Schlagwort-Archive: #Russian military forces

Federico PIERACCINI: Nuclear War Is Not on the Table – Because It Makes No Sense; RI 08.06.2016

globalcrisis/globalchange NEWS
Martin Zeis, 09.06.2016

Dear all,

recently we’ve posted A Russian Warning undersigned by Russians living and working in the USA:

„We have been watching with increasing anxiety as the current US and NATO policies have set us on an extremely dangerous collision course with the Russian Federation, as well as with China. Many respected, patriotic Americans, such as Paul Craig Roberts, Stephen Cohen, Philip Giraldi, Ray McGovern and many others have been issuing warnings of a looming a Third World War. But their voices have been all but lost among the din of a mass media that is full of deceptive and inaccurate stories that characterize the Russian economy as being in shambles and the Russian military as weak – all based on no evidence. But we – knowing both Russian history and the current state of Rus-sian society and the Russian military, cannot swallow these lies. We now feel that it is our duty, as Russians living in the US, to warn the American people that they are being lied to, and to tell them the truth. And the truth is simply this:
If there is going to be a war with Russia, then the United States
will most certainly be destroyed, and most of us will end up dead. …“


Below Federico Pieraccini, a military analyst who writes the WAR UPDATE for RI, is raising objections against the thesis of an imminent possibility of nuclear war between the US and Russia.

Martin Zeis


Russia Insider, 08.06.2016 —

Nuclear War Is Not on the Table – Because It Makes No Sense

Important personalities in alternative news, or the counter-narrative, have spilled a lot of ink recently on the imminent possibility of nuclear war between the US and Russia.

By Federico Pieraccini

Before considering the issue more closely, it is essential to clarify certain basic principles on which we should all agree as a premise for this analysis.

(a) Russia will never allow any country to make it a victim of such a situation as a world war, condemning its citizens to suffer tens of millions of deaths.

(b) The United States does not have the slightest idea of what it means to lose millions of fellow citizens in an armed conflict. Except for Pearl Harbour, Americans have never fought or seen the devastation of a domestic war against a peer competitor.

(c) Since the collapse of the USSR, NATO has lost its reason for existence. If it has continued to fuel the spending spree of the American military-industrial complex, it is because it has managed to artfully conjure various bogeymen (intercontinental missiles, imaginary enemies, “rogue states”) over the past 25 years, thanks to the connivance of the corrupt mainstream media lies and deception.

(d) There is no missile shield that is capable of neutralizing with 100% accuracy a nuclear attack (of any kind, that is first strike, second strike, pre-emptive or response/retaliation). The S-400, Aegis, S-500, THAAD, and Patriot air-defense systems can all be saturated with a torrent of decoys to safeguard the nuclear-armed missiles.

Having agreed on the above, then what is the most likely scenario?


If a nuclear exchange is not convenient for anyone, and if MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction) cannot be altered willy-nilly, then why does NATO continue to fan the flames, raising the scenario of thermonuclear conflict?

Three main reasons:

1. To intimidate Russia with the ridiculous hope that Moscow will step back from the global arena in which it has been playing the leading role in the last months and years.

2. The constant state of pre-alert as a harbinger of war for billion-dollar contracts for the US arms industry.

3. Placing troops and weapons in distant countries is a way to project power and at the same time make those nations feel important within the Atlantic alliance (with the added benefit that these governments will provide lucrative contracts for the US defense industry) (…)

In short, the beating of the war drums by the neo conservative and neoliberals in relation to Russia is only another way to increase military spending and fatten their own pockets (the same scam is being used when addressing IS, Al Nusra Front/Al-Qaeda as a national threat). Moscow, however, has an excellent opportunity to pursue a military doctrine based on modernization, preparation for conventional and non confrontation with NATO, increasing its zones of influence in Asia, the Middle East, North Africa, the Caucasus, the Baltic and Black Seas the, Pacific Ocean, the North Pole and elsewhere.

Of course the danger of an accidental confrontation leading to nuclear escalation is a possibility that hangs over humanity, but even in this case, it seems difficult if not impossible to imagine that there would not be a phone call between Moscow and Washington to clarify an accidental situation and thereby prevent tens of millions of deaths.

The engine of the conflicts are money and power. A nuclear war would lead to the exact opposite: poverty, famine and a general absence (for the remnant of the world’s population) of any form of power. A nuclear war would mean the end of civilization as we know it, would mark the end of the financial profits, war, industry, energy, banking and other sectors of the global economy. It would mean the end of all hegemonies, regional or global. (…)

— Full text attached (pdf-file, 4p) —



Pepe ESCOBAR: Beware What You Wish For: Russia Is Ready for War; RI 23.05.2016

globalcrisis/globalchange NEWS
Martin Zeis, 23.05.2016

Dear all,

in a recent commentary „Can Russia Survive Washington’s Attack?“ a concerned Paul Craig Roberts wrote:

„ … It is not only American generals who are irresponsible and declare on the basis of no evidence whatsoever that “Russia is an existential threat to the United States” and also to the Baltic states, Poland, Georgia, Ukraine, and all of Europe. British generals also participate in the warmongering. UK retired general and former NATO commander Sir Richard Shirreff, Deputy Supreme Allied Commander in Europe until 2014, has just declared that nuclear war with Russia is “entirely possible” within the year.

My loyal readers know that I, myself, have been warning for some time about the likelihood of nuclear war. However, there is a vast difference between me and the Western generals. I see the war as the consequence of the neoconservative drive for US world hegemony. The neoconservative drive for world hegemony is acknowledged by the neoconservatives themselves in their public position papers, and it has a 15 year record of being implemented in America’s many and ongoing wars in the Middle East and Africa. Although the Presstitute media does its best to keep our focus away from the known facts, the facts remain known.“


In contrast Pepe Escobar – cool as a cucumber – specifies in Beware What You Wish For: Russia Is Ready for War the military skills / air raid defences / cyberwar systems etc. of a Russian Federation preparing for the worst case …


„ … So why is Moscow so worried by the Pentagon placing the Aegis system so close to Russia’s borders? A credible answer is that Moscow is always concerned that the US industrial military-complex might develop some really effective anti-missile missiles even though they are now about four generations behind.

At the same time, Pentagon planners have reasons to be very worried by what they know, or hint. At the same time the Russian military – in a very Asian way – never reveal their full hand. The key fact of the matter needs to be stressed over and over again; the S-500 is impenetrable – and allows Russia for the first time in history to launch a first strike nuclear attack, if it ever chooses to do so, and be immune to retaliation.

The rest is idle babbling. Still, expect the official Pentagon/NATO narrative to remain the same. After all, the industrial-military complex is a cash-devouring hydra, and a powerful enemy is a must (the phony Daesh “caliphate” does not count).

The Threat Narrative rules that Russia has to meekly accept being surrounded by NATO. Russia is not allowed any response; in any case, any response will be branded as “Russian aggression”. If Russia defends itself, this will be “exposed”as an unacceptable provocation. And may even furnish the pretext for a pre-emptive attack by NATO against Russia.

Now let those Pentagon/NATO planners duly go back to play in their lavish kindergarten.“

further see:
Beware What You Wish For: Russia Is Ready for War
Anybody wants to take on a military technology superpower?

— full text attached (pdf-file) -–-

Martin Zeis


Great Game & Partitioning Of Syria

Report by Shelley Kasli, Founder & Editor of GreatGameIndia, India’s only quarterly journal on Geopolitics and International Affairs.EDITOR’S CHOICE | 20.03.2016Russia’s decision to greatly reduce its military presence in Syria, coming as it did with little warning, has left the world struggling for explanations. Russia is to maintain a military presence at its naval base in Tartous and at…

Finian CUNNIGHAM: Job done: Russia saved Syria from US regime change… now it’s over to diplomacy

Martin Zeis
Mittwoch, 16. März 2016 um 09:53
An: <gc-special-engl%Martin.zeis>

Finian CUNNIGHAM: Job done: Russia saved Syria from US regime change… now it’s over to diplomacy; Rt Op-Edge, 15.03.2016

Dear all,

in the last days numerous articles/commentaries/speculations were published about a meeting of Vladimir Putin, Sergei Lavrov and Sergei Shoigu, adressing issues of settling the Syrian crisis and Putin’s order to begin withdrawing the main part of Russian troops from the Syrian Arab Republic on March 15. (video and transcript of the meeting see: )

Following an in-depth article by free lance journalist Finian Cunnigham (born 1963), who extensively has writtten on international affairs.


RT Op-Edge, 15.03.2016 —

Job done: Russia saved Syria from US regime change… now it’s over to diplomacy

– E x c e r p t –

Five years of war, five months of Russian military intervention, and now peace talks are underway. It’s as simple as that.

However, rather than acknowledging a successful Russian mission, Western media outlets immediately began speculating that President Putin’s surprise announcement to withdraw Russian forces from Syria indicates a “rift” between Moscow and Damascus. This is just more of the same Western media weapon of mass distraction that has obscured the real nature of the five-year war.
The sovereignty of Syria is the central principle officially underpinning peace talks that resumed in Geneva this week. Without Russia’s military intervention, Syria would not have the chance to pursue a political settlement on a such solid footing.

By contrast, after nearly two years of US-led military intervention allegedly to “defeat terrorism”, the Syrian state was on the brink of collapse from a largely foreign-backed terrorist assault. Until, that is, Russia intervened at the end of September last year. The touchstone is that Russia from the outset was motivated by supporting the Syrian nation and supplanting the terror threat. While the US and its allies were ultimately the source of the threat.

Western media in hock to their governments’ political line still strain the implausible narrative of a “popular uprising” in Syria that somehow descended into a “global proxy war”. But to the rest of the world, US-led illegal regime-change is the obvious, and damning, story. This should be the focus, not speculation about Putin’s alleged ulterior motives to withdraw militarily now from Syria. (see full article an notes below)

Damningly, former UN envoy Lakhdar Brahimi revealed in an interview at the weekend that the conflict in Syria could have been halted in 2012 – just over a year from its inception. Brahimi praised Russia for having “a much more realistic analysis of the situation” and that “everyone should have listened to the Russians a little bit more.” Moscow has consistently said that the political future of Syria must be decided by the people of Syria and that no external preconditions, such as Assad standing down, can be imposed by Western powers or their regional proxies. The current Geneva talks underscore this principle.

Last Friday, John Kerry flew to Saudi Arabia seemingly to urge an end to conflict in Syria. Notably, the Saudi-backed Syrian opposition, the High Negotiations Committee, suddenly reversed its rejection of the Geneva dialogue and said that it would be attending talks this week after all. The HNC comprises Al Qaeda-linked terror groups, Jaish al-Islam and Arhrar al-Shams. However, the HNC stipulated that any negotiations must be predicated on Assad’s removal.

Syria’s war, death toll and destruction are patently a result of a US-led bid for regime change in that country. The background intrigue, the explosive escalation of violence over the past five years and the belated political attempts to prosecute regime change by alternative means are all clear evidence of a criminal foreign assault on Syria.

Russia’s military intervention on behalf of the Syrian authorities, as designated by international law, has exposed the true nature of the conflict. The danger of US-backed covert war on Syria has been removed, and now it is over to diplomacy to resolve the peace. That is a stunning achievement. — emphasis, m.z. —

Notes (m.z.)

(1) see also: Larry JOHNSON (interview), 15.03.2016: Syria turning point: Russia withdraws to play the most of ‘diplomatic card’; URL:
(2) Andrew KORYBKO: Hybrid Wars Part 1: Disrupting Multipolarism Through Provoked Conflict; zerohedge, 13.03.2016 — URL:
(3) more in-depth – Andrew KORYBKO: The Indirect Approach To Regime Change”, Study 2015, 128 p, download:


Stephen KINZER: On Syria: Thank you, Russia!; The Boston Globe, Feb 13, 2016

globalcrisis/globalchange NEWS
Martin Zeis, Feb 15, 2016

In the US voices of sanity are increasing – this calls Realpolitik, entering into negotiations on a par.

On Syria: Thank you, Russia!
By Stephen Kinzer*
The Boston Globe
Feb 13, 2016

The Boston Globe is an American daily newspaper based in Boston, Massachusetts. Foun-ded in 1872 by Charles H. Taylor, it was privately held until 1973, when it went public as Affiliated Publications. The company was acquired in 1993 by The New York Times Com-pany; two years later was established as the newspaper’s online edition. In 2011, a subscription site was launched. In 2013, the newspaper and websites were purchased by John W. Henry, a businessman whose other holdings include the Boston Red Sox and Liverpool F.C.

Once again, Moscow has shown itself better able to make strategic choices than we are. Russia is not an ideal partner for the United States, but sometimes its interests align with ours. In those cases, we should drop our Cold War hostility and work with Russia. The best place to start is Syria.

American policy toward Syria was misbegotten from the start of the current conflict five years ago. By immediately adopting the hardest possible line—“Assad must go”—we removed any incentive for opposition groups to negotiate for peaceful change. That helped propel Syria into its bloody nightmare.

Russia, which has suffered repeated terror attacks from Islamic fanatics, is threatened by the chaos and ungoverned space that now defines Syria. So are we. Russia’s policy should be ours: prevent the fall of Bashar al-Assad’s government, craft a new regime that would include Assad or his supporters, and then work for a cease-fire.

The fall of Assad would create a catastrophic power vacuum like those that have turned Iraq and Libya into terrorist havens. This would be bad for the United States, and even worse for Russia and Iran. We should recognize this common interest, and work with countries that want what we want.

This may seem eminently logical, but the very suggestion is hateful in Washington. It violates a central precept of the liberal/conservative, Republican-Democrat foreign policy consensus: Russia is our eternal enemy, so anything that promotes Russia’s interests automatically undermines ours — and that goes double for Iran. Instead of clinging to this dangerously outdated with-us-or-against-us mantra, we should realize that countries with which we differ in some areas can be our partner in others. Russia is an ideal example.

We would have been more secure as a nation, and might have contributed to a more stable world, if we had followed Russia’s foreign policy lead in the past. The govern-ment Moscow supported in Afghanistan, run by Mohammad Najibullah from 1987-92, was more honest and progressive than any that has ruled Afghanistan since Ameri-can-backed forces deposed Najibullah. Later, Russia urged the United States not to invade Iraq and overthrow Saddam Hussein. They were right both times, and we were wrong. In Syria, Russia is right for a third time. Keeping the odious Assad in power, at least for the moment, best serves American interests. The alternative could be an ISIS “caliphate” stretching from the Mediterranean to the Tigris River.

No military solution is possible in Syria. Continued fighting only adds to the toll of death and horror. Russia wants a negotiated settlement. We are reluctant, because our so-called friends in the region want to keep fighting. They calculate continuing war to be in their interest. It may be — but it is not in the interest of the United States.

Opposition groups in Syria that we have half-heartedly supported refuse to negotiate until a cease-fire is in place. By accepting that formula, the United States guarantees continued war. Instead, negotiations should be aimed at creating a new regime that both Russia and the United States could support. From there, peace can grow.

How long Assad remains in power is not crucial to the United States. Weakening ISIS and al Qaeda is. Fighting those forces is the policy of Russia and Iran. We should recognize this confluence of interests, and work with every country or faction that shares our goals in Syria.

Our reflexive rejection of all cooperation with Russia is a throwback to a vanished era. It prevents us from taking decisive steps to ease the crisis in Syria. Its effects are also being felt in Europe. The Obama administration recently announced a four-fold increase in spending for troop deployments near Russia. Russia responded with military maneuvers near its border with Ukraine. This spiral of tension ignores the reality that Europe can never be truly secure without Russian cooperation.

Refusing to work with Russia hurts us more than it hurts Russia. Seeking avenues of cooperation would benefit both, and contribute to global security. Syria is the best place to start. Russia’s strategy — fight ISIS and al Qaeda, defend Assad, and seek a cease-fire that preserves his regime in some form — is the least bad option. Until we accept it, Syrian blood will continue to flow.

* Stephen Kinzer is a senior fellow at the Watson Institute for International Studies at Brown University. Follow him on Twitter @stephenkinzer.


Vom SAKER Die neunte Woche des russischen Eingreifens in Syrien: das Imperium schlägt zurück

Die neunte Woche des russischen Eingreifens in Syrien: das Imperium schlägt zurück

vom Saker

Week Nine of the Russian Intervention in Syria: the Empire strikes back

“Also was passiert hier wirklich?

Einfach: das Empire hat die Schwäche der russischen Kräfte in Syrien korrekt erkannt und hat beschlossen, die Türkei zu nutzen, um sich selbst ein Stück weit die Möglichkeit eines glaubwürdigen Abstreitens zu verschaffen. Dieser Angriff ist vermutlich nur der erste Schritt einer weit größeren Kampagne, um Russland von der türkischen Grenze „fortzuschieben“. Der nächste Schritt beinhaltet offensichtlich die Entsendung westlicher Truppen nach Syrien, anfänglich nur als „Berater“, aber womöglich auch als Spezialeinheiten und vorgelagerte Luftraumüberwachung. Die Luftwaffen der USA und der Türkei werden hier die Hauptrolle spielen, mit dazwischen gestreuten deutschen und britischen Flugzeugen, um genug Diversität zu schaffen, dass von einer „internationalen Koalition“ gesprochen werden kann. Was die Franzosen angeht, eingekeilt zwischen ihren russischen Gegenstücken und ihren NATO-“Alliierten“, sie werden so irrelevant bleiben wie immer. Holande hat wieder einmal nachgegeben (was sonst?). Vielleicht wird die NATO einen tatsächlichen sicheren Hafen für ihre „gemäßigten Terroristen“ in Nordsyrien schaffen und diesen als Stützpunkt nutzen, um einen Angriff auf Rakka zu führen. Da eine solche Intervention völlig illegal wäre, wird das Argument genutzt werden, die turkmenische Minderheit müsse verteidigt werden, R2P (right to protect- das Recht zu schützen) und alles. Die Schaffung eines durch die NATO geschützten sicheren Hafens für „gemäßigte Terroristen“ könnte als erster Schritt zur Aufteilung Syriens in mehrere Zwergstaaten dienen.

Sollte das wirklich der Plan sein, dann schickte der Abschuss der SU-24 eine starke Botschaft nach Russland: wir sind bereit, einen Krieg zu riskieren, um euch zurückzudrängen – seid ihr bereit, in den Krieg zu ziehen? Die schmerzhafte Antwort wird sein, nein, Russland ist nicht bereit, um Syrien einen Krieg gegen das ganze Empire zu führen, schlicht, weil es die Möglichkeit dazu nicht hat.” (…)

Tyler DURDEN: Putin Issues Warning To Obama; zerohedge, Nov 26, 2015

globalcrisis/globalchange NEWS
Martin Zeis, 27.11.2015

Dear all,

the events in Syria are threateningly getting worse (see article below). To understand the elaborated ambiguous geopolitical game the US are playing here via Turkey I recommend You reading the brilliant analysis by Andrew KORYBKO (USA): Why’s The US Hanging Turkey Out To Dry?, Oriental Review, Nov 25, 2015; URL: (see also attachment).

Best regards,
Martin Zeis

Russia Releases Video Of S-400 SAM Deployment In Syria, As Putin Issues Warning To Obama
by Tyler Durden on 11/26/2015 – 20:25 -0500

As reported two days ago, one of the first decisions a very angry Russia took in the aftermath of the shooting down of its Su-24 by a Turkish F-16 was to dispatch a Moskva guided-missile cruiser off the coast of Syria to provide air cover for its jets operating near Latakia, as well as send an unknown number of ultramodern S-400 (or SA-21 Growler in NATO designation) SAM batteries to Latakia to make sure that the tragic incident from Tuesday never repeats itself by sending Turkey a very clear message that the next time a Turkish warplane engages a Russian jet, Russia will immediate retaliate using ground forces.

Earlier today, Russia made a very explicit demonstration of the deployment of at least two S-400 batteries at Syria’s Khmeimim airbase, with the Russian Ministry of Defense promptly publicizing the arrival with the following clip.
With a range of 250 miles, the S-400 could easily strike Turkish targets, and as the map below shows, Russia could even take down targets over northern Israel. As cited by the Independent, Nick de Larrinaga, Europe editor of the defense magazine IHS Jane’s Defense Weekly, said it would be “a significant increase” in the reach of Russian air-defense capacities. “The message that the Russians are trying to send is that they’re capable of defending themselves in Syria, should the situation escalate.”

Needless to say, the US was not enthused and earlier today the US embassy in Moscow said that the “Russian deployment of the S-400 air-defense system to Syria won’t aid the fight against the Islamic State, with the US diplomat adding that the US is hopeful Russia won’t use the system to target planes flown by international coalition since Islamic State doesn’t have air force.” Clearly a warning to Putin not to dare use the rockets against Turkish (or other coalition) jets.

So what is Putin’s intention by escalating the military deployment of Russian weapons in Syria? Conveniently he explained his thinking just a few hours ago during his press conference with Francois Hollande. In answering a question by a reporter from French Le Monde, Putin said the following:

“The S-400 is an air defense system. The reason we didn’t have the system in Syria is because we thought our planes were flying at high enough altitudes where a terrorist could not reach them; they don’t have weapons capable of downing our planes at the altitude of over 3 or 4 thousand meters. And We could never think that we could be stabbed in the back by a country we regarded as our ally. Our planes operated at altitudes of 5-6,000 meters and were completely unprotected against potential attacks from fighter jets – we could never imagine that that could be possible otherwise we would deploy such systems in the area protecting our bombers against possible attacks.” … “We never did it because we regarded Turkey as our friend, we never expected an attack from that side. This is why we regard this attack as that of a traitor. But now we that this is possible, and we have to protect our planes. This is why we deployed a modern system, the S-400, it has a pretty long range and it’s one of the most effective systems of this kind in the world. We will not stop there: if we have to we will also deploy our fighter jets in the area.”

Bottom line: another direct engagement by a Turkish fighter will be its last, and in fact now that Russia is prepared we would not be at all surprised to see Russia cross into Turkish airspace on purpose just to provoke Erdogan to repeat the events from last week, only this time with the Russian ready and prepared to retaliate to any engagement. In fact, the odds of Russia doing just that in the next few days are especially high.

But while the reason behind the S-400 deployment was largely known to most, where Putin’s press conference took an unexpected detour was what he said just around 20:30 in, when in not so many words, Putin effectively accused the US of leaking the coordinates of the Russian plane to Turkey, which was merely a hitman acting with the blessing of the Pentagon. This is what Putin said:

“We told our US partners in advance where, when at what altitudes our pilots were going to operate. The US-led coalition, which includes Turkey, was aware of the time and place where our planes would operate. And this is exactly where and when we were attacked. Why did we share this information with the Americans? Either they don’t control their allies, or they just pass this information left and right without realizing what the consequences of such actions might be. We will have to have a serious talk with our US partners.”

In other words, just like in the tragic bombing of the Kunduz hospital by US forces (which has now been attributed to human error), so this time the target was a Russian plane which the US knew about well in advance, was targeted however not by the US itself, but by a NATO and US-alliance member, Turkey.

And while the deployment of the Russian SAM missiles was already known, the real message from today’s presser, the one that will be the topic of a private and “serious talk with Russia’s US partners”, is that Putin indirectly blames Obama for what happened on Tuesday realizing that Erdogan was merely the “executor”, one who is simply motivated to protect his (and his son’s) Islamic State oil routes.

Full press conference below; the discussion of Russia’s S-400 deployment begins 17:30 in:
LIVE: Putin and Hollande give a joint press conference following their meeting – English Audio — 36:05 min, URL:


Russia “Violated” Turkish Airspace Because Turkey “Moved” Its Border

Quelle: Russia “Violated” Turkish Airspace Because Turkey “Moved” Its Border
Russisches Verteidigungsministerium veröffentlicht Flugdaten der abgeschossenen Su24
24.11.2015 • 21:38 Uhr

Was passiert da gerade in der Türkei !? Dirk MÜLLER

Dokumentiert von der Facebookseite von Dirk MÜLLER:
Dirk Müller – Cashkurs (offizielle Seite) hat 3 neue Fotos hinzugefügt.

Was passiert da gerade in der Türkei !?

Die Türkei schießt nach eigenen Angaben eine russische Su-24 ab, die angeblich den türkischen Luftraum verletzt hat.

Die Türkei gibt sofort (ohnehin sehr ungewöhnlich) die Radaraufzeichnungen im Internet frei. Daraus geht hervor, dass die SU-24 einen kleinen Zipfel türkisches Gebiet ganz im Süden überflogen haben soll.

Bei kurzer Recherche ( wenn mir in der Schnelle kein Fehler unterlaufen ist) stellt man fest, dass die überflogene türkische Strecke (wenn es so war) 2 Kilometer !! türkisches Gebiet waren. Eine SU-24 macht 1300 Km/h. Das bedeutet, dass sie ganze 5 Sekunden über türkischem Gebiet war !! In dieser Zeit wollen die türkischen Jets („binnen 5 Minuten 10 Mal gewarnt“) haben.

Solche Verrücktheiten bringen uns an den Rand eines WK3 !? Wir haben nichts gelernt.

Unabhängig von der aktuellen Entwicklung sollten hier überhaupt keine Kampfflugezeuge in der Luft sein. Dieser Wahnsinn.
Dass durch unkoordinierte Kampfeinsätze, sich feindlich gegenüberstehender Mächte auf engstem fremdem Gebiet eine Eskalation nur eine Frage der Zeit war überrascht nicht. Was für ein Wahnsinn in Syrien. Für die Bevölkerung vor Ort und die Sicherheit der Welt.

Dirk Müller - Cashkurs (offizielle Seite)s Foto.
Dirk Müller - Cashkurs (offizielle Seite)s Foto.
Dirk Müller - Cashkurs (offizielle Seite)s Foto.


3 Min.Vor 3 Minuten

Pentagon spox confirms Turkey warned Russian pilots repeatedly before shootdown, pilots did not respond

Eingebetteter Bild-Link

Alexander MERCOURIS; The Syrian War and Russia’s Diplomatic Play; RI, Oct 9, 2015

globalcrisis/globalchange NEWS
Martin Zeis, 09.10.2015
The Syrian War and Russia’s Diplomatic Play
By Alexander MERCOURIS

Transcript* of meeting between Putin and Defence Minister Shoigu shows how Russia is holding on to the diplomatic initiative to support its military campaign

* see:

E x c e r p t

… The transcript does nonetheless provide us with much information.
Firstly, the transcript gives an insight into the sort of targets the Russians have been attacking.
The primary target is the infrastructure the Islamic State and the other jihadi groups have created to support their military campaign against the Syrian government. In Shoigu’s words “command posts, ammunition depots, military hardware, and training camps for their fighters.”
It is the Islamic State and the jihadi rebels’ resources to conduct the war, rather than their fighters, who are the primary target.
The Russians are not out to kill lots of jihadis. They are focused on destroying the Islamic State’s and the jihadis’ ability to wage war, so that the Russians and their allies can win it.
This is in keeping with the aim of the operation: to support an offensive by the Syrian army. The Syrians say it has now begun. Doubtless now that it has begun, the Russians will also provide close air support. The transcript says that Putin has already been informed of plans involving the conduct of the Syrian offensive – showing that it is being carefully coordinated with the Russians.

The main emphasis of the discussion between Putin and Shoigu was however the political and diplomatic effort underway to support the military campaign.
Westerners may be surprised to find Putin discussing political and diplomatic questions with his Defence Minister – as opposed to say his Foreign Minister or his intelligence chiefs.
However this is consistent with the way the Russians conduct war.
They see war as an all-encompassing activity in which every instrument available to the state – diplomatic, military or economic – is used to achieve victory. Reducing war to its purely military aspects – as Western leaders too often do – is not the Russian way.

This means that when the Russians decide to wage war, they prepare carefully, and work hard to support their military with intense diplomatic activity. (…)

What comes over clearly from Putin’s discussion with Shoigu is the range of diplomatic contacts the Russians are engaging in.
They are talking to everybody, not just their allies but also to those who might be considered their adversaries: the US, the Turks, the Israelis and the Saudis and they are doing so moreover all the time. Dr. Gilbert Doctorow has described Moscow as a “hive of activity”, and he is right.
Doing so enables the Russians to know what is in their potential adversaries’ minds and – ideally – to keep them divided and off-balance, preventing an anti-Russian coalition such as the one they faced in Afghanistan in the 1980s from being formed.

Thus instead of the Russians engaging publicly in a row with the Turks over airspace violations – which might cause Turkish opposition to the Russian campaign to harden – the Turks are placated with an apology, and an offer – which they have accepted – of a direct link to the Russian command to reduce the risk of more violations.

Hollande’s fantasy of an anti-Islamic State alliance between the Syrian army and the rebel Free Syrian Army is treated seriously, though Putin cannot resist a dig (“True, we do not know yet where this army is and who heads it”).
The Russians know perfectly well that Hollande’s proposal is a fantasy. However, by going through the motions of considering it – and making the fact public – they save Hollande’s face, and make themselves look reasonable.

US complaints that the Russians are not striking the Islamic State but are striking “moderate” rebels are countered with the request – made with all the appearance of a straight face – that the US tell them where the “real terrorists” are – though here again Putin cannot resist a dig (“It is fair enough if they say they know the situation better because they have been conducting operations in this territory (on an unlawful basis, as I have said) for more than a year now”).
Again the Russians know perfectly well the US will not share intelligence with them. They have said their discussions with the US are at a purely “technical” level. However by making the request they keep the US on the back foot, and again make themselves look reasonable.

The Russian tactics are working. Despite the anger in Western capitals, there is no sign of an anti-Russian coalition coming together.
Meanwhile, the really important discussions, those the Russians are having with the Iranians, the Iraqis, the Syrians and – above all – the Chinese, are being kept secret. Putin and Shoigu tell us nothing about them – which proves that they are the ones that really matter.
— emphasis, m.z. —