing military-technical assistance to an elected and absolutely legitimate government of Syria.
Anti-Russian revelations are being presented under the sauce of “illegality” of such actions. But the whole point is that these journalists are citizens of countries that officially allocate tens of millions of dollars for training and arming "moderate opposition" units, created with the sole purpose to overthrow Bashar al-Assad. But the most comical is that they are confident that truth is on their side.
But
let's move on to the next argument of the writer: "24 June
Oryx Blog which monitors military developments in the Middle East
and North Africa, found that at least one BTR-82A has been spotted
off the coast in Latakia province, where the family of Syrian
dictator Bashar al-Assad is from."
The news is interesting because this model entered service within the Russian army as recently as 2013 (came off the assembly line in 2011), we are talking about deliveries under new contracts signed after the beginning of military conflict. Let's give the floor to the experts:
"The
BTR-82 is different from the BTR-80, 30-mm cannon is mounted instead
of the 14.5 KPVT machine gun which was already tested on the BTR-80A.
But now the gun and twin machine gun are stabilized in two planes,
which allowed to fire on the move. The machine is equipped with the
TKN-4GA sight, it is able work at night, equipped with hidden laser
illuminator. The armor of the machine is coated with a special
ballistic material on the inside, and the bottom has a new
energy-absorbing design with two-levels of defense and special seat
suspension. The survivability of a modernized BTR increased by 20
percent."But,
perhaps, an American journalist alludes to the fact that supplies
of Russian armored personnel carriers BTR-82A are contrary to
international law? Let's give the floor to the Deputy Head of the
Russian Security Council Yevgeny Lukyanov:
Judging by the fact that the Syrian government forces armored park is being replenished even with the most recent developments of the Russian defense industry, Moscow came thoroughly to the issue of re-equipment of the Syrian army. At least, the term "Syrian Express" among those interested in the fate of the Middle East is no less popular than legendary Donbass "Voentorg”.
"Russia
has concluded an agreement with Syria on the supply of weapons, but
only within the framework of conventional arms, which is not
subject to UN sanctions. Moscow refrains from implementing
agreements on anti-aircraft
missile systems S-300
and Yak-130 aircraft".
Let's continue quoting The Daily Beast: "But the most curious is the information that the official TV channel of the National defense forces have accidentally revealed in one of its news from the front in Latakia. The channel showed an armored personnel carrier in battle, but the Russian speech can be clearly heard in the report. These are the orders to the crew of the BTR-82A".
Further, the author gives not the correct translation. In the second minute quite clearly audible:
2:
03: "Go!".
02:06:
"Throw!"
02:10
"one more time! Once again!"
02:30:
"Peacock, peacock, (callsign) we moving out."
Given
the poor quality of the video it is not possible to accurately
determine who gives and who takes the orders, but considering that
the video recorded the performance of the BTR-82A, with which the
Syrian military is not really acquainted, one can assume that the
voice in the video is addressed to the Russian-speaking crew of the
armored vehicle. Allegedly the "drills in the field" were
recorded in the video. The participation of Russian specialists in
such events should not come as a surprise: for the Russian defense
industry Syria is the most attractive testing ground. Remarkably,
based on the episode from the Russian speech during the BTR-82A
performance, the writer speaks of the monumental: "This is
convincing proof that the Russians are in the Syrian army."
Next, Michael Weiss demonstrates the skill of a competent investigative journalism: "In May the commander of the elite airborne forces of Russia Colonel-General Vladimir Shamanov said that he would gladly have sent "his paratroopers, if there was such task and the decision of the Russian leadership".
Leaving
aside the fact that this statement was made in August instead of
May, and there was no joy in direct speech of comrade Shamanov,
quote from the original Russian source:
"Airborne
troops of the Russian Federation are ready to help Syria to fight
with terrorists, if such a task is put by the Russian leadership.
This was announced on 4 August, the journalists, by the commander
of the airborne troops, Colonel-General Vladimir Shamanov: "we
will comply with the decisions taken by the leadership of the
country, if the task is given – we will fulfill it” - said
Shamanov, answering the question of the Syrian journalist about the
readiness of the airborne troops to assist the government of the
middle Eastern country in the fight against terrorism".
This
statement caused a lot of noise at the time, and it’s not even
the fact that it is actively used by Western journalists. This is
their livelihood. I’m astonished with the reaction of our
"armchair generals", which in the provision of
international assistance to the brotherly people of Syria, ready to
gratuitously send Russian tanks with Russian crews to Damascus for
free. In any quantity. It is difficult to explain the logic of such
proposals, but can hardly be mistaken if we assume that it is just
a manifestation of nostalgia for Soviet policy in Asia and Africa -
noble, but senseless and merciless.
With
specific regard to the statements by Vladimir Shamanov, only
Western journalists or the Russian bloggers can search for hidden
clues. There was a question from a journalist — was the answer
from the military man. If their will be the order – we will obey.
And whether there will be an order or not – you should ask the
political leadership of the country not the commander of airborne
forces. The leadership, however, unlikely to share their thoughts
on this, but in this case we can see only speculators, which are
online telling your readers about the life of each tower of the
Kremlin.
However,
it is worth noting that Michael Weiss looks very presentable
compared to his colleagues. Unlike the vast majority of foreign
journalists who have dedicated themselves to the search for the
Russian army outside Russia, Michael appeals to a specific factual
basis, in his "investigation" he is quite consistent, and
in general it felt that the writers understands what he wrote.
There is no doubt that this material will find its audience in the
West.
Separately
it is necessary to mention the source of the September hysteria on
the subject of the Russian military in Syria. On August 31 Israeli
news website Ynetnews in the material under the heading "Russian
jets in Syrian skies" informed that on the territories near
Damascus controlled by Bashar al-Assad a striking squadron with
Russian pilots is being formed. The gossip could be ignored, if not
epic PostScript that in the near future about 1 thousand Russian
soldiers will be deployed in Syria. According to the laws of
information warfare this information was provided to the Israelis
by the “sources in diplomatic circles”
Overall, even a cursory view of the news (2012-2015) on the increase of Russian military presence in Syria makes us to pay attention to the primitive presentation of information. The news of another movement of Russians to aid of Bashar al-Assad has been appearing consistently on the information resources of average attendance. The information comes in the grasping hands of journalists solely from "trusted sources in the government / intelligence / diplomatic circles". The news are usually accompanied by thematic photo, which, according to the writers, must demonstrate the Russian presence in Syria. Israeli source Ynetnews, for example, attached a photo of the Russian MiG-21 "stuck" to the aircraft-refueling. It looks really epic.
However, the resonance of another Israeli throw no the fan in its kind, is not unique. In 2012, the news of all the world's media outlets were full of loud headlines about the Russian special forces, who arrived in the Syrian port of Tartus in the holds of the tanker (!) "Iman". The source of the sensation was field paper of some factions of the Syrian opposition. Further information from "a reliable source" has migrated to the Israeli website "DEBKAfile", whence they appeared in news feed "Al Arabiya". The endpoint of this rumor turned out to be the Qatari "Al Jazeera".
Returning to the recent surge of increasing Russian military presence in Syria, we are obliged to quote the U.S. state Department spokesman Mark Toner:
"We have seen various reports in the press that it is possible that Russia sends military aircraft to Syria. I can only say that we are closely monitoring the situation. We study it. We are in contact with our partners in the region, trying to get more information. We are not sure for what purpose it is done and if it’s done at all. But, of course, we do express our concern about any attempt to support the Assad regime with military men,aircraft, any supplies or funding, because we believe that it is destabilizing and counterproductive step"
Finally from the Saker
On Russian military interventions (or lack thereof)
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: only a member of this blog may post a comment.