On Russian military interventions (or lack thereof)

My recent article about a possible Russian military intervention in the Syrian conflict triggered, amongst mostly rational reactions, a few angry and frustrated one from folks who were apparently disgusted with the Russian refusal to get militarily involved in Novorussia and Syria. Since such angry protests are also often echoed on other supposedly pro-Russian blogs and websites I think that it is worthwhile to address the substance of these criticisms once again. So let’s start with the basics:

The legal purpose of the Russian Armed Forces.

The Federal Law N61-F3 “On Defense”, Section IV, Article 10, Para 2 clearly states that the mission of the Russian Armed Forces is to “repel aggression against the Russian Federation, the armed defense of the integrity and inviolability of the territory of the Russian Federation, and to carry out tasks in accordance with international treaties of the Russian Federation“. That’s it. Defend the territory of Russia or to carry out tasks in accordance to ratified treaties. These are the sole functions of the Russian Armed Forces.

The Russian Constitution, Chapter IV, Article 80, Para 2 clearly states that “The President of the Russian Federation shall be guarantor of the Constitution of the Russian Federation, of the rights and freedoms of man and citizen. According to the rules fixed by the Constitution of the Russian Federation, he shall adopt measures to protect the sovereignty of the Russian Federation, its independence and state integrity, ensure coordinated functioning and interaction of all the bodies of state power“.

Now, for an American used to have, on average, about one new war every year, this might seem mind boggling, but the Russian Federation has absolutely no desire to become an “anti-USA” and get involved in constant military operations abroad. Not only that, but the laws of the Russian Federation specifically forbid this.

Russia is not the world policeman, she does not have a network of 700-1000 bases worldwide (depending on your definition of ‘base’) but an army specifically designed to operate withing 1000km or less from the Russian border and the President does not have the legal mandate to use the Russian armed forces to solve foreign crises.

The political mandate of the Russian President

Putin’s real power is not based on any written Russian law. His real power is in the fact that he has the support of the overwhelming majority of the Russian people. How did he achieve such an amazing popularity? It was not by funding a multi-billion dollar propaganda campaign, or by making empty promises. Putin’s popularity is simply a direct result of the fact that Putin’s actions are in conformity with the will and desires of the Russian people.

Again, for an American who has seen every single US President grossly betray all his promises and who is used to have somebody in the White House whom a minority of Americans really support, this might be mind boggling, but in Russia the President actually enjoys the support of the people.

And the fact is that poll after poll the majority of the Russian people (67%) are opposed any overt Russian military intervention in the Donbass. That is a fact which the “hurray patriots” always conveniently ignore, but it is a fact nonetheless. Now if most Russian are opposed to a Russian military intervention in Novorussia, what percentage do you think would approve of a Russian military intervention in Syria?

This might sounds trite, but Putin was elected by the Russian people to defend their interests. He was not elected by the people of Novorussia or Syria. In fact, Russia has absolutely no obligation to anybody, not even a moral obligation to help. Those who are disgusted by the lack of Russian military intervention seem to somehow assume that Russia “must” or “should” “do something” simply because she could do it. That is absolutely not true. Even if Russian could successfully intervene in Novorussia (she can) or Syria (she cannot) – that does not at all automatically mean that she has to take any such action.

Yes, Russia has provided support to Novorussia and Syria, but not because she “owed” them anything, but because she chose to help. This help, however, does not automatically entail that the Russian commitment is open-ended and that Putin “has to” send Russian soldiers into combat if needed.

Besides, when is the last time any country send its soldiers to help Russia and, if needed, die for her?

Why the Russian soldier is willing to die in combat

I have three kids and I can easily imagine what the parents of a young man from, say, Tula or Pskov would feel if their son died in combat somewhere in Syria. Here is the text of the oath taken by each Russian solider:

“I, (full name), do solemnly swear allegiance to the Fatherland – the Russian Federation. I swear to faithfully observe the Constitution of the Russian Federation, to comply strictly with the requirements of the military regulations, the orders of my commanders and superiors. I swear to honorably perform my military duties, to courageously defend the freedom, independence and constitutional order of Russia, the people and the fatherland.”

There is no mention of Syria or any other country in this, is there?

When the Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan the Soviet propagandists came up with a cute concept “интернациональный долг” or “international duty”. This idea was derived from the Marxist concept of “proletarian internationalism”. And it is true that the Soviet Constitution (in articles 28 and 30) included the following language:

“The foreign policy of the Soviet Union aims at strengthening the positions of world socialism, supporting the struggle of peoples for national liberation and social progress” (…) “the Soviet Union as part of the world socialist system, the socialist community develops and strengthens friendship and cooperation, comradely mutual assistance with other socialist countries on the basis of a socialist internationalism”

There are probably those who are still nostalgic of the “good old days” when the Soviet Union was involved in conflicts in Asia, Africa or Latin America, but I am most definitely not one of them. And neither are the vast majority of Russians who remember exactly the price paid in blood for such ideological nonsense.

Again, for a person living in the USA where it is normal to see “posts” of “Veterans of Foreign Wars” (as if the US ever had a domestic one in living memory!) all over the country and where everybody know a least one relative, friend or neighbor who lost a family member in Afghanistan, Iraq or elsewhere – this might seem ridiculous. But for a Russian national not only is this not ridiculous, it is quite literally sacred. Why? Because it means that if their son or daughter are only sent into harms way when the Russian nation is under attack. This is also why the men of the 6th Company in Ulus-Kert were willing to die: because they were fighting for their Motherland, not for a college tuition, not to avoid jail or unemployment and not because they thought they could visit the world and kill brown people.

The pitfalls of “limited” military interventions

Ask yourself, how do wars typically end? Specifically, how many wars do you know of when both parties agreed to stop and sign some kind of peace treaty? The fact is that most wars end up in a victory for one side and a defeat for the other. And that, in turn, means that as long as the stronger party does not have the means to fully defeat the weaker one, the war will continue. The perfect example of that was the war in Afghanistan in which the Soviets easily invaded the country and defeated the “freedom fighters” [which later became known as “al-Qaeda”, courtesy of the US CIA] but were unable to pursue them into Pakistan and Iran. Thus the anti-Soviet forces, while “weaker”, could deny the Soviets their “victory” simply by surviving and even successfully resisting them in some locations (such as the Panjshir Valley).

This is the rough map of the territory currently controlled by Daesh:

Daesh area of operations

As you can see from the map, Daesh currently is active in both Syria and Iraq, and we also know that they have made inroad into Lebanon and Egypt. We can also be certain that Daesh could, if needed, move inside Saudi Arabia. By any measure, the territory currently more or less controlled by Daesh or, more accurately, the territory where Daesh can operate is huge. So in this context, what would “victory” mean? Eradicating Daesh from the entire Middle-East, of course. We have already seen what happened when the Syrian military basically defeated Daesh – Daesh just retreated into Iraq, that’s all. And that was enough to deny the Syrians their victory.

Can Daesh be defeated? Absolutely. But only if the AngloZionist would stop their anti-Shia crusade and let Iran, Syria, Hezbollah and Iraq crush these Takfiri lunatics. But since that is absolutely unacceptable to the AngloZionsts, the war will go on. And it is in this context that some would have Russia enter the conflict?! That is insane!

Any Russian commitment, besides being of dubious legality and politically very dangerous for Putin, would have to be either half-hearted or open-ended. In the first case it would be useless and in the second one extremely dangerous.

What about only sending aircraft?

Contrary to what some commentators have written, sending 6 MiG-31s could make a difference: six MiG-31s would mean 2 on combat air patrol, 2 ready to take-off and 2 in routine maintenance. Also, 2 MiG-31s in the air would be enough to monitor the Syrian airspace and defend it from any intruder (you can think of the MiG-31 as a ‘mini AWACS’ since it has an advanced passive electronically scanned array radar and weapons capable of tracking 10 targets while simultaneous engaging four of them at a very long range (as far as 200km). The problem with that is that all this fancy hardware serves no purpose against Daesh which has no air force.

Some have suggested that the MiG-31s could be used to protect Syria from a US cruise missile attack. While it is true that the MiG-31 is capable of engaging low-flying cruise missiles, the problem here is that each MiG-31 can only carry 4-6 air-to-air missiles. Thus a 2 MiG-31s patrol could only engage 12 cruise missiles at most, unless they begin chasing down each one and use their 23mm canon. Since any US attack on Syria would involve many more cruise missiles, there is really very little the MiG-31s could do. A much more effective defense would be provided by the S-300 and this is why the US and Israel were so opposed to any S-300 deliveries to Syria.

Others have suggested that Russia could send MiG-29s. Bad choice. The MiG-29 is a formidable close-in combat fighter, but a poor close air support aircraft. If the mission is the support of Syrian combat operations, then SU-24 and, especially, SU-25 would be much better suited. As far as I know, not a single report mentioned these.

How the Syria can be assisted

First and foremost, I want to remind everybody that Russia has already single-handedly stopped a planned US attack on Syria by simultaneously sending a naval task force off the Syrian coast (thereby providing the Syrians of a full view of the airspace in and around Syria) and by brilliantly suggesting that Syria get rid of her (utterly useless) chemical weapons (which, of course, some saw as a “betrayal” and “disarming” of Syria). Russia can still help Syria by sending military hardware, advisors, sharing intelligence and, most importantly, providing political cover.

Should the Syrian armed forces truly suffer from a military reversal and should the government be threatened, Hezbollah will be the first to intervene (as they already have), followed by Iran (as they, reportedly, also already have). With Hezbollah and Iranian boots on the ground (the latter probably also in Hezbollah uniforms), there is no need at all for Russian forces. At least not “regular” military ones.

It is possible, and even likely, that the Russians would (or already have) send covert units into Syria. What we are talking here are GRU and SVR special teams, mostly posing as “advisors” or private military contractors or even “technical assistance” personnel. Still, by all accounts the Syrian forces are extremely capable and we should not assume that they need any special outside expertise. And to the degree that outside assistance would be needed, Hezbollah would probably be much better suited for this task than Russian units.

As far as I know, the Syrians do lack some types modern equipment, especially modern electronics and optics. I am confident that the Russians can supply those, if needed through Iran. Finally, since this war has been going on for so many years already, I am sure that the Syrian military has difficulties with spares and repairs. Here again, Iran can help, with Russian aid if needed.

Conclusion

For the Russians to intervene directly in Syria would be illegal, politically impossible and pragmatically ineffective. Russia is much better off playing her role in the Hezbollah-Iran-Russia “chain of support” for Syria.

For all the AngloZionist propaganda about the resurgent Russian Bear planning to invade Europe and for all the sophomoric demands by pseudo-friends of Russia for Russian military interventions – Russia has absolutely no obligation or intention to intervene anywhere. The US example has already shown how costly and self-defeating it is for a country to declare itself the world policeman and to use military force to try to solve every one of the world’s crises. Russia is not the USA and she is not even an “anti-USA”. And that is, in my opinion, a very good thing for everybody.

The Saker

Uncle Bob 1 on September 03, 2015 · at 6:30 am EST/EDT

I’m doing a bit of “multi-tasking” at the moment.Reading,and now commenting on this article,while also watching the parade in Beijing (BTW its a great parade.I think the Moscow one was better.But that may just be me.And it doesn’t take away from how impressive it is.Ooops,RT lost the feed to the parade).

Usually I agree with most of the articles.And with this one I do agree with the points on Syria (the points that Russian “boots” on the ground aren’t needed now or the best option).Massive military intervention is usually the wrong way to go.The US has done that countless times and its always been a mistake.But then,the reasons they’ve done that have been purely mercenary on their part,so that doesn’t mean its wrong for all countries at all times.WWI and WWII started because of one country’s attack on another.And the allies of the first country wanting to come to the rescue of the attacked country (maybe not the Soviet or US part of WWII,but the war itself).What was the other choice.To have stood by and let Austria destroy Serbia without trying to help them.They were allies with Russia for a reason.Not just because they were both Slavic.And with WWII what was the choice.To tell Poland,”sorry,the guarantee’s we gave you were meaningless.Just let Germany take over your country unopposed,and call us next week,we’ll talk then”.Coming to more modern times,we have Korea.China came to the rescue of North Korea.And pushed the attackers back,saving North Korea.Some might think that a “bad thing”.But for China having US troops on their border,they believe, would have been worse.And even more modern.The Cubans intervened in Angola,saving that country from falling to the South African backed terrorists.And fought battles with Apartheid South African troops.Defeating them,and assuring the freedom of Angola.The US and Soviets in Afghanistan model,and results,of intervention are not a “one size fits all” to military intervention.And if we consider the Soviets,they intervened in Hungary in 1956,and in Czechoslovakia in 1968,and were totally successful both times.Now you,or me,might not have agreed on the purpose or rightness of those interventions (I’m not supportive on the second.But knowing the background and some of the actions of the protesters in the first one,I’m more supportive on that intervention.).But regardless,they were very successful.The situations were settled for over 30 years in one case and over 20 in the other.And changes in governments,when they did come.Came from ballots,not bullets.

Countries support or ally with a country for many reasons.But one reason that holds true for all of them is military protection.Going by what was posted which country would be foolish enough to support Russia against the Empire. If they thought Russia would desert them (she might of course.But that being a given from the start,leaves Russia with zero allies ever.) China isn’t doing military drills with Russia,thinking “oh,but if push comes to shove,they’ll drop us in a heartbeat.If the US just doesn’t attack Russia they can slaughter us anytime they want,and they’ll stand by and just watch”. So if that is the Russian policy,they are going to be very lonely real soon.None of the BRICS and others will dare to defy the US any longer.All the US would need to do is say “we aren’t going to attack Russia.So they won’t help you.But you little lambs need to start obeying now or we’ll crush you”.And you’d see a line of BRICS leaders in kneepads heading to Washington tomorrow.

As to Ukraine,in the post, is where I disagree the most.Ukraine isn’t a garden variety country to Russia.Russia,Ukraine,and Belarus “are” the Russian World.Sure some other countries are hangers on to that World.But those three are the heart of that World.Without them there is no “Russian World”.Millions of people inside Russia have families in those countries (probably they are part of the 33% of Russian citizens that support military intervention).Many government officials and Duma members even, are of Ukrainian backgrounds.All the history of Russia,from the start until today is intertwined with Ukraine.Its an arm of the Russian body,and always has been.As well as there were 10 million ethnic East Russians in Ukraine.Not including the millions of “Ukrainians” Russianized over hundreds of years.But even if we left all that out (impossible to do,but we’ll pretend).Ukraine’s location alone makes it vital to Russia’s security.And along with that ,the example of Ukraine to Russia’s other brother state.If the West succeeds in Ukraine,Belarus is certain to fall as well.There are fascists in Belarus,that are lusting to repeat the maidan there.And if they see Russia accept a fascist Ukraine.They will move on Belarus.A map easily shows Belarus would be surrounded in all directions except East by pro-NATO or actual NATO states.Easy to slip terrorists directly in on those three sides.While those that might think to support Russia would have to ask themselves “why”.Since,”if Russia will desert Ukrainian Russians, what would stop them from deserting us too”.

You are right that Putin likes to do what the people want.And that is a good thing.But being a leader means you have to see the full picture.And a full third of the people right now (without the government encouraging it) support intervention.Most revolutions start with less support than one third.And the other two-thirds say they don’t want to “send troops”,not that they don’t support the anti-fascists.Most Russians consider this a civil war in Ukraine (I do too).But that doesn’t mean it doesn’t concern them.I believe a while back it was said that the British created an anti-India out of Pakistan when they withdrew.And that is exactly right.It stunted the growth of India (and still does).And yet,the British,while wanting to control India’s strength.Didn’t necessarily want to use Pakistan to destroy India.But the West/NATO intends just that with Ukraine.In making an anti-Russia out of Ukraine.It not only would destabilize Russia.But could be used as a platform to actually dismember Russia.And unlike the British in India,that is the purpose for the West to control Ukraine.Personally,I don’t think that actual Russian troops are needed in Ukraine at present.But that doesn’t mean they might not ever be needed there.Even if the Russian Constitution doesn’t give a President the power to sent troops over the borders.We saw in 2014 the Duma specifically give Putin the authorization to intervene in Ukraine if need be.So if he wanted to,its unlikely the Duma wouldn’t give him that right again.Its the “will” not the law that prevents that at present.Every so often I see the term “hurray patriots” around.Its on Russian blogs,as “Ura Patriots”, I believe.I think that is a term coined to dismiss people with valid questions on policies the government doesn’t want to answer.Since when does worrying that wrong moves are made by the Russian government make someone a “hurray patriot”.One question asked by “hurray patriots” is why was/is more not done to support pro-Russian messaging in the World.Such as supporting people like Saker,South Front,Fort Ross,and others,that help get the truth out.Why must they have to struggle to help Russia on their own.And in answer to the question of which country sent troops to help Russia in war.That would be Ukraine.They stood shoulder to shoulder with Russians battling the nazis (yes,some West Ukrainians were nazi.But not the vast majority of Ukrainians .And certainly not the Novorossians),losing millions of soldiers, fighting together, with their brothers in Russia.Now one might say,but they were the same country then.But the primes of the post was that Ukraine isn’t Russia.So it can’t be both ways.Connected in feeling sometimes,and not in other times,going to show even more the connection of Ukraine and Russia (the common Rus of history). One last point,if Britain does split (I’m not holding my breathe on that).And Scotland becomes an independent state.Will suddenly the millions of Scots and English across the borders no longer be family? Will the deeds of history they shared together not count? And if say,a Scottish fascist party seized power (purely conjecture) started to become violently anti-English and persecute and kill English descended Scots.Would England stand-by and do nothing to help there.I strongly doubt that.And would England be right to intervene and end the persecution and killing? Yes they would. I agree on Syria,because the troops aren’t needed.But will have to agree to disagree on Ukraine.

228 Comments

jack on September 02, 2015 · at 3:53 pm EST/EDT

“the Soviet Union was involved in conflicts in Asia, Africa or Latin America, but I am most definitely ** one of them.”

should there be a *not* in there?
- The Saker on September 02, 2015 · at 5:41 pm EST/EDT
  
  done!
  correction made, thanks!!
Rif on September 02, 2015 · at 4:04 pm EST/EDT

RT came out and rejected that Russia was sending any forces to Syria but more outlets insists Russia is sending troops. Combined with various pictures of supposed Russian S-34(Tactical bombers), While I personally find the notion that Russia would send ground forces very unlikely, and as the article mentions, illegal. It does not seem so unlikely or illegal or even that controversial for Russia to send lots of planes and helicopters to support Assad, together with Russian pilots and support personnel such as logistics and maintenance.

“Despite strong denials from Moscow, Russian airborne troops are preparing to land in Syria to fight Islamic State forces. ”
http://debka.com/article/24858/Russia-gearing-up-to-be-first-world-power-to-insert-ground-forces-into-Syria

“#Syria Nusra linked acc. posted pics of Russian made drone & jets flying over Western #Idlib. Huge if true. ”
https://twitter.com/green_lemonnn/status/639017115077484544/photo/1?ref_src=twsrc^tfw
- Penelope on September 02, 2015 · at 5:42 pm EST/EDT
  
  Rif,
  
  Perhaps 6 weeks ago I read that ISIS/al qaeda were intended to eventually move their mayhem into the Caucasus– and that, preparatory to that, there were a lot of Chechnyans already fighting against Syria’s army. I mention this just to remind everyone that hearing Russian is not conclusive.
  
  Unlikely that undercover Russians wd be posing for videos, as in the Fort Russ video.
  
  Finally, months ago I recall a news item (maybe on RT) that a govt official was urging the formation of Russian mercenary Blackwater-type forces. I don’t know whether this idea was shot down, never saw anything else on it.
  
  P.S. Debka lies like a rug. Persistently.
  - Mulga Mumblebrain on September 03, 2015 · at 2:53 am EST/EDT
    
    The Zionazi plan for Syria is not regime change. It is total destruction, sociocide and as much mass murder as possible, followed by partition into four or more powerless statelets, which Israel can dominate and eventually steal as much land from as ‘Eretz Yisrael’ requires. And, I believe that Palmyra, as Tambor, was specifically cursed by the Jews at some stage, no doubt explaining the insane orgy of destruction being waged there by the psychopath army, their twisted psyches even more poisoned by Wahhabist hate.
    - RR on September 30, 2015 · at 8:29 am EST/EDT
      
      And the US plan is to come up through the caucuses and destroy the CSTO and then Russia with takfiri flesh eaters. I have read that ISIS were already in Ukraine in ca-hoots with Tartar malcontents.
      RR
- The Saker on September 02, 2015 · at 6:05 pm EST/EDT
  
  Debka is so fantastically full of shit that they could cover the entire Sahara in manure and turn it into a rain forest…
  My 2cts
  - Sanjin on September 02, 2015 · at 7:05 pm EST/EDT
    
    they will do everything to discredit russians as honest mediator and their effort to keep all parties at negotiating table. easiest way to ruin russian diplomatic efforts is to “greet their war path” siding with one side in conflict against other.
  - blue on September 02, 2015 · at 8:12 pm EST/EDT
    
    Not exactly just full of shit — anyone can do that — but a hawkish, Israeli military professional dysinformation warfare program to disseminate propaganda and lies, quite deliberately and not from ignorance or incompetence.
    - Anonymous on September 02, 2015 · at 11:25 pm EST/EDT
      
      “Israeli military professional dysinformation warfare program”
      
      Perhaps you think that Israeli “intelligence” is homogenous and/or united?
      
      “quite deliberately and not from ignorance or incompetence.”
      
      Perhaps you think that they are omniscient?
      - blue on September 03, 2015 · at 2:00 pm EST/EDT
        
        Perhaps the informational content of your post was mistakenly deleted leaving only noise behind?
        
        GrandmaR on September 03, 2015 · at 11:54 pm EST/EDT
        
        +100
        
        thanks, blue
    - The Saker on September 03, 2015 · at 12:00 am EST/EDT
      
      a hawkish, Israeli military professional dysinformation warfare program to disseminate propaganda and lies
      
      That too, I agree.
- Mulga Mumblebrain on September 03, 2015 · at 2:47 am EST/EDT
  
  DEBKA = MOSSAD.
- RR on September 06, 2015 · at 12:11 am EST/EDT
  
  All military agreements with Syria regarding hardware etc are being honored but no troops according to Putin. What Putin is actually doing here is demonstrating that the War on Terror being waged by the West is nothing and has never been anything other than a PRETEXT for PNAC…America has invested it’s national treasure in this fools dream and they are in to deep to back off at least institutionally but there can be NO DOUBT that America is feeling the atmospheric pressure created by the North Wind! Time is Putin greatest enemy and also best friend. The refugee crisis on top of sanctions and all the nonsense surrounding them is turning Europe and Japan and South Korea towards Russia and China. Let’s hope he has enough of it.
  RR
- RR on September 30, 2015 · at 9:01 am EST/EDT
  
  Breaking news Vladimir Putin asks Russian parliament for permission to use troops abroad from RT sept 30th that is just the headline he is asking the Duma for permission to send troops abroad which is in Russia’s interest to end the terrorist threat. Also, if Syria asks their friend and ally for more help in the way of troops Russia would be honour bound to do so.
  Putin said “this state of affairs is no longer tolerable” meaning US interventions in the ME. right from the podium at the UN.
Red Ryder on September 02, 2015 · at 4:20 pm EST/EDT

Good educational opportunity for the “experts” who grace the Vineyard in various guises with various agendas.

Thanks, Saker.

Facts are annoying to the trolls and the ignorant. Today, you annoyed a lot of them.
- elsi on September 02, 2015 · at 5:30 pm EST/EDT
  
  “Good educational opportunity for the “experts” who grace the Vineyard in various guises with various agendas.”
  
  Of course, and not always expect that trolls behave like trolls, sometimes you have to look among those who flatter you, especially between the “experts”.
  - Anonymous on September 02, 2015 · at 10:50 pm EST/EDT
    
    “Of course, and not always expect that trolls behave like trolls, sometimes you have to look among those who flatter you, especially between the “experts”.
    
    Yes another “effort” has been started by the opponents.
    
    The first broadcast at 10-43 UTC September 2 below is not from where you might expect,
    the second broadcast September 02, 2015 at 10:18 pm UTC was me.
    
    ” Anonymous on September 02, 2015 · at 10:43 am UTC
    
    elsi on September 01, 2015 · at 11:06 pm UTC said:
    
    “BTW, I have read all that interchange you have linked, and I will say you that omniscience is a widespread evil…..”
    
    I haven’t read those links – can you provide a summary as to why omniscience is a widespread evil?
    
    Anonymous on September 02, 2015 · at 10:18 pm UTC
    
    ” I haven’t read those links”
    
    So read them if you are interested and form your own hypotheses to test.
    
    Why expect to be spoon fed?”
    
    All datastreams are useful especially when you apply the why, why now and why in this form tests.
    - elsi on September 02, 2015 · at 10:59 pm EST/EDT
      
      Do not worry, I can differentiate you from this other anonymous easily, even though he imitates your old style when you used to repeate the name of the commentator you were answering to, followed by the date, and preceded by @.
      - Anonymous on September 02, 2015 · at 11:09 pm EST/EDT
        
        “Do not worry, ”
        
        I don’t worry but we use datastreams for various purposes which I will not describe.
        
        Anonymous on September 03, 2015 · at 12:10 pm EST/EDT
        
        Anonymous on September 02, 2015 · at 10:50 pm UT said:
        “So read them if you are interested and form your own hypotheses to test.
        
        Why expect to be spoon fed?”
        
        A lot of what is written is in order to try to influence the reader. In this case I am interested – but not sufficiently so as to read the links.
        
        If your purpose was to influence me then, in this case, it has failed.
        
        Anonymous on September 03, 2015 · at 12:54 pm EST/EDT
        
        “If your purpose was to influence me then, in this case, it has failed.”
        
        You appear to be creating a hologram of your expectations to bridge doubt, a habit often exhibited by the opponents.
        
        A blog is a broadcast medium hence neither the purposes nor the receivers are as restricted as you may expect.
        
        “In this case I am interested – but not sufficiently so as to read the links.”
        
        Some may see qualifiers whilst others see contradictions.
        
        Anonymous on September 03, 2015 · at 4:53 pm EST/EDT
        
        Anonymous on September 03, 2015 · at 12:54 pm UTC said:
        
        “You appear to be creating a hologram of your expectations to bridge doubt, a habit often exhibited by the opponents.”
        
        huh…I’ll let elsi continue to try and figure that out – a bit too cryptic for me…or maybe you’re just omniscient (but I doubt that).
- The Saker on September 02, 2015 · at 6:04 pm EST/EDT
  
  Today, you annoyed a lot of them.
  
  Apparently so, and they are paying me back in kind by pretending not to have read what I wrote or by actually really not reading it.
  cheers!
- Anonymous on September 02, 2015 · at 11:46 pm EST/EDT
  
  “Good educational opportunity for the “experts” who grace the Vineyard in various guises with various agendas.”
  
  Quite so, a good catalyst for illuminating assets.
the master on September 02, 2015 · at 4:29 pm EST/EDT

What?
And what about at least one thought that taking action in Novorossia, also Syria, or explicitly against Daesh (wherever it might be or whatever ISIL is nowadays called) is/could be in urgent Russian NATIONAL interests.
I mean real and inevitable, not the meaning the hypocratic USA is giving to that words. Not mentioning some nobel reasons because of humanity etc.
- The Saker on September 02, 2015 · at 5:46 pm EST/EDT
  
  have you read a single word of what I wrote?!
  or did I waste my time trying to explain how there was no way this would be in Russian national interest?
  - the master on September 02, 2015 · at 6:43 pm EST/EDT
    
    That is the point – that I do not agree (with your explanation) as I strongly mean it surely would be (in Russian national interests).
    It is too late to take care if the danger is too close.
    So it is better to fight the devil where it is before it gains power and allies (vassals).
    As it was for Stalin to prepare preemptive war, but he did not make it in time,
    And although it cost him nothing (he got his victory a few years later) but it cost the USSR millions of lives!
    Oh, or was it not in Russian national interest (besides loosing billions of rubels by discounting the oil, gas etc. prices, bribing oligarchs through cosy deals) to step in Ukrainian domestic policy before the USA paid the correct people who in turn screwed the brains of half the Ukrainians? The Kremlin has just missed the point (and meanwhile some people both in Kiev and Moscow made big money).
    If Russia would intervene in time on a large scale in some similar way as managed in the last moment in – Crimea that could have saved thousands of lives in Donbass.
    - blue on September 02, 2015 · at 8:17 pm EST/EDT
      
      The people in Donbas are not the same as the people in Crimea, and the situation was not the same either, politically or tactically. .
    - Anonymous on September 02, 2015 · at 10:35 pm EST/EDT
      
      “the master”
      
      “That is the point – that I do not agree (with your explanation) as I strongly mean it surely would be (in Russian national interests).”
      
      I note you wish to be known as the master, and take it upon yourself to “surely” define Russian national interests and inform and perhaps formulate Russian strategy.
      
      Thank you for your amusing datastream.
      - the master on September 03, 2015 · at 11:54 am EST/EDT
        
        OK, we will see.
        I am telling you that Russia will have to intervene in Ukraine sooner or later.
        Now it is clear that if sooner (by exterminating the junta),
        that it would have cost less lives.
        I am not postulating that I have known 3 years before, I am not a president.
        But even the real president can make mistakes, with all the intel, advisors etc.
        What is the outcome: Ukraine is hostile, people are being killed, Russia is under sanctions,
        temper is growing…
        Yes, of course – there is the secret plan of Putin. Let us pray that he has one who fits for all the possible outcomes and he can put him in practise when he is still in the office and Russia itself not in turmoil of some mydan belolentochniki.
        Have a nice day.
        (I just wonder what kind of day do the Donbass children have the last 12 months?)
        
        Anonymous on September 03, 2015 · at 1:05 pm EST/EDT
        
        “to intervene”
        
        Perhaps you are blinded by your notion of what constitutes “to intervene”.
        
        As for your mode of exposition, it may appear to some to be akin to the foot stamping of a frustrated child.
        
        (I just wonder what kind of day do the Donbass children have the last 12 months?)
        
        Your emoting appears to exhibit a similar proclivity on your part.
        
        “Let us pray”
        
        Some may not wish to be included in your we; preferring to aid facilitation.
        
        XRGRSF on September 03, 2015 · at 2:29 pm EST/EDT
        
        I’ve been reading your garbage for longer than I want. Since you don’t seem to be capable or reasoned discourse why don’t you just go away.
        
        the master on September 03, 2015 · at 3:48 pm EST/EDT
        
        Oh, you consider yourself for an academic masterpiece? I just wonder why such a mastermind is not quoted and praised all around the world…
        I consider your last reply to be garbage. You should not read what you do not like,
        or just go away.
        
        XRGRSF on September 03, 2015 · at 4:38 pm EST/EDT
        
        Not you, my friend, but Anonymous. Your posts tend to be well organized, and to make sense. You’re polite, and considerate in your replies. Anonymous can do little more than attack, and insult.
        
        Anonymous on September 03, 2015 · at 7:43 pm EST/EDT
        
        “You should not read what you do not like”
        
        For a master it would appear that your mastery does not extend to logic.
        
        How can anyone know what he/she does not like without reading it if it is written?
        
        How can anyone challenge their own perceptions without reading what he/she finds that he/she does not like if it is written?
        
        Anonymous on September 06, 2015 · at 1:13 pm EST/EDT
        
        I will not approve any more comments in this tic-for-tat argument … future comments on this will go to the trash … please move on to another subject … Mod HS
        
        Comment removed by Mod HS
        
        Anonymous on September 06, 2015 · at 1:08 pm EST/EDT
        
        “why don’t you just go away.”
        
        Thank you for your illustration of US notions that participation is reserved for them, and silence reserved for others.
        
        It would appear that Navalny and other useful fools continue to give.
        
        Thank you.
        
        Vineyard Moderator - H.S. on September 06, 2015 · at 1:48 pm EST/EDT
        
        I will not approve any more comments in this tic-for-tat argument … future comments on this will go to the trash … please move on to another subject … Mod HS
        
        Knit Your Own Zoo on September 03, 2015 · at 10:07 pm EST/EDT
        
        Sorry, @Master, but invoking Donbass children as a reason for military intervention is pure ad misericordia. No one has more sympathy for these children than Russian people no matter what territory they may live on, but they know that military intervention is not always the best way to solve a problem. Russia does not want to be a hammer that only sees nails everywhere. That often creates more problems than it solves. Americans fall for the babies-in-danger argument all the time: like the “babies being thrown out of incubators.” That worked like a charm. The best thing for Donbass children, although a lot of people won’t like this solution, is for them to be evacuated to Russia, just like British children were evacuated from London during WW II for their personal safety.
        
        RR on September 05, 2015 · at 11:55 pm EST/EDT
        
        That is an excellent idea ( evacuation). It may not make news in America but Europe has many more sympathetic reporters who actually do know what is going on.
    - Daniel Rich on September 03, 2015 · at 12:28 am EST/EDT
      
      @ ‘the master,’
      
      Q; So it is better to fight the devil where it is…
      
      R; The ‘We kill ’em over there so we don’t have to kill ’em over here” with a new coat of paint?
      
      Russia annexed Crimea, thus denying FUKUS total control over the region.
      
      You also seem to forget all those Russian Aid convoys that have been sent to the Donbass region and the weapon supplies going in that direction.
      
      Barking dogs are too busy to have simultaneously time to bite.
      - Mulga Mumblebrain on September 03, 2015 · at 2:57 am EST/EDT
        
        Daniel, one quibble. Russia did not, in my opinion, ‘annex’ Crimea. It liberated it, under the Responsibility to Protect Doctrine (exercised honestly for a change from Zionazi practise), at the request of its people, to save them from the fascist butchery we saw in Odessa and see in the Donbass.
        
        Daniel Rich on September 03, 2015 · at 7:42 am EST/EDT
        
        @ Mulga Mumblebrain,
        
        Q; Russia did not, in my opinion, ‘annex’ Crimea.
        
        R; I stand corrected; bad choice of words.
        
        Justin on September 03, 2015 · at 11:28 am EST/EDT
        
        Mulga, how dare the Russians “Liberate” the people of Crimea without blood, carnage and “Peace Bombs”. Have they learned nothing from their friends in the USA and NATO?
        
        It was a true horror that only 1 person lost their life in Russia’s liberation and that was by mistake, it just isn’t the way to liberate people. /SARC
        
        We all know that ISIL/Daesh are Ziocons proxy army operating in the Mid East and North Africa with the aid of USA, UK, Turkey, SA, Quatar, Israel and some others. People might be frustrated with what is being done in those areas and that no big opposition steps in and cleans up but I think the behind the scenes economic and financial actions being played out are a bigger way to deal long term with this than blood and iron.
        
        BRICS knows the best long term way to stop this rot is via economically dethroning the Ziocons means of funding their proxy armies. Hopefully a fairer and more peaceful world will result from this if we are not set ablaze in a Nuclear last hurrah by the psychopaths. This will intern effect also Ukraine and other border states that are under Ziocon influence.
        
        If it does come down to a slugging match with Russia, it is much better for Russia to fight on home turf where she has advantage.
        
        redracam on September 03, 2015 · at 11:43 am EST/EDT
        
        Moreover, the will of the Crimean people to secede was not just linked to the US inspired coup and lunatic fascist vanguard in Kiev; the first referendum asking for secession was in 1994 were 78% of Crimeans wished to distance themselves from the Ukraine.
    - sonyarus on September 03, 2015 · at 5:09 am EST/EDT
      
      This is the logic used by American Imperialism to justify their foreign interventions as “in US interests”. And look where that gets us!
  - RR on September 06, 2015 · at 12:00 am EST/EDT
    
    Saker it is definitely in Russia’s national interest to put an end to ISIS. How and when they do it is another story. But I believe when the time is right it will be Russia Iran and possibly China that cleans up Syria-I expect Chinese forces to be in Ukraine when the time comes as well just as a demonstration to the West of just how serious this game they are playing is being taken. That day can’t come soon enough for me./ And Russia has the RIGHT to restore order in Ukraine under the Minsk agreement so what is the problem?
Tom Welsh on September 02, 2015 · at 4:37 pm EST/EDT

Pellucid and highly instructive! Thank you very much, Saker.
LZA on September 02, 2015 · at 4:44 pm EST/EDT

Saker:

Fort Russ has just posted a video showing “Russians fighting in Syria”. Very interested in your analysis

http://fortruss.blogspot.com/2015/09/are-russians-fighting-in-syria-video.html?m=1
- blue on September 02, 2015 · at 5:11 pm EST/EDT
  
  Are they Russians? Is it Syria? Is it current?
  Why does the youtube title say Syrian Arab/National Defense forces?
  
  Don’t look like Russians to me.
  - The Saker on September 02, 2015 · at 5:58 pm EST/EDT
    
    Russians are a multi-ethnic nation and these guys appear to speak Russian. But that could mean ANYTHING. They could even be from any other ex-Soviet republic, including the Ukraine. I am quite sure that there are some kind of Russians somewhere in Syria, but to say that “the Russians are fighting in Syria” makes it sound like the Russian state, the Kremlin if you want, has taken a decision to send in forces. And that, I am quite confident, has not happened yet and probably never will.
    - Mulga Mumblebrain on September 03, 2015 · at 3:00 am EST/EDT
      
      Perhaps Syria needs International Brigades to destroy the psychopath army of Daash. After all, for all his evil, Franco represented a lesser threat to humanity that a gigantic death-squad armed and trained by the usual suspects and driven by the insane depravity of Wahhabism.
      - Uncle Bob 1 on September 03, 2015 · at 6:41 am EST/EDT
        
        A couple of years ago there was a plan floated around by some ex-Russian Spetsnaz to recruit Russian and Ukrainian ex-servicemen and form a detachment to fight in Syria.I think the war in Ukraine made that impossible to get really started.And it still is today claiming most of the ex-soldiers that might otherwise be fighting ISIS.Once (if) we win in Ukraine that might start up again.
kevin on September 02, 2015 · at 4:50 pm EST/EDT

OK – So do I understand this correctly ?

Its OK for the UK/USA/France/Turkey/Saudi/Quater to arm, train and transport thousands of terrorists into Syria, launch artillery attacks accrues the Syrian border, OK for Israel, UK, USA and others to send in ground troops and launch multiple air attacks on Syria and shoot down Syrian aircraft … but … It would be “illegal” for Russia to get involved. Evan if it had the support of the elected government of syria.

Glad thats been cleared up, I was a bit confused for a moment.
- blue on September 02, 2015 · at 5:14 pm EST/EDT
  
  It’s not OK for empire forces to do that, but it’s illegal for Russia because it’s against Russian law.
  
  It’s also illegal for empire to do that by UN treaties and international law, but empire ignores that because it’s run by gangsters.
  - The Saker on September 02, 2015 · at 6:02 pm EST/EDT
    
    100% correct on both points
- alan on September 02, 2015 · at 5:53 pm EST/EDT
  
  it’s very simple, it’s illegal for people to commit murders, but there are murderers still. Unfortunately for the world right now, the USA + EU countries are also the self appointed policemen, judge, jury, executioner and media representatives of the world, so they can get away with it…Does not mean they are right, but no one can punish them right now.
- Anonymous on September 02, 2015 · at 6:06 pm EST/EDT
  
  Absolutely correct. And until their control over the media (via MSM) and financial markets (via e.g. WB, IMF, BIS) is ceded, it will continue to be the case.
  
  Unfortunately this will require people to smarten up so in other words, not going to happen. Not for a long while.
  - Anonymous on September 03, 2015 · at 2:38 am EST/EDT
    
    OK , Just to make sure I understand this
    
    When a Russian ally is attacked by the empire, Russia will not intervene because it “Against Russian law”.
    
    What law is it that apples to the victim and not the aggressor, and who can truly believe Syria is not part of NATO’s ongoing war against Russia. In real politic Syria IS Russia’s front line.
    
    Thou shalt not be a bystander. – Unless its illegal, or doesn’t effect me.
Gilbert on September 02, 2015 · at 4:59 pm EST/EDT

How about sending Mig-31s to deter the US from using its air force against the Syrian army? Would that not make sense?
- The Saker on September 02, 2015 · at 6:00 pm EST/EDT
  
  Have you read what I wrote?
  
  Since any US attack on Syria would involve many more cruise missiles, there is really very little the MiG-31s could do.
  
  Are you guys coming down with some kind of mysterious reading-disorder epidemic or are you just trying to be jerks?
  - Anonymous on September 03, 2015 · at 12:17 am EST/EDT
    
    OTOH, as I suggested in a post to the original article, sending such aircraft could serve as a WARNING to the US not to escalate its involvement in the Syria war.
    
    Granted, the warning would likely be ignored by the US – and probably correctly as Russia will not involve itself directly in the Syria war. But such actions are frequently taken by states to convey their wishes. You yourself mentioned the positioning of Russian ships in order to aid Syria in SIGINT in 2013 which helped make it clear to the US that Russia disapproved of the planned Syrian attack.
    
    So the six Mig-31’s would be irrelevant in an actual US/NATO attack – but could serve as a warning to the US and NATO that Russia would consider such a move to be an act which might result in some form of retaliation (possibly in Ukraine or in some other diplomatic area.), thus forcing the US to take additional circumstances into strategic and tactical consideration, thus raising the costs of a direct intervention.
  - Justin on September 03, 2015 · at 11:35 am EST/EDT
    
    Saker, nice reply, had me laughing.
    
    100% correct Saker. A handful of long range air interceptors would be useless against a NATO operation on Syria the likes of what we saw in Iraq or Libya.
    
    Russian and Chinese maritime assets and anti air missiles on the other hand….
    Seemed to work a few years ago and will work again if needed in the near future.
    
    I do hear that reading and comprehension in the Anglo Schooling System now a days is rather pathetic.
    - Gilbert on September 04, 2015 · at 11:53 am EST/EDT
      
      Yeah, let me clarify with my pathetic little background that what I meant was a creeping intervention that begins on a small scale and then grows bigger and bigger. It seems as if the AZ had that in mind when then threatened to attack Syrian units taking action against US supported insurgents. Mig-31s might force the AZ to take a different, more overt approach right from the start.
blue on September 02, 2015 · at 5:00 pm EST/EDT

The Enterprise could handle it, but Star Fleet has this non-interference prime directive and Capt. Kirk would get court martialed.

God could do it be he seems to have the same non-interference doctrine.
Maybe he’s not an imperialist any more, like in the Old Testament.

The flying saucer people also mind their own business.

Israel could do it but they ae already on the wrong side — and apparently think god is still an imperialist and that Israel should run the world.

That seems to leave breaking the empire, and Russia and the other BRICS are already working on that (and the empire is even helping with breaking itself).

As you said about Afghanistan and Daesh just needing to survive to defeat their opponents, so too does Syria just need to survive to defeat the enemies and maintain, or increase, the quagmire, and keep dissipating US resources, and wearing down the US people and troops, who will at some point see this as a reification of Vietnam and a drain on their pockets and energy — maybe even have another anti-war movement after they get bored with the propaganda and jingoistic fanatics (I think I see some signs of that, that the facade is starting to look shabby, and that you can’t fool all the people all the time).

This break the empire takes time, but so does military war, and not so many Russians get killed.
Stan on September 02, 2015 · at 5:00 pm EST/EDT

Back in June 2014, you were sometimes very sure that Russia not only should openly intervene, but that she would eventually do so. Because you thought, quite correctly, that Russia could simply not allow atrocities to go on and on against the population of Novorossia.

Well, the atrocities went on and on, and for a while got a lot worse, especially in July and August. Thousands upon thousands were killed by Kiev since then. Their homes destroyed. More than a million left. A humanitarian catastrophe of enormous proportions.

Your tune seems to have changed completely. Now, in your view, it appears that Russia doesn’t have and never had any moral obligations of any kind outside its official borders, not even to protect people who pretty much consider themselves Russians, and who live in a land that most Russians supposedly consideres part of their historical homeland.

I wonder what has happened. How did you get so callous? So indifferent?

Some quotes from Saker back in June 2014

/saker-rant-please-tell-me-my-worst-fears-will-not-come-true/

[…]
Putin has promised the Russian people (in Russia proper and outside) that he would not allow massive atrocities to take place against the population of Novorossia. They are clearly happening now. As for the “new” regime in Kiev, it is every bit as Nazi as the worst Right Sector lunatic would want. Uncle Sam has basically crushed every EU attempt at a negotiated outcome. This is most definitely not Putin’s fault or the fault of the poor people of Novorossiia, but there can me no more hope for a reasonable negotiated settlement.

Russia has to act now and used her armed forces to liberate Novorossia. Not to do so would be a betrayal of the Russian people.

My brain tells me that Putin will give the order to do so very soon. But the memories of Bosnia haunt me. So far Putin’s track record is excellent, pretty close to perfect. But for all my support for his policies, I never *trusted* him, at least not fully. Honestly, I cannot image what will happen if he does not give the order to move in because if he fails to do so he would be giving up on the entire strategic plan of what I call the Eurasian Sovereignists to “resovereignize” Russia and liberate her from the AngloZionist Empire. I cannot and do not want to believe that 14 years of struggle involving a great deal of dangers and, at times, truly superhuman efforts will now go to waste. And yet I have this knot sitting there inside my gut and that knot gets worse and worse with each lame and vapid statement coming out of the Kremlin. […]
——————————————–

/how-far-can-russians-retreats-in-memory-of-anatolii-klian/

Every morning I wake up with the fear that “it” [a betrayal of Novorossia] might have happened mixed with the hope that the much awaited Russian “push back” has finally begun. So far, neither has happened and, yes, Russia is retreating. And only God knows for how long or how far.
- The Saker on September 03, 2015 · at 12:41 am EST/EDT
  
  Stan,
  
  You are absolutely correct and you make very good points. Yes, not only did I predict that Russia would intervene, I also thought that it was the right thing to do. At that time, I simply did not see any other solution and I did believe that Putin had committed to protect the people of the Donbass so now he had to act on it. So why did I “change my tune”?
  
  The truth is not that binary.
  
  First, about my prediction that Russia would move in – I was plain *wrong*. I can explain why I came to that wrong conclusion, but that is not too interesting. Let’s just say that I did not see another option.
  
  Second, what Putin did, successfully, was to support the Novorussians enough to prevent them from being overrun. In fact, they even pushed back the Ukronazis. Not only that, but if he did not stop the atrocities from happening, he did succeed in reducing their frequency and volume by an order of magnitude.
  
  Frankly, I did not think that this was possible. Hence my conclusion that only a direct Russian intervention could stop the Urkonazi onslaught.
  
  Let me also add here that the best evidence that Putin’s strategy was the correct one are the Minsk 1 and, especially, Minks 2 agreements which essentially granted the control of the Russian-Ukrainian border to Russia *legally* (or until the Ukronazis do something they cannot do) and which makes it basically impossible for the Ukronazis to go into the offensive with overt EU/US support. Again, these diplomatic victories were achieved without putting Russian troops on the ground and turning the Ukrainian civil war into a war of national liberation.
  
  And just to clarify: I STILL VERY MUCH would SUPPORT a Russian military move into the Donbass IF the Novorussian are at risk of being over-run by the Nazis. So I am not saying “never”, I am only saying “as a last resort”.
  
  As for the moral obligation of Russia or lack thereof, I think that as soon as Putin made that promise to protect Russia took upon herself a moral obligation to protect the people of the Donbass.
  
  Finally, I don’t think you fully understand how traumatized I was after the war in Bosnia were I saw Milosevic backstab the Bosnian-Serbs in an attempt to get a deal with the West. When I heard that Russia would “secure” the border with the Ukraine I immediately thought about how Serbia tried to shot her border with Bosnia in support of the US/NATO blockade of the Republika Srpska. My biggest fear was that Putin would go down the Milosevic way. But now I see that he did not do so.
  
  By the way, if you go far enough in the blog archives you will see that I initially did not like Putin at all, nor did I trust him. Ditto for Ramzan Kadyrov. But with time, they proved me wrong and I decided not to persist in my mistake.
  
  Is that a bad thing to do?
  
  Kind regards,
  
  The Saker
  - Martin from S.E.B. on September 03, 2015 · at 1:56 am EST/EDT
    
    Hi Saker
    
    you are such a good analyst and talented writer, I respect you immensely (and envy you) for it .
    Maturing over time is not a bad thing. Always having and keeping precisely the same views would mean a standstill and being learning-resistant (it turns out that Nazis fall into this category).
    
    Now, I followed you during all this time and nevertheless appreciate Stan’s questions and your responses in a Nutshell.
    
    Because I often wondered myself about these points, as I expressed from time to time.
    But as a result of your blog and Cassad I can understand the reasons better.
    
    Well, in my personal view we would not be in that situation in the first place, had the Soviet Union not be destroyed. But now we have to rescue what is still possible. Putin is a heaven’s gift.
    
    All the Best,
    %martin
  - Uncle Bob 1 on September 03, 2015 · at 7:06 am EST/EDT
    
    Excellent post! I felt/feel the same way.And I’m glad you explained the “So I am not saying “never”, I am only saying “as a last resort”. I’m on the same page there.I don’t think,as long as supplies and volunteers continue to arrive there is a need for actual “serving troops”.But we can never say never.Only time will tell.
  - boris on September 03, 2015 · at 10:43 am EST/EDT
    
    Hi, Saker!
    
    Just a side note…
    
    I really do admire your analising capabilities and follow your insights whenever i find time. It appears that you were present in Bosnia and Herzegovina or Serbia at some time during the war which took place in Bosnia 1992-95. It seems that you are very much disappointed that serbian side didn’t accomplish everything they set themselves to conquer of the dying Yugoslavia. I can understand that. I believe I read in two-three places on your blog that you support serbian side no matter what. That I can also understand. You also seem to took with you the notion from there that Bosniacs are „known enemies of Russia“. That, my friend, is laughable. That is ungrounded bias, fed by avoiding to reflect on the Russian political (and „private“ orthodox brothers military) engagement during the bosnian conflict.
    But, as you here admit, you make mistakes, and some of them are not so minor.
    
    Would you consider the possibility that many of the former non-Serb Yugoslavians LOVED that country very much and were devastated by her demise? Can you consider it plausible that Yugoslavia (and JNA – Yugoslav Peoples Army) was NOT Serbian property? Can your analytical mind allow for the possibility that the Serbs DID NOT fight for Yugoslavia, but for „Greater Serbia“ – which was one of the main reasons other ethnic groups resisted that?
    Why is it so impossible that late Milosevic, so beloved at some time by the entire serbian polity, was anglo-zionist agent from the start? That he actually „backstabbed“ – not only Bosnian Serbs, but the Serbs as a whole – beginning with the mass-rally of one million Serbs on Gazimestan, Kosovo, when he mobilised them for the future wars?
    Would it be so easy to silently draw Romania and Bulgaria into EU and NATO with Yugoslavia alive, not dying the horrible death? Are all others (Croats, Slovenians, Bosniacs, Macedonians, Albanians and even Montenegrinians) deluded and insane, convinced that Serbian regime in the 90’s behaved in the same manner as the Ukrainian nazi-regime behaves now? And still continues to do the same antics, though it was made apparent that those antics damage mostly Serbia and Serbs as a whole! Or is it OK for some, but not OK for others? That would be so US-like! What do you think, who is Serbian „deep state“ playing for?
    
    I will give you an example, albeit the minor one.
    
    There is a document from August 29th 1189. which was stolen and is now kept at the Russian Academy of sciences and arts in Sankt Petersburg. That document is the „Chart of Kulin Ban“, written in Bosnian language by the Bosnian king and in the Bosnian script. Why does the Russian side refuse to return that document to the rightfull owner, if not to support the serbian claims that Bosnia, Bosnian language and anything Bosnian – does not exist and „never existed“? The same as the Ukrainian zealots claim that anything Russian must be erased!
    
    If Russia would reverse her stand on Bosnia and Herzegovina (as she reversed it on f.ex. Chechenia) and start playing some more constructive role then just playing as a Serbian older brother, uncritically supporting anything that younger brother comes up with – you will be mistaken once more! What do you expect from Bosniacs – to love you while you support the murderers of their homecountry? You think they are bad cause they’re sunni, and not shia? Be carefull, „it is not gold just because it is shiny“!
    
    Peace be unto you!
    - Martin from S.E.B. on September 03, 2015 · at 1:14 pm EST/EDT
      
      @boris:
      
      What???
      This directly lead me to http://www.scribd.com/doc/61475343/Documentation-Center-RS-War-Crimes-in-BH-against-the-Serbs-and-JNA-before-Armed-Conflics-and-during-1992#scribd and maybe you should give it a read, too.
      
      Wikipedia cannot deny it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bosnian_language
      “””””Bosnian Listeni/ˈbɒzniən/ (bosanski / босански; [bɔ̌sanskiː]) is the standardized variety of Serbo-Croatian mainly used by Bosniaks.[4][5][6]”””””
      
      Bosnian is a “language” like “Moldovian” is.
      An ethnic Croat friend of mine living near Zenica (BiH proper, not RS) once explained me their history: At first they all were SLAVS (mixed with Illyrians who lived there natively before the great Slav migration) , the same nation, same people, same religion, same language. Some of them converted to the Catholic church – those call themselves Croats since then.
      Then Serbian was occupied by Turks since the 15th century and folks were more or less encouraged and often forced to convert to Islam. These since then call themselves Bosnians. Still the same language. Same genetics. All who refused adpting Islam were being disadvantaged by their ottoman rulers.
      
      In Bosnia folks are watching Bosnian TV, Croatian TV and even Serbian TV.
      He said that there are not even dialects. And that it is hardly possible from hearing somebody from which of these so called 3 nation he originates.
      
      That’s a very shortened and simplifyed summary of Yugoslav history, but enough to get started.
      
      @Ban Kulin:
      
      in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ban_Kulin
      
      it reads:
      
      “””””The first Bosnian monarch was Ban Borić. The second was Ban Kulin whose rule marked the start of a controversy involving the Bosnian Church – considered heretical by the Roman Catholic Church. In response to Hungarian attempts to use church politics regarding the issue as a way to reclaim sovereignty over Bosnia, Kulin held a council of local church leaders to renounce the heresy and embraced Catholicism in 1203. Despite this, Hungarian ambitions remained unchanged long after Kulin’s death in 1204, waning only after an unsuccessful invasion in 1254.”””””
      
      So is he a Bosnian or a Croat then?????
      Or a Serb?
      
      You decide.
      
      It all resembles the situation in RUS versus Ukraine versus old RUS’ian Lithuania so much.
      One could write books about this topic. I know that my comment is extremely short. But I must go in 10 minutes.
    - Martin from Soviet East-Berlin on September 03, 2015 · at 1:30 pm EST/EDT
      
      @ boris: What the hell is “Bosnian script” ??
      
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bosnian_Cyrillic
      
      It is simply a minor variation of Resava orthography version of Serbo-Cyrillic: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serbian_Cyrillic_alphabet
      
      It reminds me so much of the so called https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ukrainian_alphabet
      If you mean that altering 3 or 4 letters, turning all spoken occurences of the sound ‘g’ into ‘h’ and all ‘o’ into ‘i’ is enough for creating a new new “Alphabet” (they have jerked the language itself a bit more in Ukrainian/west-russian dialect with Polish influences), then I hereby proclaim the establishment of the Soviet-East-Berlin’ian alphabet and language. All ‘u’ are now ‘e’ and all ‘a’ are now ‘b’, DONE. You are enjoying the rare privilege of talking to the highest representative of this new nation.
    - Martin from S.E.B. on September 03, 2015 · at 2:22 pm EST/EDT
      
      @boris:
      
      You are right with your comments, that many Bosnians did (and do!) love Tito’s Yugoslavia, which was a worker’s paradise:
      
      Yugoslavia – the Good Old Days of Tito-style Communism
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0RRnCnO1Y2c
      
      I know this because I talked to many Bosnians, every year I spent almost a month, sometimes more, in Bosnia since 2007 (and I hope there won’t be future events that stop me from continuing my tradition). Now Bosnia is the poorest of the Yugoslav republics, completely broken, de-industrialised, the last factories almost in ruins, employing in most cases only 10% or less of the original size of workforce. The only industry remaining is the coal mining industry and in association the one of coal based thermo-electricity generating.
      
      The big steel mill in Zenica is only a shadow of its former self.
      And the vast Iron-ore-mining and Steel production compklex of Vares is completely deserted.
      Many factories were taken over by Turkish oligarchs, which often laid off all employees, and robbed off all wealth, received state subsidies, only to later close the factories down.
      Therefore many Bosnians still love the good old times :)
      
      But Saker wrote that Bosniaks are an enemy of Russia.
      And Bosniaks != Bosnians, but only a fraction of them.
      Bosniaks are often religious fanatics wearing long beards like behind 7 stones somewhere at a dark place in the middle east.
      
      Not to be confused:
      
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bosniaks
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bosnians
      
      Dammit, I wanted to go 1 hour ago, must run!
      - Serbian girl on September 03, 2015 · at 3:31 pm EST/EDT
        
        @Boris
        You lost me with “Bosnian language”…
      - boris on September 03, 2015 · at 3:56 pm EST/EDT
        
        Sorry, Martin from S.E.B., I should have known that before writting anything to Saker, I had to contact “an ethnic Croat a friend of yours” and study Wikipedia as the only reliable sources of the historical truth. A friendly advice: ANYBODY CAN WRITE ANYTHING HE/SHE LIKES ON WIKIPEDIA! A reliable source is not partial – each and every one-sided information is unreliable. The source must NOT have any invested interests in the matter in order to be considered reliable. I can quote to you thousands of sources from the Bosniac side – does that make them reliable?
        “Serbo-croatian” is an oximoron. The same as “judeo-christian”. No matter how much you wish that all humanity originates from either Serbs or Croats – it doesn’t make it real nor true.
        Further, steel plants in Zenica are “bought” by Indians (from India) and not Turks. I am not fond of Turks or their politics, but to see a Turk behind every tree is a bit paranoid, don’t you agree?
        How does it sound: Serbs are often religious nazi-fanatics wearing long beards and having ugly knives in their mouths like behind 7 stones somewhere at a dark place in the east? Just repeating you, and you can find thousands of pictures online depicting chetniks just like I described. Does it make the majority of Serbs look like that? You must educate yourself a bit more….
        
        Martin from S.E.B. on September 03, 2015 · at 4:11 pm EST/EDT
        
        I spent 2 weeks in main-Serbia this June/July (Kikinda, Subotica, Zrenjanin, Pancevo, Beograd), before travelling first 1 week to Romania, then another week to Bosnia (Tuzla).
        
        I mostly slept in my 24 years old Renault.
        Visited friends for taking showers, talking to many other locals some of whom I already met in earlier years, others which I spoke to for the first time.
        
        Also: Show me the point where I claimed that Wikipedia is “the only reliable src”.
        But ok, maybe I first need to get a long beard myself and then inform myself a bit more.
        
        I apologize, this can take some time.
        Until then, best regards …
        
        Anonymous on September 11, 2015 · at 1:31 pm EST/EDT
        
        “I spent 2 weeks in main-Serbia this June/July (Kikinda, Subotica, Zrenjanin, Pancevo, Beograd), before travelling first 1 week to Romania, then another week to Bosnia (Tuzla).”
        
        Expertise achieved in 4 weeks – sounds like a US self-improvement class.
        
        Though sleeping in a car may have catalysed the velocity of expertise achievement.
        
        Martin from S.E.B. on September 03, 2015 · at 7:14 pm EST/EDT
        
        @ “boris”
        
        I have a looong beard now, and guess what I found out during the time when I self-educated myself (by re-searching for stuff I had already researched years ago) :
        
        google for: south slavic gene
        https://www.google.com/search?q=south+slavic+gene&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&gws_rd=cr&ei=RJ3oVYOFBcX9yQOQ14LADw
        
        p.s. are you sure, “boris” is indeed your true name?
        
        Martin from S.E.B. on September 03, 2015 · at 7:21 pm EST/EDT
        
        @ boris:
        
        I forgot to add: google for south slavic language
        https://www.google.com/search?q=south+slavic+language&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&gws_rd=cr&ei=kp7oVba6AeXlywPBmIioDg
        
        As of Wikipedia: I agree with you that they write a lot of lies and must be read with some salt.
        But neither can “everybody write there what he wants”, and especially: Where, when and if they lie, they do so *against* Russia, against CCCP, against communism, against Yugoslavia, against the Panslavic idea, against Serbia, rather than _for_.
        
        Also: Sadly you missed the opportunity to comment the very first link, which wasn’t wikipedia at all, but http://www.scribd.com/doc/61475343/Documentation-Center-RS-War-Crimes-in-BH-against-the-Serbs-and-JNA-before-Armed-Conflics-and-during-1992#scribd
        
        Doesn’t that fit in your agenda, “boris” ?
        
        Martin from S.E.B. on September 04, 2015 · at 1:30 am EST/EDT
        
        Ok, I educated myself a notch further.
        So tell me please, in an unbiased way, how do you respons to the following … ???
        
        http://www.scribd.com/doc/61475343/Documentation-Center-RS-War-Crimes-in-BH-against-the-Serbs-and-JNA-before-Armed-Conflics-and-during-1992#scribd
        
        “””””This effort of mine is an attempt to
        scientifically
        show,without passion and hatred, the history of the Serbian people from the ancient time untiltoday, through the troubled history of BH, as a possible historical synthesis. This effort of mine is based on my long-standing research of history of BH and Yugoslavia that was published in a dozen of books and around hundred of scientific papers. So far, no one in our and foreign historiography has not denied my attitudes and judgments in this field, so theyshould be accepted as scientifically verified. Historiography must not be the judge, butobjective observer.In this kind of work, it is possible to show
        in the shortest way
        Middle-Ages Slav period of BH, the period of Turkish occupation, Austro-Hungarian occupation, the period of old Yugoslavia, NOB (1941-1945), the period of socialism, the break of Yugoslavia and thecreation of Republic of Srpska.
        1.
        
        The Slav period of Middle-Ages Bosnia
        For all serious researchers – scientists, Bosnia and Herzegovina presents
        the mostcomplex
        Slav area on the Balkan Peninsula. From ethnical point of view, except a smallnumber of newcomers, the population comprised for a long time of majority of OrthodoxSerbs, and some Catholics, later constituted as Croats.The first information on Bosnia dates from X century – as mentioned by ByzantineEmperor Porphirogenit in 949 in his work “De administrando imperiv”. It was formed onSlavic ethnical basis as a small area in the middle and upper part of the Bosna river, at first asa part of stronger neighboring states and then as half-dependent and at the end as anindependent state.History of the Middle-Ages independent state of Bosnia was in the focus of manyhistorians, but the question to whom Bosnia, and as well as later Herzegovina, belongedremained unsolved. Foreign sources, charts and letters of Bosnian civil governors (the title of “ban”) and kings as well as other different acts and works unambiguously showed that withinthe new homeland of Serbs there had been Bosnia. Old Bosnians and Herzegovinians calledthemselves Serbs, regardless of the religion. Serbs were the only ones who had ethnic identity.This fact was avoided or there was an inclination towards artificial symmetries for politicalreasons.As representatives of local nobility in XII century there were civil governors, asheritable lords. The first mentioned was Ban Bori , and later Ban Kulin (1180-1204). The firstnews on Bogomils, as a Christian sect appeared around 1200. The rise of the state wasespecially fast, during the rule of Bosnian Ban Stjepan Kotromanji. His successor – his nephew Tvrtko was crowned in 1377 with the title: “Stefan the King of Serbs and Bosnia andHerzegovina and Primorje and West Sides”. During the time of the greatest rise in 1390 hehad the title of the King of Raška, Bosnia, Dalmatia, Croatia and Primorje.Like Serbia after the Emperor Dušan, Bosnia rapidly declined after the King Tvrtko.After the King Tvrtko, Bosnia found itself between the two enemy forces: Turkey andHungary. Political anarchy and animosities occurred in Bosnia, so it had two kings at thesame time (Stjepan Ostoja and Tvrtko II). Internal conflicts started and mediators were theTurks or the Hungarians. The Bosnian nobility, deadly estranged, served as tools for their political interests. Personal interests started to dominate vulgar struggle for power. Just thesame, there was a policy of small interests between Bosnia and Serbia, that was realized more by conflicts than by cooperation in times when the peril of Turkey overshadowed the Serbianlands. In its history, the Serbian people would have paid dearly those political animosities andconflicts that would remain until today. The King Stjepan Tomaševi
        (1461-1463) did not tryto resist the Turks, but he paid with his own life just as numerous Bosnian nobility. In suchBosnia lost its state independence in 1463, and Herzegovina fell under the Turkish rule 20years later.Herzegovina with that name appeared after Bosnia, and it was named after HercegStjepan. In its early period it was divided into the areas of Neretva, Zahumlje and Trebinje.The onetime lord Herceg Stjepan and his son Vladislav called their citizens the Serbs. StjepanKosa
        a came into conflict with his son and he asked the Turks for help. Their efforts todefend the country together were in vain, for the Turks were already deep into Herzegovina.After the death of Herceg Stjepan in 1466, his three sons stood for different conceptions andthey did not know how to stand for interests of the country. One of them was Stevan who, inconflict with brothers, accepted Islam and as Ahmet Hercegovi
        lived to see independentHerzegovina in 1482.The old Herzegovina extended up to the Drina, comprising Fo, Goražde and ajnie as well as Piva, Drobnjak, Nikši and Banjane. While Bosnia had its borders stablethroughout XIX century, Herzegovina lost one third of its territory in Berlin Congress in1878.The attempts of the Hungarians to take over Bosnia from the Turks failed. Led bytheir successes, well-organized and led Turks could not be defeated. Banovina (the land belonging to a ban) Srebrenica fell under their attacks in 1512, and Jajce in 1528. It should beemphasized that the Turkish rule was also welcomed by some local elements for they wereexpecting to be set free from the Catholic Hungarian pressure.Besides Orthodox Christians, there were Bogomils, and from XV century Muslims.Those religions have been mutually opposed and hostile, and had been often in real”Crusader”s wars”. All three religions created their cultural circles, without taking intoaccount Slavic national unity. Deep religious divisions disabled any kind of serious politicaland national bondage. The Serbs identified themselves with Orthodoxy, the Croats withCatholicism and the Muslims with Islam and surprisingly with the Turks although they had been of pure Slavic background, more Serbian and less Croatian. Their language was Serbianonly. At the time of national liberation struggle in XIX century, the Muslims took Christianrebels not as their brood-brothers and brothers-in-language but as their hateful giaours whoraised against Islam and the Sultan in Constantinople. Although they hated Osmanli Turksand suffered great pogroms from them, they never hesitated in their pro-Turkish disposition.All “brother” invitations to join the rebels remained in vain.
        
        2.
        
        The period of the Turkish occupation
        Bosnian pašaluk (jurisdiction of pasha) and Islam were installed in BH after Turkishconquest, and after 1565 the Spanish Jews (the Sephards) came. Population got graduallydivided into three religious communities: Orthodox, Catholic and Islamic. Religious life became dominant. The Muslims (Islamized Serbs and less Croats) added to Slavic mentalitythe characteristics of Oriental culture and civilization as sloppiness, overbearingness,arrogance, boastfulness and egoism. Until 1918 they remained mostly the owners of feudalfarms, but Islamic society did not know heritable aristocracy. Only after 1858, the Muslimsgot the right of possession. Nowadays it is difficult to find objective historians among their successors who objectively research the origin of the Muslims in BH, although they officiallyused Serbo-Croat language until recently.Who actually are the Muslims in BH?Serbian historiography has not, for the reasons unknown to me, put enough effort in amore detailed research of our Muslims although the science agrees that the majority of themare Serbs who accepted Islam and some of them are of Croatian origin. There is nothingdisputable about it in science. The process of Islamization went considerably slowly andlasted for several centuries. In Montenegro it was prevented by spiritual and combatresistance and by the so-called “investigation of converts to Islam” that was described in theepos of […]
        
        [………. more at http://www.scribd.com/doc/61475343/Documentation-Center-RS-War-Crimes-in-BH-against-the-Serbs-and-JNA-before-Armed-Conflics-and-during-1992#scribd ]
  - Anonymous on September 03, 2015 · at 1:41 pm EST/EDT
    
    Dear Saker,
    
    you have a rear ability to dissect a matter in an almost laconic way, which allows for reason and facts to shine through, or better yet, cut through the fog of it all. That coupled with your readiness to honestly reflect on limits of your understanding, as opposed to sticking with ones position, makes your writings into a immensely valuable source for thinking through the questions that loom and for dialog as opposed to polemics.
    
    Thanks for writing!
  - Anonymous on September 03, 2015 · at 2:17 pm EST/EDT
    
    “I was plain *wrong*. I can explain why I came to that wrong conclusion, but that is not too interesting.”
    
    I would suggest that would be of fundamental importance, although some may see that as offering actionable intelligence via a broadcast medium.
Grieved on September 02, 2015 · at 5:08 pm EST/EDT

Saker I think you are too kind to the jackals who come circling around a thread when they think they smell Russian blood, wringing their hands with “concern” over Russia’s “weakness”.

But it’s always good to read your thoughts and this is a nice analysis of the situation. As I recall, Thierry Meyssan’s story didn’t claim much more than the ways you’re suggesting for Russia to help. He mentioned sharing intelligence, and I think there’s some naval assets being brought into play too with advanced electronics capabilities – apologies, no time to go back and re-read, but Meyssan was advancing a thesis, one needs to read the next few pieces to see the thesis evolve.

Dr. Assad himself in his interview you published recently, said that Russia has been sending an unbroken supply of munitions and spares for repairs – if I recall correctly. So a lot of the material assistance is already in place, and I think sharing the satellite intel may be a way of helping Syria police the land against any impromptu Israeli or US impulse. Or at least as a means of warning the US that its visibility is on the rise.

I get from Meyssan, and what we know of the shuttle diplomacy lately, that Russia is moving forward strongly with this regional alliance to fight terrorism, and the US is being challenged to pretend to be aligned with that push. Essentially, the US is running out of room to spin the lies, and drop supplies “by accident” to ISIS. And it’s all being done at face value, as if US is an honest player in the area.

Must be frustrating for the US to keep discovering that simple truth and facts on the ground are a decisive weapon against deception and false flags ;)
Kain on September 02, 2015 · at 5:10 pm EST/EDT

Comment removed by the Saker for violating rules #2 and #3 of the moderation policy :-)

:-P
- sejmon on September 02, 2015 · at 8:10 pm EST/EDT
  
  Kain-I understand your concern…but cool off…Sun Tzu war strategy work mysterious ways. In world of thugs ,liars, murders armed with those exotic stuff require extraordinary thinking on other side. You can not deal with armed bullies with theirs tactics there would be WW3 quickly…. You have to outsmart them…Chemical deal in Syria 2013,Iranian deal July 2015,backfiring on their bombings of Lybia,Iraq,Syria with horrendous refugee crisis in Europe….
Penelope on September 02, 2015 · at 5:21 pm EST/EDT

Thank you, Saker.

Quite so. I think many people are so focussed on redressing the injustice they see in Syria and especially in Donbass that it wipes out other considerations for them. There may also be a tendency to see the Russian Federation as more powerful than she is, all things considered.

I appreciate your explaining the purpose of the naval task force off Syria when US threatened to bomb over the “chemattack”: ” sending a naval task force off the Syrian coast (thereby providing the Syrians of a full view of the airspace in and around Syria. . . .” The purpose was a mystery to me.
- Ngoyo on September 02, 2015 · at 6:19 pm EST/EDT
  
  Lets not forget China’s role in that task force. Russia took the lead but China also sent ships. I’m sure that China’s involvement first with the UNSC veto (which it did not have to do as Russia’s was sufficient) and then with ships along the Syrian coast helped NATO think twice.
  
  Saker is absolutely right that Russia has no business sending troops to Syria. But I do wish that Russia would more overtly rally the world against the Empire. Much as Hugo Chavez did in Venezuela but perhaps less confrontationally. It seems to me this is just not in Putin’s DNA, perhaps Rogozin would do it were he in charge.
  
  Still one has to acknowledge the sheer brilliance of Putin’s strategy and actions. Historians will call this era the age of Putin.
  - blue on September 02, 2015 · at 8:28 pm EST/EDT
    
    Remember that Putin has to deal with Russian fifth column too, that he has limited legal authority, and various internal problems to solve. .
    - Anonymous on September 02, 2015 · at 11:48 pm EST/EDT
      
      “Russian fifth column”
      
      On what data does your assertion rely?
      - Daniel Rich on September 03, 2015 · at 12:30 am EST/EDT
        
        Q; On what data does your assertion rely?
        
        R; On the anonymous variety.
        
        Anonymous on September 03, 2015 · at 10:03 am EST/EDT
        
        “On the anonymous variety.”
        
        Your reliance on belief is encouraging.
        
        Perhaps you are unaware of useful foolery.
        
        Mulga Mumblebrain on September 03, 2015 · at 10:11 am EST/EDT
        
        Daniel, Anon might as well demand ‘on what basis’ you predict that the sun will rise in the morning. Tendentious demands to ‘prove’ the bleeding obvious are disinfo tactics.
        
        Anonymous on September 03, 2015 · at 1:41 pm EST/EDT
        
        “Tendentious demands to ‘prove’ the bleeding obvious ”
        
        Perhaps it is a case of immersion in the place that holds these truths to be self-evident, or you bought into the marketing slogan What you see is what you get.
        
        You may be unaware but you are attempting to negate human thought and effort for at least the last 2500 years.
        
        If everything was self evident, omniscience would prevail and hence thought would not develop, it would be static.
        
        Perhaps you should ponder the purposes of the opponents’ avowed belief in empiricism.
      - brian on September 03, 2015 · at 2:47 am EST/EDT
        
        the 5th column are the guys who march into the US embassy for orders
        
        Mulga Mumblebrain on September 03, 2015 · at 10:12 am EST/EDT
        
        Brian-not ‘march’. Slither.
        
        Anonymous on September 03, 2015 · at 10:17 am EST/EDT
        
        “5th column”
        
        The term comes from the Spanish Civil War and was used in respect of those who had facility.
        
        “who march into the US embassy for orders”
        
        The attempted use of “comporadors” has been a US tactic since the 19th Century giving rise to “blowback” as US intelligence analysts will confirm.
        
        Giving orders does not in itself facilitate, and facilitation never has sole agency.
        
        As to Russia, techniques encouraging useful foolery have been used since at least Ivan the fourth, sometimes known as the Terrible – try referencing Zubatovschina for more recent data – such techniques proved useful in the 1990’s and continue to do so.
      - blue on September 03, 2015 · at 3:17 am EST/EDT
        
        Listen to Evgeny Fererov
        
        Anonymous on September 03, 2015 · at 10:05 am EST/EDT
        
        “Listen to Evgeny Fererov”
        
        Perhaps you are unaware of the benefits of useful foolery.
        
        It was very useful in the 1990’s and continues to be so.
Antonio Arganda on September 02, 2015 · at 5:36 pm EST/EDT

A well thought-out and precise article. States the official position of the Russian government. Any Russian presence in Syria is purely voluntary and on an individual basis.
Massinissa on September 02, 2015 · at 5:52 pm EST/EDT

You tell em Saker! We all needed this breath of fresh air!

I dont understand why people who hate the USA want Russia to act like the USA. It doesnt make any sense. Why copy Satans actions to fight Satan?

Is it some kind of ‘fight fire with fire’ nonsense? Everyone knows you fight fire with water or with foam, not fire or flammable material!
- Anonymous on September 08, 2015 · at 12:28 am EST/EDT
  
  “Everyone knows you fight fire with water or with foam, not fire or flammable material!”
  
  The ones who don’t are the opponents.
  
  It is sometimes held that the opponents are trying to implement a strategy of stress and/or a strategy of chaos.
  
  Chaos is a construct to described things not presently understood; and application of stress can have short-term beneficial outcomes in some populations, but not always.
  
  Since the opponents have extensive data on the matters including files sourced through Operation Paperclip from Trawniki, Sobibor and Treblinka, perhaps the opponents could be ignoring their own data and engaging in the projection of holograms based on their wishes.
Penny on September 02, 2015 · at 6:24 pm EST/EDT

Good clarification Saker
Thanks :)
Nightingale on September 02, 2015 · at 6:52 pm EST/EDT

100% agree with the saker’s statement! Saying that, I have only one question:

What would be Russian options, in case If Syria gets defeated, and the pipelines from Qatar would finally run through this land?

I mean, this is a very dangerous situation for Russia, right?
jason on September 02, 2015 · at 7:13 pm EST/EDT

Russian goverment should formally send thousands of “advisors” to Syria, at the same time formally sending Syrian goverment all planes ,tanks etc needed, and then those “advisors” in their freetime will use formally Syrian weaponry to launch operations against ISIS.So it will be all according to Russian law. And of course all those “advosors” will be volunteers.
de^mol on September 02, 2015 · at 7:33 pm EST/EDT

The thing is, how do you best defend the interests of Russia? I really think it is important to Russia to defend Assad, because the problem is that Daesh (or Islamic State) is a proxy army for Turkey and western allies. The biggest problem is that when Assad goes, and Iraq falls, there is a very great possibility of the return of the Ottoman Empire. And then they will be at the Southern borders of Russia, especially if they reunite with other states like Azerbeidjan, also Turks, directly bordering Dagestan. That is a very worrying scenario for Putin, and I do really think that that is the main objective of the western Evil empire. PS: I am from the west, but do not support my evil leaders.
- The Saker on September 02, 2015 · at 11:58 pm EST/EDT
  
  The thing is, how do you best defend the interests of Russia?
  
  Correct. And I strongly believe that getting involved in “elective wars” is the worst possible way to do so.
The Wend on September 02, 2015 · at 8:12 pm EST/EDT

Saker, your writing is very convincing, but you seem to completely forgot about this :

—————————————————————————————————–
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-26400035
—————————————————————————————————–

Russian parliament approves troop deployment in Ukraine

1 March 2014

Russia’s upper house of parliament has approved President Putin’s request for Russian forces to be used in Ukraine.
He had asked that Russian forces be used “until the normalisation of the political situation in the country”
————————————————————————————————

It was some year and a half ago only!

It was revoked in June 2014., but here you had a situation where Russia was clearly very, very close to intervene in Ukraine.

I just wanted to remind you and everybody that for some three months the President of Russia and the Russian parliament approved the Russian military intervention in another country.

Yes, they didn’t do it at the end, but still, this is an argument that sometimes even Putin is not sure about how to “interpret the constitution”.
- The Saker on September 02, 2015 · at 11:57 pm EST/EDT
  
  I did not forget about that precedent which, in fact, confirms my point: if the the lower house had to take such a vote this shows you that sending troops *without* such a vote would be problematic (but not impossible). The reality is that Putin is the commander in chief and if he decides to send Russian Forces to the Donbass, Syria or even New Zealand he can do it and he will be obeyed – no doubt in my mind. But there will be hell to pay politically and a lot of hard explaining for him to do before the Russian people.
- FromSerbia on September 03, 2015 · at 12:54 pm EST/EDT
  
  I am of the opinion that the authorization to send troops was a ploy to buy time for Donbass militias to organize. Ukrainian troops went on the offensive only when CIA/NATO handlers realized that they’ve been played and that their wet dream of full-scale Russian invasion is not going to play out.
rick sterling on September 02, 2015 · at 8:15 pm EST/EDT

thanks for this thoughtful and persuasive analysis.

we can see from example of afghanistan why russian soldiers in syria would be bad idea.

the reports are probably b.s.
Avarachan on September 02, 2015 · at 8:34 pm EST/EDT

Saker,

1) I view the deployment of the Mig-31’s as a political signal. The Empire is boosting its conventional forces in the region (with an additional Aegis warship), and Russia is responding by boosting the capacity of the Syrian military to respond to a conventional Western attack.

2) I take your point about the limits of a Mig-31 shooting down cruise missiles. However, by acting as a mini-AWACS, can’t it give Syrian forces an advanced warning of inbound missiles?

3) My understanding is that–official Russian denials to the contrary–Russia has given S-300’s to Syria. For instance, I’ve read than a Syrian S-300 was involved in the shooting down of an Israeli F-16 several days ago. (http://syrianperspective.com/2015/08/syria-ups-the-ante-and-shoots-down-zionist-f-16-bomber-and-helicopters-syria-pulls-out-all-the-plugs.html)
However, I’ve also read that Mig-31’s and S-300’s can work together through the APD-518 datalink. The S-300’s radar is obviously more powerful than the Mig-31’s. However, the Mig-31 is an airborne, supersonic platform, which the S-300 is obviously not. Aren’t the two systems somewhat complementary?

In any event, thanks for your article. You certainly know more about these things than I do.
- The Saker on September 02, 2015 · at 11:37 pm EST/EDT
  
  While I know that MiG-31s do have an encrypted datalink I do not remember whether it can patch into the S-300 network. But either way, I fully agree that MiG-31s can provide a real capability. As can MiG-25. Even MiG-21s could be useful (especially the modernized ones). But my point is that it is extremely unlikely that Russia would turn to these aircraft in the Syrian case. Did you know that neither the USSR nor Russia ever exported this aircraft. Kazakhstan inherited some, but this is an air force pretty much integrated with the Russian one. My bottom line is that while Russia could send MiG-31s and while they would make a difference, I don’t find that option credible, as least not at this moment in time.
  But maybe I will be proven wrong? I have a long record of being wrong and yet another faceplant will not hurt anymore :-))
  Cheers,
  The Saker
eimar on September 02, 2015 · at 8:44 pm EST/EDT

@the Wend

I see no inconsistency – the Ukraine situation, by virtue of shared borders – is in the province of defense, like Georgia and Chechnya.

The Donbass rebellion against the coup-empowered Kiev junta buffered Russia from direct assault (NATO, using Kiev as the proxy) so making less of a case for direct military engagement.

If the referendum in the South East to join Russia goes ahead – and is passed – the case for viewing the region as part of another country (the Ukraine) is but the fiction of lawyers: self-determination is a UN chartered right.
elsi on September 02, 2015 · at 9:22 pm EST/EDT

Well Saker, to the thread of your analysis, I consider a good time to read Karl von Clausewitz, whom he refers, often, “friend senior strategist”. Just found a pdf of “On war”, in Spanish, may be those interested could find it in English also…..

http://lahaine.org/amauta/b2-img/Clausewitz%20Karl%20von%20-%20De%20la%20guerra.pdf

Apparently these words, or similar, were his:

“Wars were so expensive and unpredictable that they were to be avoided if possible. And if unavoidable, they were best kept short.”

On the solidarity of internationalism of the former USSR, I see it as a value to admire, which today amount to the performance of the actual Russia in support of those with whom she shares strategic alliances.
The problems today with a so flagrant internationalism, which is what many would desire, including sometimes myself, especially for Donbass, and not necessarily harboring misconduct but because an incorrigible romanticism, is that currently, in certain countries with delusions of omnipotence and exceptionalism, there are crazy people behind the wheel, who, desperate at the prospect of losing its hegemony, would be willing to risk anything, any scenario…..

So, Russia’s position so as to avoid open military confrontation with such people, I think the most successful now.
- Anonymous on September 02, 2015 · at 11:03 pm EST/EDT
  
  “Karl von Clausewitz, whom he refers, often, “friend senior strategist”. ”
  
  Perhaps I could suggest you pay particular attention in On war to “War is politics by other means” whilst remembering that Clausewitz has been dead a relatively long time.
  
  War is not restricted to things that go bang.
  
  The latest buzz words of “hybrid war” are also efforts by the opponents to obfuscate.
  
  Given the increase in “unintended consequences” and strategic surprises “endured” by the opponents, and “efforts” of the opponents when subjected to the why, why now and why in this form tests advised, perhaps this will help inform that On War like all books is a catalyst for thought, not a substitute for thought.
  - elsi on September 02, 2015 · at 11:15 pm EST/EDT
    
    Thank you for your recommendation.
    
    “like all books is a catalyst for thought, not a substitute for thought.”
    
    Of course.
    
    Спокойной ночи, сэр.
    - Anonymous on September 03, 2015 · at 10:00 am EST/EDT
      
      A reliance on linear logic encourages notions that the ends justify the means, where as the means condition the ends.
      
      http://fortruss.blogspot.ru/2015/09/fascist-on-fascist-violence-at-rada.html
- Anonymous on September 03, 2015 · at 7:38 pm EST/EDT
  
  “On the solidarity of internationalism of the former USSR”
  
  From Lenin until Brezhnev that was mostly window-dressing – the Spanish Civil War having a greater half-life of illusion than most.
  
  Chernyenko was not big on speaking or thinking come to that, so I can’t give an opinion.
  
  In respect of Brezhnev and his cohorts or the last hurrahs of the red experts as known to some, despite being warned by various organisations, largely as a function of ego – it wasn’t Charlie Wilson’s war despite the Hollywood movie – bolstered by “winning” in Angola and Mozambique and “progress” in Namibia – Brezhnev was one of the few who believed in the Brezhnev doctrine – under the new clothes of International solidarity the Soviet forces were sent to Afghanistan, which when added to Chernobyl, was a significant factor in the implosion of the Soviet Union,
  
  Brezhnev and the last hurrahs of the red experts were mostly dead by that time but likely would have pleaded “unintended consequences” since they usually didn’t take any responsibility what
  so ever, only accolades; self-produced if necessary.
  
  That didn’t stem the flow of Zhinky boys though, primarily working class conscripts, not children of the nomenklatura, just like the US in Vietnam.
  
  If interested you could find the Russian movie whose English language title is 9th Company which may illuminate some things.
  - elsi on September 03, 2015 · at 10:53 pm EST/EDT
    
    Well, I’ve never defended Brezhnev.
    His case I would not have studied, so I appreciate the data you bring me.
    
    But Stalin’s son died during the war, was captured by the Nazis and Stalin refused to exchange him for a German Marshal. He sacrificed his personal life, as does Mr. Putin now, to do the best he could to improve the lives of Russians. He was wrong? Yes. In a sad way? Also. But also raised the standard of living of the Russians, their educational and cultural level to unknown levels not only in Russia but in many other parts of the world.
    
    “Devyatya Rota”
    
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QKFMfg06gfk
    
    I will see it when I find the time, perhaps this weekend. Thank you.( “Zinkhy Boys” already have read it ).
    - Anonymous on September 04, 2015 · at 10:30 am EST/EDT
      
      “But Stalin’s son died during the war, was captured by the Nazis and Stalin refused to exchange him for a German Marshal.”
      
      Well that is factually correct however you may be oblivious to the motivation.
      
      “He sacrificed his personal life, as does Mr. Putin now, to do the best he could to improve the lives of Russians.”
      
      In “disgrace” Kaganovich and Molotov told a different story but not to ingratiate themselves since they had no need to, and many Russians came to the view that Stalin did not do his best to improve the lives of Russians.
      
      “But also raised the standard of living of the Russians”
      
      Sole agency doesn’t exist and improvement depends on where and how the comparatives are made. If you start in 1945 for example and end in 1953 on some measures you could say the standard of living of some Russians improved. If you start in 1945 and end in 1947 you could see the contrary, not restricted to but including, the former Soviet soldiers returning from German POW camps sent directly to the Gulag.
      
      To some the Gulag was a university and so in that sense you could say that “their educational and cultural level to unknown levels not only in Russia” however in many senses from say 1927/28 to 1953 education and cultural levels were restricted and replaced by technicist – the creation of the red experts – and access restricted to culture deemed appropriate by members of the nomenklatura.
      
      Some in Russia would argue that the greatest raising of educational and cultural levels in Russia was facilitated by Zemstvo and Narodnaya Volya’s efforts from circa 1881 to 1913.
      
      Myth of course has half lives and extensive efforts will be made in Russia until 2017 to demystify some.
      
      As another example you may care to consider the question Whatever happened to Stepan Bandera? using
      
      /will-stepan-bandera-iii-allow-kiev-to-destroy-the-bandera-legacy/
      
      as a convenient start point.
      
      I apologise not giving the reference to 9th Company in Russian since this is an English language broadcast.
      - elsi on September 04, 2015 · at 9:39 pm EST/EDT
        
        Just finished viewing the film you recommended me, a very good movie. Very graphic about horrors and consequences of war but at the same time giving a chance to the beauty offering those amazing panoramics of the Afghan landscape.
        
        BTW, I’ve noticed that those Mujaeedin from the final attack, around 2 hours of footage, are very professional to be common people from the mountains, especially the guy with hair in the air and Rayban sunglasses style. That had not been in a village from Afghanistan in all his life until he got there….
        
        Tell me, friend, if it is not indiscretion, are you a veteran of Afghanistan War?
        
        Anonymous on September 04, 2015 · at 10:47 pm EST/EDT
        
        “very professional to be common people from the mountains,”
        
        The common people from the mountains were/are very professional and Raybans are useful.
        The common people from the mountains have been under-estimated throughout history due largely to the hubris/racism of others.
        
        Brezhnev and the last hurrahs of the red experts were made aware of that before “the solidarity of internationalism of the former USSR” as you chose to characterise it.
        
        The common people from the mountains had CIA “advisors” who initially thought they were there to advise and train, but primarily became liaisons in logistics/money distribution, although for the “folks back home” they gave the impression that they were “advisors” to keep the money flowing, otherwise they would have had little role in Afghanistan.
        
        The CIA was/is not homogenous – the main division being between the analysts and the “operators” in the field, as has largely been the case since inception in 1947. The “advisors” were largely “operators” and so the analysts were largely ignored. Recent restructuring of the CIA has exacerbated that trend.
        
        Hollywood in films such as Charlie Wilson’s War perpetuated the myths proffered by the “operators” and others, seeing the Afghanis/mujahadeen as “junior partners” and/or lesser beings, which “informed” the US invasion of Afghanistan, despite analysts/advisors trying to “inform” on the history and culture of Afghanistan.
        
        At the time of the US invasion of Afghanistan these analysts/advisors were relatively few and were ignored. That not only continues to be the case, but is exacerbated.
        
        Some joked that since it was often difficult to know if Brezhnev was alive or dead, may be he lost a few centimeters and was “elected” as President of the United States”.
    - Anonymous on September 07, 2015 · at 10:18 am EST/EDT
      
      If you can source and have the time the following movies may be of interest.
      
      Director: Regis Wargnier
      English title: EastWest
      Original language: French
      
      Subject: Emigre returnees to USSR 1946 and subsequent.
      
      Possible purpose: By contrasting the welcome given to Mr. Snowden and others this may help to illuminate another reason why Russia is not the Soviet Union.
      
      Director : Costas Gavras
      English title: Missing
      Original language: English
      
      Subject: Chile 1973
      
      Possible purposes: 1. To illiustrate that this movie has been removed from distribution.
      2. Inform present developments by reference to Chile 1973 although some may date present activities from Brazil 1964.
      - elsi on September 07, 2015 · at 10:59 pm EST/EDT
        
        Spasibo, friend, for such good recommendations you are giving me
        
        Unfortunately, I could not find “Est-Ouest”, neither in French nor in English, only in Russian. A pitty! Anyway I leave the link to the Russian version, in case someone wants to see it:
        
        «Восток-Запад»
        
        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vII3qMXlwkk
        
        I always loved “Indochine”, by the same director…..
        
        “Missing” by Costa Gavras, I have seen long ago, they restocked several times here on TV, but would like to review it, and now is removed from youtube.
        Looking for these films I found “Site status” by Costa Gavras, about Tupamaros!, how about see this one?
        
        Anyway, I keep all your recommendations, for when I have the time, you know, and perhaps I could find the other films in a Video Club.
        
        I have read something about “Zemstvo” and I found this interesting for the time it was placed, only I do not like that governors keeped most of power, despite being included representation from all social classes. About Narodnaya Volya I did not find nothing directly related, except a short reference in Wikipedia that I already read when you metioned them the first time, but I have a link on Russian anarchism which I will read when I have time…..
        
        It’s a shame that you and me can not meet to discuss about movies and all these issues……
        
        Yesterday, I read the article by G.H Eliason about Bandera to which you remited me and I left a comment there, asking some questions to Mr Eliason himself or, if he fails, to you, if you please…..
        
        Спокойной ночи, спать спокойно.
        
        Anonymous on September 08, 2015 · at 12:19 am EST/EDT
        
        “now is removed from youtube.”
        
        Yes so perhaps testing the why, why now – I seem to remember the English version was made unavailable in circa 2006, and the title was used for another US film – questions would be illuminating.
        
        ““Site status” by Costa Gavras, about Tupamaros!,”
        
        I don’t know that film but an interesting question to ponder is why the Tupomaros have fallen into a memory hole in some areas.
        
        Another interesting deflection is the Red Army Faction generally characterised as the Baader-Meinhof gang – forgetting the roles of many including Gundrun Esselin and some on the periphery including a born-again green who became the German Foreign Minister who challenged Colin Powell’s “evidence” presented to the UN on the Iraqi “weapons of mass destruction”.
        
        You should perhaps note the graph of frequency of views over time on this blog as an indicator of “attention span” and the pursuit of the “new”.
        
        “About Narodnaya Volya I did not find nothing directly related, except a short reference in Wikipedia.”
        
        Wilkipedia is not a particular reliable resource.
        
        One of the members of Narodnaya Volya who was executed was Alexander Ulyanov – Lenin’s brother.
        
        During the state reaction following the assasination of Tsar Alexander the second in 1881, Narodnaya Volya was broken into pieces and some of the former members went into the countryside to “educate” the masses. In part this illustrates the presumption not only of Narodnaya Volya, but also the Bolsheviks and other “exceptionalists”.
        
        Some of theses Narodnaya Volya “exceptionalist” fled to the United States.
        
        Although not perfect, as catalysts to thought the following may be of interest
        
        http://www.larouchepub.com/eiw/public/2002/eirv29n31-20020816/eirv29n31-20020816_035-sergei_zubatovs_police_socialism.pdf
        
        elsi on September 08, 2015 · at 10:48 pm EST/EDT
        
        I remember that you said that you used to know Spanish language…..
        In case you can remember something, perhaps you could find interesting:
        
        “Estado de sitio” by Costa Gavras”
        
        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AuIM3fD4rB8
        
        Anonymous on September 10, 2015 · at 5:29 pm EST/EDT
        
        Well estadio de sitio was not a documentary but useful thanks.
        
        Perhaps of greater use is:
        
        http://www.chinasmack.com/2014/stories/indonesian-massacre-of-ethnic-chinese-documentary-reactions.html profiling
        
        Joshua Oppenheimer’s Act of killing.
        
        Through the link you can watch a version with Chinese subtitles.
        
        Through Youtube you can view an Indonesian version for free, or download the Directors Cut version for a fee.
        
        When the omniscient question resolve, just watch the documentary.
        
        elsi on September 10, 2015 · at 10:39 pm EST/EDT
        
        But now, why do you reproach me that “État de Siège” is not a documentary?
        
        I do not understand what this is, it’s not your style…. But were not we talking about movies? It is that what you recommended me and I found this one and I put the link for you.
        You do not look like my friend ….. And with “omniscient question” what do you mean? I do not understand.
        
        In any case, before moving on to Indonesia and since your remit me many times to MLNs in South and Central America, I would like to discuss some things about this film with you.
        I do not know if you’ve seen the film, but turned out to be the story of the kidnapping and execution of Dan Mitrione.
        There is something strange. You see, during the kidnapping, despite the siege, the Tupamaros are neither located nor arrested, even though we can see Hugo, through several roadblocks, and Police arrived to be on the top floor of the “cárcel del pueblo”. When the crisis caused by this issue is about to lead to the resignation of the president, suddenly, important Tupamaros, including Hugo, they are held in a venue.
        So, they knew who they were and where they were. I think fitted them well their existence to justify control. As I see it, also fitted them very well Mitrione’s kidnapping to make a martyr and give the lace to MLN when these movements were booming throughout South America.
        
        Tell me, please, what do you think about this?
        
        Thank you for the new recommendation.
        
        Anonymous on September 10, 2015 · at 11:51 pm EST/EDT
        
        “why do you reproach me that “État de Siège” is not a documentary?”
        
        I watched the film and understood the references.
        
        It is not a reproach, it is a statement of fact.
        
        A documentary in the proper meaning would not “knowingly” take “dramatic licence”.
        The word documentary is not restricted to films/movies.
        
        The world is not simple, Dan Mitrione had many enemies not all wearing the same plainclothes or uniforms.
        
        Some assign sole or primary agency/complicity in activities, but this is an illusion whether it be in respect of Stepan Bandera, or Dan Mitrione, or Boris Netsov to name just a few.
        
        This has been broadcast before: for example, that Mr. Nemtsov had trouble keeping his trousers on and his hands by his side.
        
        Some of limited imagination chase the cui bono down the rabbit hole, not remembering that in the vicinity of a striptease, the wise watch the audience.
        
        Some, since they don’t understand purpose, cannot define the bonos.
        
        Some understand that cui bono and direct agency are not synonymous.
        
        Some believe that bonos are always pre-planned, rather than often fortuitous.
        
        Some think the world is linear and hence bonos are wholly beneficial.
        
        Some think that bonos have acceptable blowbacks – Madelaine Albright “It was worth it” and Hillary Clinton’s “We came, we saw, he died”.
        
        Some realise that the others’ bonos are the others’ weak points affording lateral opportunity.
        
        The questions posed previously about the Tupos were catalysts to thought leading towards greater understanding as are all broadcasts I transmit.
        
        “And with “omniscient question” what do you mean? I do not understand.”
        
        The omniscient include but are not necessarily restricted to
        
        those who bridge doubt with assertion and/or belief.
        
        those who wholly rely on secondary sources.
        
        those who ignore the results of tested hypotheses.
        
        those who ignore data due to provenance.
        
        those who do not constantly challenge their own prejudgements.
        
        in other words, the opponents.
        
        The Chinese website offers still photographs, at the entry to which is placed a caution. They are very graphic, to a level of detail that most accessing this blog are probably unaware.
        
        As W.C. Fields remarked there comes a time in the affairs of men dear friends, when you must grab the bull by the tail and face the situation. It is good advice – I would advise that you look at the still photographs however unpalatable you may find them.
        
        The Indonesian references show the price of failure, and give an indication of resolve.
        
        Joshua Oppenheimer’s Act of killing also illustrates the illusions of statues, and the uses made of these illusions.
        
        Anonymous on September 11, 2015 · at 9:54 am EST/EDT
        
        A small example but not unique re the CIA and others.
        
        http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article42820.htm
        
        Anonymous on September 11, 2015 · at 12:56 pm EST/EDT
        
        “You do not look like my friend”
        
        Don’t worry my associates sometimes joke that I am a whole tribe of gorillas – I do hope I spelt that correctly.
        
        That is probably better than being known as a herd of burros.
        
        Try not to do a Victor Jara.
        
        Untoward happenings can occur waiting for un pueblo unido.
        
        As the mad hatter may have said – look at the date I must be off.
- Anonymous on September 05, 2015 · at 9:02 am EST/EDT
  
  Persons in proximity have likely read the following.
  
  Books are catalysts of thought, not substitutes of thought.
  
  https://libcom.org/library/low-intensity-operations-subversion-insurgency-peacekeeping
  
  Paperclip activities were not restricted to persons but included documents.
  
  It is held by some that they included “studies” from Trawniki, Sobibor and Treblinka authored by amongst others Franz Stangl.
  
  The “intelligence” resources on techniques and other considerations were also not restricted to Mr. Gehlen and associates, but included Klaus Barbie and others, of particular use in places Mercosur.
  - elsi on September 12, 2015 · at 4:24 pm EST/EDT
    
    “Don’t worry my associates sometimes joke that I am a whole tribe of gorillas – I do hope I spelt that correctly”
    
    Gorillas are certainly charming, they just get angry when someone puts the safety of the community at risk, otherwise, they are peaceful and loving.
    Once I could see them in the Bisoke mountain, in the wild, after a couple of hours of climbing through an almost impenetrable forest (in the final stage you do not step on land but on intertwined vegetation). These gorillas, you see, are more protected than many humans, but worth it, so that, at least some privileged, we can see and tell others how they are able to develop a life in peace and harmony, lovingly taking care of each other.
    Being there, seeing that light and that landscape dotted with giant lobelias, magnificent, even in the rain, I could understand why, despite how uncomfortable or unhealthy, that person stayed to live among the gorillas…..
    
    http://www.adventureclub.com.br/blog/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/1-gorilas.jpg
    
    http://www.milenio.com/internacional/Bisoke-Parque-Nacional-Volcanes-Ruanda_MILIMA20150905_0216_3.jpg
    
    http://www.yukiba.com/upl/server/uploads/1275321412-ruhengeri-Rwanda-Africa-Ruhengeri.jpg
    
    “Try not to do a Victor Jara”
    
    Why would I?, if I am a peaceful and quiet citizen that follows that famous advice of Franco, “Do as I do and not get into politics”…..
    
    “Untoward happenings can occur waiting for un pueblo unido”
    
    Therefore, in addition of advising me, I was right when I thought that you want to scare me, at least a little, especially with that insistence on seeing those lurid pictures on those killings in Indonesia, because all is going increasingly sleazy ( well, compared to this, Mitrione was kind of an esthete.. ). But some photos seem fake….. mounted……especially some where children appear who do not flinch in horror ( I followed your advise, as always, and concentrated on the audience rather than on the striptease ).
    
    Are these “untoward happenings” related to the flood of “refugees”?
    - Anonymous on September 19, 2015 · at 1:25 pm EST/EDT
      
      “But some photos seem fake….. ”
      
      At the key level it matters little whether the “photos seem fake” or not, or even if they are fake or not.
      
      The key is the notion of image constituting “evidence”, and the ideological consequences based there upon.
      
      As a starter the following may be of interest:
      
      http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-age-of-the-image-simulated-realities-the-image-oriented-way-of-viewing-the-world/5475954
      
      In the text reference is made to the work of Jacques Ellul. Although written more than 40 years ago you may find something of use in Jacques Ellul’s book Propaganda.
      
      As another start point you may like to consider Victor Klemperers work from the early 1950’s, ie. from the early stages of the alleged Cold War
      
      Language of the Third Reich (Bloomsbury Revelations)
      
      Assimilating the data may prove a start point in perceiving the immersive roles of ideologies, and why ideology is more dangerous than other weapons of any destruction.
Riaz on September 02, 2015 · at 9:28 pm EST/EDT

I like reading your comments and analysis. I only have a problem with your one sided love for Shias. I am a Muslim. I belong to the majority who practice the correct path or at least adhere to the correct teachings of the holy Quran and Prophet Muhammad, PBUH. I do not think that Shia or Sunni or others are evil. I do not support any extremists of any kind. It is sad to see that you squarely blame the Sunnis for the acts of extreme psychopaths who represent the scum of humanity and they can be found everywhere in the world and they have many names. DAESH is just one such evil movement. Shias slaughtered, burned, be-headed many Sunnis and continue to do so, in majority Muslim nations, Shais, Ahmadis routinely dominate the political, economic, social and religious class and when the majority’s right are denied for decades with the help of the west and the east, this is what happens.

Russia was the biggest member of Soviet Union, whatever their reasons were, they did invade Afghanistan under the same delusion of power that the Americans are doing, Putin learned from the past. He is brave, man of honor and dignity and I admire him and brave people of Russia.

Please refrain from thinking that all Shias are innocent, the extremists shias are as bad as the DAESH, they also burn, be-head and mutilate anyone who is not of their sect. In true and correct teachings of Islam there is NO SUNNI or SHIA or ALAWITE. NON.

If you believe in the ones of God and believe that Muhammad (P.B.UH) is the last messenger of God then you are a Muslim. End of story any argument.

Anyone adding anything to the basic tenant of Islam is NOT a Muslims. They can be whatever the believe and have an absolute right to practice whatever they believe and must have freedom to practice their beliefs but they cannot be of Islamic faith as they do not adhere to the basic tenant of Islam. Ahmadis, Alwawits, Salafists, Wahabi, etc….these are not Muslims if they do not adhere to the basic belief of Islamic faith. I have to reiterate this because that is the core belief of Islam. Oneness of God and we also believe that this was the same message given to Jeus, Moses, Abraham, Adam, Noah,Joseph, etc. All respected messengers of God.

I reiterate only to educate people that in Islam you have a right to believe in any way you want, you may not be called a Muslim for not believe the correct teachings of Islam but that does not make you any less than I. We are all equal, sorry I had to re word it so accidently posted the earlier message. Please disregard or delete it.

Remember, we are the resistance and as a descended of Crimean Khan I am happy that Krym is safe and thank God that Putin heeded the request of Crimean people. Peace to all.

R Khan
- The Saker on September 02, 2015 · at 11:49 pm EST/EDT
  
  I only have a problem with your one sided love for Shias
  
  Dear R Khan,
  
  That is a fantastically unfair accusation. Not only have I used the figures of Akhmad and Ramzan Kadyrov (both Sunni) as the perfect example of how Orthodox Christians and Muslims can stand together against the AngloZionist Empire, but you can check for yourself that Sheikh Imran Hosein calls me his “friend” because he knows how sincerely I support this efforts and what I have done to help his efforts. Not only that, I am also on the record on this blog by praising Sayyed Qutb whom nobody would suspect of being a Shia.
  
  I am sad to say that you are completely misunderstanding me. Let me explain.
  
  What I DO say is that there is an anti-Shia crusade waged by the AngloZionists. This is not because of my one-sided love with the Shia, but because the Empire fears the Shia for 5 very good reasons:
  
  1) They are inspired by the example of the Iranian Revolution and the Islamic Republic.
  2) They happen to live on the greatest oil reserves of the Middle-East.
  3) They are political progressives who threaten both the AngloZionists and the corrupt leaders of the Arab Muslim world.
  4) They are formidable military fighters.
  5) They are not susceptible to being influenced by Takfirism
  
  Since I am not a Muslim myself I absolutely make NO judgments as to whether this or that branch of Islam is the “correct one”. It would be ridiculous for a non-Muslim like me to tell Muslims who they are supposed to interpret the teachings of the Prophet.
  
  Nor do I blindly always praise the Shia. I am quite aware of the atrocities they have committed in Iraq against Sunnis (that, in part, explains the emergence of Daesh in this country) and I am also quite aware of how corrupt some of the Ayatollahs can be (I think of Rafsanjani for example).
  
  I am saddened that you would interpret my admiration for the Shia who resist the Empire as some kind of anti-Sunni bias. I assure you that this is not the case.
  
  Peace,
  
  The Saker
  - Mulga Mumblebrain on September 03, 2015 · at 3:13 am EST/EDT
    
    In my opinion, in all religions and ideologies it is the fundamentalists who are the greatest menace. Whether orthodox or ultra-orthodox Jews, fascistic Zionists, Wahhabists, Hindutva fanatics, radical Buddhists in Myanmar, Christian Zionists in the USA or Shintoist fascists like Abe, they are a menace to humanity, and, as well as targeting others not of their own beliefs, often end up persecuting those of their own religion, but lacking their fanatic certainty. Of them all I believe that the Wahhabists and the US ‘Exceptionalists’ are the most evil and dangerous.
    - Ann on September 03, 2015 · at 7:01 am EST/EDT
      
      Mulga, that is so true.
Anonymous on September 02, 2015 · at 9:33 pm EST/EDT

There are no Russian forces in Syria in the same way there are no Russian forces in Novorossya

http://fortruss.blogspot.co.nz/2015/09/are-russians-fighting-in-syria-video.html

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IK0m9a6JJ80
David George on September 02, 2015 · at 9:35 pm EST/EDT

The war in Syria is absolutely and exactly about Russia’s freedom, independence and constitutional order. Otherwise what is anyone talking about it for? Lose Syria and you will lose the future. Remember Orwell! Somewhere the western narrative has to be demolished, and this is the place, and right now is the time. All that matters at the immediate moment is whether the northern border with Turkey can be sealed off and a no-fly zone stuck against it and the US and Turkey and their criminal friends stopped cold right there. Then the psycho fighters can be destroyed. Russia can do it, if not Russia should go home. The rest of this word salad is immaterial.
- Anonymous on September 02, 2015 · at 11:44 pm EST/EDT
  
  “word salad is immaterial.”
  
  Thank you for the phrase – most useful.
  - David George on September 03, 2015 · at 2:13 am EST/EDT
    
    It’s not mine, it’s a phrase physicists use for a non-quantitative argument.
    - Anonymous on September 03, 2015 · at 1:13 pm EST/EDT
      
      “It’s not mine, it’s a phrase physicists use for a non-quantitative argument.”
      
      Thank you for the phrase – most useful, including your perceived need to respond in the form that you did.
- The Saker on September 02, 2015 · at 11:53 pm EST/EDT
  
  The war in Syria is absolutely and exactly about Russia’s freedom, independence and constitutional order. Otherwise what is anyone talking about it for? Lose Syria and you will lose the future
  
  I am all for helping Syria, but I will point out to you that Russia has existed for 1000+ years without Syria and she can continue doing so. Russia could even survive the loss of Iran, a much more important actor. I am not saying that this outcome is desirable, not at all, but only that Russia does not ‘need’ anybody.
  - David George on September 03, 2015 · at 1:50 am EST/EDT
    
    Maybe it is true that Russia does not need anyone in order to survive. But what kind of world will Russia be living in if it does not fight this evil that is created by the criminals in power? I believe that, like it or not, there are many people in the world who see Russia as the last best hope for the human race. During my life the world has been going continually downhill, and now it is falling apart before our eyes in blood, starvation, disease, you name it, while the criminal politicians and business people avert their eyes (they must, otherwise how do they sleep?). I believe after reading your blog and others for a while that Russia does have a moral compass created by its religions and historical experience. The “West” is completely lacking in that morality, its media has smothered it (and at the same time any real critical faculty). People are hungry for a new world. Why not, after four years of suffering of Syria, make a stand against the snakes — and I mean the UN, the US, the EU, the whole damned bunch! Their lies will strangle them when the truth is known, but if they continue to control the story the truth will never be known. End of rant!
    - Mulga Mumblebrain on September 03, 2015 · at 3:18 am EST/EDT
      
      David, I agree entirely, save for your observation regarding ‘..the criminal politicians and business people…’ having trouble sleeping. In fact, they have not an iota of trouble dozing off, as millions are destroyed by their actions, because these people are psychopaths. They possess no human empathy or compassion, and revel in their power over life and death, because they truly believe themselves ‘Exceptional’ , ‘Chosen by God’, and ‘Gods Upon the Earth’.
      - Anonymous on September 03, 2015 · at 5:10 pm EST/EDT
        
        and the difference between a capitalist western businessman and russian is?
  - HHH on September 03, 2015 · at 2:26 am EST/EDT
    
    Saker, if Russia can and will survive without us, and fi she will let the resistence movements around her die, put of preservation instinct, why would we give a shit about Russia? Excuse my French…
    
    A pro-Russian Eastern European
    
    PS. By the way, I think that you are mistaken and Russia cannot survive alone in a world dominated by the forcess of darkness. In the long run they will get to her by creatina internal division, and by psychological and economic warfare, as it had already happened in the 1980’s.
    
    The worst strategic mistake made by the Russians was abandoning their allies in the Middle East and let Israel have a free ride.
    - The Saker on September 03, 2015 · at 1:50 pm EST/EDT
      
      if Russia can and will survive without us, and fi she will let the resistence movements around her die, put of preservation instinct, why would we give a shit about Russia?
      
      Russia can survive without anybody, but Russia would much prefer to survive and prosper along with any other sovereign nation willing to join her. The problem of Eastern Europe is that it is currently a US colony just like Western Europe, for that matter. Since the Europeans have no voice of their own, no opinion of their own, no independent policy, not even the minimal capability to articulate and promote any other goal besides “yes Uncle Sam, anything you say, Uncle Sam” Russia has nobody to talk to, no partner.
      
      You can give a shit or not give a shit about Russia, but since ALL of your decision are taking in Washington DC, it makes absolutely no difference to Russia.
      
      I think that the vast majority of Russians deeply regret that state of affairs, they know and remember how much Russia and Eastern Europe have in common, and they feel sad and deeply disappointed by the role Eastern Europe plays today. There are signs that some Eastern Europeans (like Milos Zeman or Viktor Orban) are trying to build an independent foreign policy and that is very, very good. God willing this process will continue. But as long as most European leaders will remain Uncle Sam’s punkass bitches (pardon my French) Russia will have to continue to rely on other, sovereign, partners.
      
      Recover your sovereignty and Russia will welcome you back to the free world with open arms.
Anonymous on September 02, 2015 · at 9:38 pm EST/EDT

“The problem with that is that all this fancy hardware serves no purpose against Daesh which has no air force.”

Sorry but that is not true. US/NATO provides the air cover for ISIS, Daesh, al-Qaeda the remake or whatever the US proxy is called this week. The Mig-31s will be sufficient to deter the Anglo-Zionists from accidentally targetting Syrian army assets.
Win on September 02, 2015 · at 10:52 pm EST/EDT

Absolutely agree.
alan on September 02, 2015 · at 10:58 pm EST/EDT

@The Saker,
Let me just say I agree with your POV 100%. The Russian Federation, unlike NATO-stan countries, is not the policemen of the world. They are the chaos, death and destruction creators, so we should not be like them. You have already touched on what at best can be done by RF, arms shipments, perhaps some military advisors etc.

No country or countries should be the Policeman of the world, killing people in the name of “liberating” them from oppression or whatever excuses. “I will liberate you all even if I have to kill all of you” is basically their motto.
Matters between countries should be handled via the UN, but unfortunately, the UN has turned out to be quite useless for the last few decades.
What matters now is RF should build as much a strong bond as possible with rest of the BRICS countries, be able to resist the Hegemon for the next few decades, until NATO-stan countries come to their senses on their own or is no longer able to push and bully the rest of the world anymore.
Purple Library Guy on September 02, 2015 · at 11:22 pm EST/EDT

This may be hair-splitting in a way, but . . . illegal? I grant the discussion of impracticality and lack of obligation, and indeed the general desirability of having armies devote themselves to defending one’s own country rather than on foreign adventurism.
But the mention towards the end that sending Russian troops would be illegal doesn’t seem solid. Since Daesh is not a state actor, there would be no problem in international law as long as the troops stayed in Syria and didn’t attack some other sovereign state. In terms of Russian legality . . . if I’m reading this article right, provided that Syria requested the Russian troops in question, and Russia and Syria signed a treaty in which Russia agreed to send troops, then the presence of Russian troops would represent the fulfillment of a treaty obligation and therefore would be legal, not so?
That doesn’t make it advisable, I just don’t think it would necessarily be illegal.
- blue on September 03, 2015 · at 3:35 am EST/EDT
  
  Russia could intervene, but Putin does not have the authority to do so on his own.
  
  Of course, in the US congress must declare war, but has not done so for decades so the US aggressive wars are illegal under US law as well as international and by UN treaty. But Russia is much more lawful than the US.
  
  see http://www.departments.bucknell.edu/russian/const/ch4.html
  
  Article 86.
  The President of the Russian Federation shall: a) supervise the conduct of the foreign policy of the Russian Federation; b) conduct negotiations and sign international treaties of the Russian Federation; c) sign instruments of ratification; d) accept credentials and instruments of recall of diplomatic representatives accredited with him.
  
  Article 87.
  
  The President of the Russian Federation shall be the Supreme Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation.
  In the event of aggression against the Russian Federation or an immediate threat thereof, the President of the Russian Federation shall introduce martial law on the territory of the Russian Federation or in areas thereof with immediate notification thereof of the Federation Council and the State Duma.
  
  Article 88.
  Under the circumstances and procedures envisaged by the Federal Constitutional Law, the President of the Russian Federation shall impose a state of emergency on the territory of the Russian Federation or in areas thereof with immediate notification of the Federation Council and the State Duma.
el_ejo on September 02, 2015 · at 11:31 pm EST/EDT

This article is a good example of why you have the best analysis. You are not anchored to a particular ideological interpretation; you give us the saker’s eye view of the big picture in the vineyard.
Pacific on September 03, 2015 · at 12:07 am EST/EDT

A sea change has happened as is now being played out.

The natural course is for ebb and flow.

Since the mind boggling success of 9/11 which has allowed Zionist – (Jews and Christians) to get away with murder.
Banksters have been able to create trillions of dollars of debt without a murmur.
Military – endless war, billions spent and promotions for the faithful. Security Complex – billions spent, privacy gone, blackmail a tool. Media – totally controlled , a brainwashed people.

The masters see their handy-work and are well pleased.
Their goons – neo-cons have done well but must now be reigned in. Consolidation is now the watch word. Zionist Bernie Sanders will be the next President, this shall be assured by the masters who recognise that a limit has been reached and now for softly, softly, for a new tact and more trillions for the clean up.

The masters can stretch and yawn, for the past 15 years have been truly epic and replete with success never before contemplated let alone achieved in world history.

A toast.

And thank you Putin.
You are the perfect foil to these certifiable useful crazies in Amerika. Zionist Christians – the best tools or fools, no matter, useful tax payers and consumers of everything, especially brain dead bullshit.
- Mulga Mumblebrain on September 03, 2015 · at 3:25 am EST/EDT
  
  Pacific, I agree, although I imagine Bush as the most likely next President. However, I have come to the opinion that the monstrous drive to global destruction and horror is open-ended. I believe that the ruling elite in the West are psychologically psychopathic, intellectually inadequate and deeply morally and spiritually evil. As evil as human beings come. I suspect that the drive to ecological destruction, economic implosion under unpayable debt and gigantic inequality and geo-political sociocide and genocide is designed to provoke then facilitate a gigantic culling of billions of ‘useless eaters’ that the overlords no longer require and who they fear as a threat to their power.
Daniel Rich on September 03, 2015 · at 12:12 am EST/EDT

Q; …not for a college tuition, not to avoid jail or unemployment and not because they thought they could visit the world and kill brown people.

R; Add to that the foreign hopefuls trying to obtain a green card by joining the armed forces.
Anonymous on September 03, 2015 · at 12:24 am EST/EDT

Attention SAKER here is debka’s take on the situation which seems to be at variance to your handle

http://app.debka.com/n/article/24858/Russia-gearing-up-to-be-first-world-power-to-insert-ground-forces-into-Syria
Anonymous on September 03, 2015 · at 12:32 am EST/EDT

So why is debka saying that Russia is readying when you say they are not,? What purpose would be served by debka doing this.? I grant you that debka does spin well with the party line but reputationally it seems dubious to me that they are speaking absolute nonsense in this instance unless it is a ruse to trigger greater western involvement.?
- alan on September 03, 2015 · at 4:14 am EST/EDT
  
  lots of stuff from debka are pure nonsense, I donno why you even bother reading them.
  - Grieved on September 03, 2015 · at 5:39 am EST/EDT
    
    Because he’s Anonymous. I don’t know why Saker permits them to come here, frankly, with their “word salad”, to borrow a phrase from up-thread.
Stavros H on September 03, 2015 · at 1:32 am EST/EDT

This is a very good summary on why it would be mistaken for Russia to engage directly in the Syrian conflict. This is in fact what the Anglo-Zionists want to happen. To lure Russia in both Syria and Ukraine.

As for the Syrian conflict as such. My sense, is that unlike the conflict in the Donbass, where we have good information of what is going on from pro-Russian and Russian sources most of the time, the Syrian war is much more distorted, even from the pro-Syrian side.

What is the opinion of people on this blog?
- Ann on September 03, 2015 · at 7:09 am EST/EDT
  
  Stavros, I think that Hezbollah is the source to listen to, for the Syrian conflict…did you see the interview Saker did with a Lebonese General, 1 or so weeks ago…very interesting.
milomilo on September 03, 2015 · at 3:41 am EST/EDT

Saker

Let’s be honest here , at this stage we all know that russia is involved in syria covertly , supplying weapons and maybe technical personell.. while i dont think russia send their direct action teams to fight along with syrian army , it is impossible for everyone here to know if there’s no russian ground troops fighting in some capacity along with the syrian..

let’s face it, we all dont have the intelligence briefing on these things , we all made guesses based on the stuff we read.

but one thing to notice , note that the ‘russia/putin abandon syria’ already repeated every year since 2011 , and yet russia still back the syrian goverment up to this day..

and dont forget the role of Iran in helping syrian goverment , in sending their Qud forces to bolster syrian ground troops , and the role of hezbollah commandoes in helping the syrian army. it is all connected , syria -> iran -> russia ..

my Opinion ? I think Russia’s weapons expert already in syria providing tech support / maintenance for the russian weapon system operated by SAA , while Iran provide fighting men to bolster the Syrian Army. The Mig-31 i think was a deterrent to some overzealous goverment south of syria to prevent them from bombing syrian military installation. Remember the IAF bombing of syrian weapon warehouse and destroying quite a few modern russian weapons stored there ?
SanctuaryOne on September 03, 2015 · at 3:48 am EST/EDT

MH17 is a little off topic, but I find the conclusion of this article below a red herring. While obviously both the USA and Russia wish to conceal their respective intelligence gathering capabilties none of it is actually required to reveal a large part of the MH17 truth.

Wreckage from the LHS front area of MH17 and possibly the leading edge of the left wing and engine will have trajectory plus metallurgical and chemical evidence of the type of shrapnel used that caused the disintegration of MH17. From that you’d get the type of missile/ shells used and if either/both cannon shells and missile were implicated and the missile was air-to-air then it would all but rule out the ‘separatists’. They didn’t have any aircraft.

From:
The Impossible Truth About MH17

“The reason we cannot know what happened to MH17 involves two aspects. First, any credibility on either side of this puzzle has long since been destroyed. It is my belief this has been by design. This brings us to the second point, unwillingness to reveal the true intelligence and military capabilities of the United States, and of the Russian Federation. The short version of this theory is, neither side can reveal the capabilities at hand to show proof of who killed MH17. Not to be the “all knowing” analyst here, but I suspected this all along.”

http://journal-neo.org/2015/08/31/the-impossible-truth-about-mh17/

You could probably, even now, find pieces of MH17 wreckage -if not still on the ground then from souvenir collectors. Is everyone blind to this? How come no government independent source has done this?
Athomas on September 03, 2015 · at 6:26 am EST/EDT

I absolutely agree with you that a Russian invasion of Syria is a hoax just like the Russian invasion of the Ukraine (or invasions, I have lost track, but some website claimed 37 of them til now).

And those who want to rewrite history books, that British forces did not invade France on D-Day (June 6 1944), but much earlier, when they started to supply the “Résistance”, or even earlier, when asked by the French to help defend them against the Nazi threat, please take notice.

One precision on your point of when a war is over: the aim of a war is to destroy your enemy, so the war ends if (at least) one side ist completely defeated, as happened 1945 in Germany and Japan. There is at least one example, the 1648 Westfalia truce, when all sides were simply running out of people, and the so-called 30 years’ war ended (it had actually started much earlier than 1618).

That an incomplete victory, which allows the enemy to rise again does not end wars, you also pointed out. The Soviet “Victory” in Afghanistan is a good example, as we saw the “defeated” side morph into ultimately Daeesh. Other examples would be the Great War, when “defeated” Germany would rise up again, under an even more ugly face 20 years later, or the American civil war, where racism is still a problem 150 years after the confederation’s “defeat”.
- Isabella on September 03, 2015 · at 2:32 pm EST/EDT
  
  I’ve never accepted that the USA / UK alliance “won” the war against the Nazi’s and fascists of Germany. Only Russia won that war for herself, by turning away the invading forces and retaining her sovereignty.
  
  The key Nazi’s were expatriated to USA some to live in South America – Operation Paperclip. The wars the USA have waged on the world since 1945, coming home now again to Europe and Russia, are just an extension of WWII. It’s just that Goebbels and the Nazis are now American rather than German.
  - Michel van Dijk on September 03, 2015 · at 5:33 pm EST/EDT
    
    Operation Paperclip makes me think the UK/US landed in Normandy to provide an exit to the Nazi top brass and other useful people.
Uncle Bob 1 on September 03, 2015 · at 6:30 am EST/EDT

I’m doing a bit of “multi-tasking” at the moment.Reading,and now commenting on this article,while also watching the parade in Beijing (BTW its a great parade.I think the Moscow one was better.But that may just be me.And it doesn’t take away from how impressive it is.Ooops,RT lost the feed to the parade).

Usually I agree with most of the articles.And with this one I do agree with the points on Syria (the points that Russian “boots” on the ground aren’t needed now or the best option).Massive military intervention is usually the wrong way to go.The US has done that countless times and its always been a mistake.But then,the reasons they’ve done that have been purely mercenary on their part,so that doesn’t mean its wrong for all countries at all times.WWI and WWII started because of one country’s attack on another.And the allies of the first country wanting to come to the rescue of the attacked country (maybe not the Soviet or US part of WWII,but the war itself).What was the other choice.To have stood by and let Austria destroy Serbia without trying to help them.They were allies with Russia for a reason.Not just because they were both Slavic.And with WWII what was the choice.To tell Poland,”sorry,the guarantee’s we gave you were meaningless.Just let Germany take over your country unopposed,and call us next week,we’ll talk then”.Coming to more modern times,we have Korea.China came to the rescue of North Korea.And pushed the attackers back,saving North Korea.Some might think that a “bad thing”.But for China having US troops on their border,they believe, would have been worse.And even more modern.The Cubans intervened in Angola,saving that country from falling to the South African backed terrorists.And fought battles with Apartheid South African troops.Defeating them,and assuring the freedom of Angola.The US and Soviets in Afghanistan model,and results,of intervention are not a “one size fits all” to military intervention.And if we consider the Soviets,they intervened in Hungary in 1956,and in Czechoslovakia in 1968,and were totally successful both times.Now you,or me,might not have agreed on the purpose or rightness of those interventions (I’m not supportive on the second.But knowing the background and some of the actions of the protesters in the first one,I’m more supportive on that intervention.).But regardless,they were very successful.The situations were settled for over 30 years in one case and over 20 in the other.And changes in governments,when they did come.Came from ballots,not bullets.

Countries support or ally with a country for many reasons.But one reason that holds true for all of them is military protection.Going by what was posted which country would be foolish enough to support Russia against the Empire. If they thought Russia would desert them (she might of course.But that being a given from the start,leaves Russia with zero allies ever.) China isn’t doing military drills with Russia,thinking “oh,but if push comes to shove,they’ll drop us in a heartbeat.If the US just doesn’t attack Russia they can slaughter us anytime they want,and they’ll stand by and just watch”. So if that is the Russian policy,they are going to be very lonely real soon.None of the BRICS and others will dare to defy the US any longer.All the US would need to do is say “we aren’t going to attack Russia.So they won’t help you.But you little lambs need to start obeying now or we’ll crush you”.And you’d see a line of BRICS leaders in kneepads heading to Washington tomorrow.

As to Ukraine,in the post, is where I disagree the most.Ukraine isn’t a garden variety country to Russia.Russia,Ukraine,and Belarus “are” the Russian World.Sure some other countries are hangers on to that World.But those three are the heart of that World.Without them there is no “Russian World”.Millions of people inside Russia have families in those countries (probably they are part of the 33% of Russian citizens that support military intervention).Many government officials and Duma members even, are of Ukrainian backgrounds.All the history of Russia,from the start until today is intertwined with Ukraine.Its an arm of the Russian body,and always has been.As well as there were 10 million ethnic East Russians in Ukraine.Not including the millions of “Ukrainians” Russianized over hundreds of years.But even if we left all that out (impossible to do,but we’ll pretend).Ukraine’s location alone makes it vital to Russia’s security.And along with that ,the example of Ukraine to Russia’s other brother state.If the West succeeds in Ukraine,Belarus is certain to fall as well.There are fascists in Belarus,that are lusting to repeat the maidan there.And if they see Russia accept a fascist Ukraine.They will move on Belarus.A map easily shows Belarus would be surrounded in all directions except East by pro-NATO or actual NATO states.Easy to slip terrorists directly in on those three sides.While those that might think to support Russia would have to ask themselves “why”.Since,”if Russia will desert Ukrainian Russians, what would stop them from deserting us too”.

You are right that Putin likes to do what the people want.And that is a good thing.But being a leader means you have to see the full picture.And a full third of the people right now (without the government encouraging it) support intervention.Most revolutions start with less support than one third.And the other two-thirds say they don’t want to “send troops”,not that they don’t support the anti-fascists.Most Russians consider this a civil war in Ukraine (I do too).But that doesn’t mean it doesn’t concern them.I believe a while back it was said that the British created an anti-India out of Pakistan when they withdrew.And that is exactly right.It stunted the growth of India (and still does).And yet,the British,while wanting to control India’s strength.Didn’t necessarily want to use Pakistan to destroy India.But the West/NATO intends just that with Ukraine.In making an anti-Russia out of Ukraine.It not only would destabilize Russia.But could be used as a platform to actually dismember Russia.And unlike the British in India,that is the purpose for the West to control Ukraine.Personally,I don’t think that actual Russian troops are needed in Ukraine at present.But that doesn’t mean they might not ever be needed there.Even if the Russian Constitution doesn’t give a President the power to sent troops over the borders.We saw in 2014 the Duma specifically give Putin the authorization to intervene in Ukraine if need be.So if he wanted to,its unlikely the Duma wouldn’t give him that right again.Its the “will” not the law that prevents that at present.Every so often I see the term “hurray patriots” around.Its on Russian blogs,as “Ura Patriots”, I believe.I think that is a term coined to dismiss people with valid questions on policies the government doesn’t want to answer.Since when does worrying that wrong moves are made by the Russian government make someone a “hurray patriot”.One question asked by “hurray patriots” is why was/is more not done to support pro-Russian messaging in the World.Such as supporting people like Saker,South Front,Fort Ross,and others,that help get the truth out.Why must they have to struggle to help Russia on their own.And in answer to the question of which country sent troops to help Russia in war.That would be Ukraine.They stood shoulder to shoulder with Russians battling the nazis (yes,some West Ukrainians were nazi.But not the vast majority of Ukrainians .And certainly not the Novorossians),losing millions of soldiers, fighting together, with their brothers in Russia.Now one might say,but they were the same country then.But the primes of the post was that Ukraine isn’t Russia.So it can’t be both ways.Connected in feeling sometimes,and not in other times,going to show even more the connection of Ukraine and Russia (the common Rus of history). One last point,if Britain does split (I’m not holding my breathe on that).And Scotland becomes an independent state.Will suddenly the millions of Scots and English across the borders no longer be family? Will the deeds of history they shared together not count? And if say,a Scottish fascist party seized power (purely conjecture) started to become violently anti-English and persecute and kill English descended Scots.Would England stand-by and do nothing to help there.I strongly doubt that.And would England be right to intervene and end the persecution and killing? Yes they would. I agree on Syria,because the troops aren’t needed.But will have to agree to disagree on Ukraine.
Stan on September 03, 2015 · at 9:51 am EST/EDT

Saker,
Thank you for your reply at September 03, 2015 · at 12:41 am UTC

I understand your points, even if I still think in retrospect it was a mistake not to act early on. Back then, in the Spring 2014, the Ukrainian military was virtually non-existent, in the sense it was totally disfuctional and devoid of equipment. In addition to that, the majority of the command was not exactly impressed by the Maidanites, rather the oposite. Put all this together and most would have gone over to the side of their Russian colleagues. I dont think there would have been any resistence by the army. Maybe by some of the nazis.

Of course the squealing and barking by the western machine would have been deafening. But so what. It was very loud and shrill anyway. Would they have sent an army to the Ukraine? I dont think so. The caravan goes on.

And Kiev would have been disinfected and the scum pushed to Galicia, where they belong, as monkeys in a zoo.

I remember Paul Craig Roberts writing back then that the time to intervene was precisely then, and that the window of opportunity to do so with relative ease would not last very long, as it was obvious that NATO/US/EU were fast trying resupply and reorganize the army (reorganize it with rusophobes, that is). In other words, they were beginning a quiet invasion. That invasion is now pretty advanced.

That is what happened. I know it is easy to look in the rearview mirror. The problem is that Russia may STILL have to eventually intervene (a much more complicated affair now) if she wants to avoid the complete transformation of the Ukraine into a Russophobe hotbed, and its fast track entry into NATO (minus perhaps some small Russian protectorate in parts of the Lugansk and Donetsk oblasts). That outcome would be a defeat.
- Anonymous on September 03, 2015 · at 1:32 pm EST/EDT
  
  “That outcome would be a defeat.”
  
  Evaluation is a function of purpose, as is strategy, although some of a blue disposition assert that this is not the case.
  
  However as the saying goes, In representative democracies everyone is entitled to her/his opinion, especially if they can’t act upon it.
  
  It may be that your notion of purpose is limited, which is understandable for many reasons.
  
  The opponents also appear to share this blindness, not only in respect of their opponents, but also in respect of themselves, thereby facilitating additional opportunities for lateral challenge.
- The Saker on September 03, 2015 · at 4:58 pm EST/EDT
  
  the Ukrainian military was virtually non-existent, in the sense it was totally disfuctional and devoid of equipment.
  
  Yes, but what you are overlooking is that in Spring 2014 the Novorussian military simply did not exist. All you had is a collection of *volunteer militias* which, while capable of tactical successes, did not have what it takes to transform them into operational successes. I know that this seems highly counter-intuitive for most people but there is a QUALITATIVE “jump” from the tactical to the operational level. If that topic is of interest to you then let me suggest the following readings:
  
  http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?Location=U2&doc=GetTRDoc.pdf&AD=ADA174124
  
  In the current Ukrainian civil war concepts such as “tactics” versus “operation” take on a different meaning. Roughly put, I would say that “tactics” is engaging on the Brigade level but anything above becomes “operations” – at least for the Ukrainian civil war context. Here is the key thing: the CANNOT engage in operations with volunteer militias commanded by independent field commanders. In order to become capable of operations you need either some quiet but crucial support from a “helpful neighbour” like what happened in Saur Mogila or you need a unified command, like what happened in Debaltsevo. The IMMENSE success of the Novorussians is that at least today there is a real “Novorussian Army” and it is capable of operations.
  
  What am I getting at? In the Spring of 2014 the Novorussians had already over-extended themselves and made themselves EXTEMELY vulnerable to “counter-cauldronization”. Not only that, they were unable to coordinate their actions. Finally, they were also risking truing the civil war in a war of national liberation. As one Novorussian commander said “here we are liberators; with every step we take towards the West, we become less and less liberators and more and more occupiers”.
  
  Nowadays the situation is dramatically different. In theory, the Novorussian could consider true, meaningful, counter-attacks and Poroshenko & Co. know that. This is why they are so weary of starting a real offensive.
  
  As I have said it a gazillion times here, time was not only on the Russian side, but even on the Novorussian one provided they had the ability to survive the worst of it – which was 2014. They did :-)
Stan on September 03, 2015 · at 10:32 am EST/EDT

quote:
alan on September 02, 2015 · at 10:58 pm UTC
“Let me just say I agree with your POV 100%. The Russian Federation, unlike NATO-stan countries, is not the policemen of the world. They are the chaos, death and destruction creators, so we should not be like them.”
—————

There are some flaws here.

First, it is true that NATO-stan is a collection of “chaos, death and destruction creators”. Lawless thieving thugs if you wish

Second: it is highly inaccurate to refere to such specimens as “policemen”. Check the meaning and etymlogy of the word police to ascertain this. They are the opposite of what policemen are supposed to be.

Dont call them policemen. Not even in the sense of self-appointed ones. They are not policemen.

Third. If nobody ever confronts the bully and his vassals –no matter how close they come, if they come right to your door step to raise hell– on the scrupulous grounds that one is not the world’s police [and where exactly, pray, would such police be?] the result is that the bully and his cronies/vassals will take over the entire neighborhood and subjugate everyone, including you. It is not a wise strategy.
- dw on September 07, 2015 · at 6:20 am EST/EDT
  
  The bully you’re referring to is NATO? If so, how can it be wise to confront them with weapons?
  
  The USA and NATO seem to believe that the use of force is the only way to succeed.
  
  If NATO is indeed a bully, then one would have to treat it as one. And it is unwise to use force against a bully.
  
  I respect Russia (and Iran) for exactly not using force, and making very solid progress for themselves and their own security.
  
  To expect someone else to protect you from a bully means you expect to be dependent and weak. You expect to choose force as your rule. And that is exactly what does not work if you want to succeed.
  
  “Conflict resolution” actually works, and the threat of (or use of) force actually hinders successful resolution.
  
  To send force escalates the war. A war ends with a loser. NATO and the USA seem to think there must be a war and a loser.
  
  Russia and Iran are consistently working for a resolution of the conflicts.
Anonymous on September 03, 2015 · at 12:21 pm EST/EDT

Anonymousity is somehow a problem here is it when everyone uses some kind of handle pulled like a hare out of their arse.?

I find that a bit silly.

My question was what is debka doing saying that Russia is preparing to land significant force numbers in Syria.?

What is the motive.?

Why is it silly to ask a question like that.?

From now on I will call myself Donald Teeter.!
- zweistein on September 03, 2015 · at 12:42 pm EST/EDT
  
  Debka is Israeli disinformation of the lowest order. Whoever mentions Debka around here is considered a clown, or worse.
- dw on September 07, 2015 · at 10:17 am EST/EDT
  
  Zweistein, you can say it constructively without calling Donald a clown.
  
  Donald, Debka seems to make up news. The report about Russian military was not backed up by any evidence whatsoever. Russia denied it. The USA said they are watching, but did not confirm it.
  
  Several news agencies repeated the report you’re referring to, but after a few days, it was distilled down to “omg, Russia is supplying help to Syria, even if it’s not troops!”
  
  But that has been clear and common knowledge, even reported in western news, for quite some time now.
  
  So, what did Debka achieve? For someone who pays attention to what they report, and what is reported in other agencies in the next days and weeks, they achieved yet another piece of lost credibility.
  
  I’ve asked myself the question you ask. How do I know a report is true? I often don’t. I have to think about what evidence there would be, that Debka or any agency might have, that I don’t have.
  
  Debka cries wolf, but no one else reports that there is a wolf. There are no photos of the wolf. There are some recordings of wolves (ie people speaking Russian) but nothing to show that these recordings are even in Syria. No indication that these are Russian wolves. They could be Russian-speaking Ukrainian wolves. Or Russia-speaking wolves from Kosovo.
  
  If there were a wolf, Debka could provide evidence of wolves. But they don’t. And no one else does. And so I conclude that the amount of wolfiness in Syria must not be high enough for me to care.
  
  Unfortunately a lot of people from NATO countries listen to reports like this and react. And so Debka makes money.
  
  See what I mean?
Donald Teeter on September 03, 2015 · at 12:22 pm EST/EDT

Here I am with a non de plume similar in all respects to all others here including Anonymous
zweistein on September 03, 2015 · at 12:26 pm EST/EDT

Another brilliant piece by the Saker! Cheers!
Rob Surgent on September 03, 2015 · at 1:18 pm EST/EDT

Cruise missiles have been used in Syria since the beginning of this conflict. For example, study the video of the bombing of Aleppo University in January 2013. “Proof that Aleppo University attack was caused by regime jets” A classic 4th gen tactic. In a one in a million shot the cameraman running down the street paned his camera in the direction of this supposed jet as it passed by overhead. Of course the frame at the 28 second was later redacted. Still a careful frame by frame analysis would lead you to no other conclusion.
Eleutheria on September 03, 2015 · at 1:57 pm EST/EDT

I agree with pretty much all of this, even with the notion that while protecting Syria is important to Russia, it isn’t vital. What I find more perplexing is Iran’s behavior. They’ve pledged to help, and it’s likely that they already have, to some extent, but they seem to be very reluctant to get fully involved.

Why? Syria may not be vital to Russia, but it seems essential to Iran’s safety, as the last bulwark against the Islamic State, and the only other Shi’ite power in the region. Are they having trouble reaching an agreement with Iraq, which stands between Iran and Syria?
- Uncle Bob 1 on September 03, 2015 · at 3:38 pm EST/EDT
  
  The Iraqi government is also Shia . But I don’t think it is not that Iran isn’t helping or doesn’t want to help Syria.But if Iran massively sent troops.Israel would claim Iran was sending troops to have them near Israel for an attack.And Turkey would be very upset too.Those two might possibly attack those troops.Causing a much wider war in Syria,maybe the entire ME.I believe that concern is why Iran hasn’t sent troops so far.We would see a smaller issue if they need to send troops to help in Iraq (they already have “volunteers” there.),but as long as they don’t need to they won’t send troops.In Syria,that is why Hezbollah is there.They are fellow Arabs,not Persians.So Israel can whine about them being there.But without the crisis that could develop if Iranian military forces were there.
XRGRSF on September 03, 2015 · at 2:09 pm EST/EDT

Unfortunately, I lack the time to address your essay point by point so I will express my philosophical position, and leave the rest to fate.

Early in my military career there were two fables that were taught to young officers:

The first was the Camel’s Nose. Simply put, don’t allow the camel’s nose into your tent because his butt fill follow, and your tent will be filled with camel dung.

The second was the Frog, and the Scorpion. Why did the scorpion sting the frog thus leading to the drowning of both? Because it in was the scorpion’s nature.

Russia has allowed the camel’s (America’s) nose into Russia’s tent. The camel is continuing to press his body in, and Russia is doing little of note to prevent it. I accept the possibility that there are things at play that I know nothing about, but I also know that it’s a lot more trouble to shovel $hit than it is to slap the camel on the nose.

Russia, as a society, seems to think that America means well, but is just misguided. Russian society is wrong in this assumption. America is a scorpion, and treachery, and violence are in America’s nature.

There is one other philosophical point that comes to mind. In Machiavelli’s writing he states, “It is good to be loved, but it is better to be feared.” I think the word “feared” should be replaced with “respected”. Now, ask yourself, what has Russia done to earn the respect of the world, lately?
- Anonymous on September 06, 2015 · at 1:04 pm EST/EDT
  
  ” In Machiavelli’s writing he states, “It is good to be loved, but it is better to be feared.””
  
  Omitting context is a useful tool in misrepresentation.
  
  The work of Machiavelli you wish to paraphrase is The Prince.
  
  The purpose of the work was to outline how to be a prince.
  
  I am unaware that any of our colleagues wish to be a prince, and even for the opponents this may be a step too far.
  
  However there is a hypothesis that says in representative democracy every he/she is entitled to their opinion, especially if they can’t implement it.
  
  To add additional data to test, could you please advise what purpose you think is served by paraphrasing The Prince?
  - Anom on September 07, 2015 · at 10:49 am EST/EDT
    
    In his maturity, Strauss was a great admirer of Machiavelli, who he believes he understood better than anyone. In his Thoughts on Machiavelli, he parts from the intellectual trend of trying to rehabilitate the author of The Prince against the popular opinion regarding his work as immoral. Strauss recognizes the absolute immorality of Machiavelli, which he sees as the source of his revolutionary genius, “We are in sympathy with the simple opinion about Machiavelli, not only because it is wholesome, but above all because a failure to take that opinion seriously prevents one from doing justice to what is truly admirable in Machiavelli; the intrepidity of his thought, the grandeur of his vision, and the graceful subtlety of his speech”. The thought of Machiavelli is so radical and pure, says Strauss, that its ultimate implications could not be spelled out: “Machiavelli does not go to the end of the road; the last part of the road must be travelled by the reader who understands what is omitted by the writer”. Strauss is the guide who can help his neoconservative students do that, for “to discover from [Strauss’] writings what he regarded as the truth is hard; it is not impossible”. This truth that Machiavelli and Strauss share is not a blinding light, but rather a black hole that only the philosopher can contemplate without turning into a beast: there is no afterlife, and neither good nor evil; therefore the ruling elite shaping the destiny of their nation need not worry about the salvation of their own souls. Hence Machiavelli, according to Strauss, is the perfect patriot. .. http://www.voltairenet.org/article178638.html
    - Anonymous on September 07, 2015 · at 4:10 pm EST/EDT
      
      “therefore the ruling elite shaping the destiny of their nation”
      
      Throughout I posit the provisos that uni-causality and omniscience are impossible in any lateral system.
      
      Superman was created by Jerry Siegel and Joe Shuster both of whom were Jewish in 1933, some positing that it was largely in response to their perceived threat from Nazism, although some hold that Siegel may have been inspired to create Superman because of the death of his father an immigrant store holder who died in a robbery in 1932 – they were seeking a protector.
      
      Superman was given greater exposure from 1938 onwards by a predecessor of DC comics, and as part of the promotion it was held that Superman was published in response to the Nazi threat.
      
      Mr. Strauss was a refugee from Nazism and was apparently similarly seeking a protector, the United States.
      
      In the 1930’s there was a significant amount of anti-semitism in the United States.
      
      A reasonable hypothesis to test could be that as a consequence the factors outlined above Mr. Strauss was anxious to promote his relevance/use to his new protector.
      
      The neo-conservatives apparently are also seeking a protector, hence the promotion of ideas such as those outlined in the Project for the New American Century and subsequent.
      
      Machiavelli wrote the Price when he had been expelled from his post by virtue of the return to power of the Medici in Florence.
      
      An interesting hypothesis to test would be that all of the above were at least partly driven by fear and hence acquiesced/promoted the ideologies of their sought protectors – the ruling elite shaping the destiny of “their nation”.
      
      It would appear that in seeking a protector they emulated that which they were seeking protection from.
      
      Some interesting work has been done on comics including Armand Matelaart’s “How to read Donald Duck” published in Chile in 1972.
- dw on September 07, 2015 · at 9:51 am EST/EDT
  
  Interesting metaphors, XRGRSF.
  
  In the metaphor of the camel and the tent, it seems to me that the tent would be Russia itself.
  
  Syria and the Ukraine are clearly outside of that tent. In addition, Russia has recently put US NGOs on notice. My opinion is that they should have been kicked out long ago, but aside from my opinion, what would be the camel that has its head inside of Russia other than the US embassy or US NGOs?
  
  In the metaphor of the frog, I don’t see how Russia can be seen as carrying the USA on its back. Nor do I sense a danger that it will.
  
  Your quote from “The Prince” promotes a behaviour that hinders cooperation. And happens to be a principle that bullies use to suppress and control others. Interestly, bullies quote “The Prince” as a justification of their behaviour. (I sincerely do not mean to imply that you are a bully,)
  - Anonymous on September 07, 2015 · at 4:17 pm EST/EDT
    
    “Russia has recently put US NGOs on notice. My opinion is that they should have been kicked out long ago, ”
    
    From 1994 until early 2015 US NGO’s has uses which ceased in the summer of 2015.
    
    Omniscience doesn’t exist but on the data available it appears that the timetabling was appropriate.
Seamus Padraig on September 03, 2015 · at 2:17 pm EST/EDT

Bravo again, Saker! You have a way of expressing just what I think better than I myself ever could.

A much more effective defense would be provided by the S-300 and this is why the US and Israel were so opposed to any S-300 deliveries to Syria.

Question: What do you make of the unconfirmed reports that the Syrians–for the first time, apparently–shot down an Israeli jet over Syrian airspace? If true, that could indicate that Syria now has a modern air-defense system, whether S-300 or something else.

One more observation: Up until now, hasn’t it mostly been the western media hyping the idea of a Russian intervention in Syria? Why could that be? Will they later turn around and accuse Moscow of having ‘mobile crematoria’ in Syria, and ‘hiding body-bags from grieving Russian mothers’? Are the Russians, in short, being set up here to look like the interventionist power? Just wondering…
Ned Rutland on September 03, 2015 · at 2:18 pm EST/EDT

God bless you Saker for you wise and calming words.
Isabella on September 03, 2015 · at 2:28 pm EST/EDT

Thankyou for the instructive comments regarding Russian Federation Law in this area Saker.
But … I must admit to feeling conflicted. About Syria – yes. It is certainly clear that in no way is Putin authorised under Law to take Russian troops there. Nor can one see what good it would do Russia to do. But, as we used to say, a bit gruesomely, “there are more ways than one of skinning a cat”.
I suspect there are several ways Russia can help Syria without overtly sending in the attack dogs.
Watching and waiting for the USA to finally collapse from within and helping that process would perhaps be one of them.

But…. Novorossiya? That I do find harder to accept as falling under Russian Law, because of the many ways it can be seen to truly a part of Russia, even if arbitrary borders have been drawn without reference to the people there. They see themselves it would appear as part of Russia at least historically and culturally.
I couldn’t help thinking, when watching that excellent documentary “Crimea:the way back Home” – when seeing Putin (who, I might add, I admire and like enormously) saying that “we had to protect and help them, they are Russians, Crimea is Russian”, thinking to myself “But – isn’t that true of Novorossiya, and what have you done to help them? What’s the difference between the two?”

Also, my concern is the same as that expressed by others — that the window has closed for a fast, relatively easy chance to stop further NATO (i.e. USA) expansion and take over of Ukraine. Now there are USA Army “advisors” (Vietnam anyone?) in Ukraine, and the US navy is proclaiming it will maintain a permanent presence in the Black Sea. What is to stop the perfidious War Mongers staging a false flag in Ukraine now, and using it to attack Russia?

I know that Putin and his team have access to information we don’t. I just hope there’s something in there telling them that America cant last much longer on economic grounds, and that there is the weak underbelly to attack them. Bring them down by destroying the $, and that will stop the aggression without a bullet being fired.

But meantime, the Republics put up plaques to the dead children of their countries, and it makes you weep.

Can I ask – why did you neither like nor trust Putin at first, and why did you change your mind (I am assuming you did)?.
WizOz on September 03, 2015 · at 3:32 pm EST/EDT

May sound farfetched, but I have a feeling that all who clamor for Russian intervention wherever are trolls, ment to mentain in everybody’s mind the idea that Russia is poised to “invade”.
aardwolfx on September 03, 2015 · at 3:56 pm EST/EDT

Excellent and rational analysis. As a monolingual fool, I am so glad to read an opinion from someone who might actually speak to Russian people rather than only hear the rabid ravings of Anglo-Zionist outlets like ABC Media Ltd’s Zerohedge.com that I am usually limited to…

Thank you very much Saker. Keep up the great work.
Petri Krohn on September 03, 2015 · at 9:09 pm EST/EDT

Russia has a magic way of doing two things at once: Being there and not being there!

Russian presence in Syria is like Russian presence in Donbass: minimal and mainly covert. The amount of involvement is finely tuned. Part of this fine tuning is the Russian game of de-escalation. Any attempt by the US to escalate is met with an proportional step of increasing Russian involvement. The key in de-escalation is determining the proportion of the countermeasure; too much response would lead to an escalatory spiral.

I have advised Putin from the very start. Illegal provocations or sanctions by the West should never be answered symmetrically. All response should aim for one thing only, strengthening NAF. Every time Valentina Matvienko or someone is prevented from traveling to the UN, Russia should send ten new T-72 tanks to NAF.

Kiev’s SBU now estimates that the Novorossiyan Armed Forces now have 450 main battle tanks.
…and Russia is not even involved. Something has been done right!

SBU PowerPoint presentation on Novorossiyan Armed Forces (PDF)
- Anonymous on September 06, 2015 · at 11:11 am EST/EDT
  
  “I have advised Putin from the very start. ”
  
  Which channels and protocols did you use to do this?
Anonymous on September 03, 2015 · at 9:13 pm EST/EDT

The Mig-31s would also be a useful deterrent against ‘accidental’ drops of supplies to ISIS by the Anglo-Zionist forces.
Susan Safi on September 03, 2015 · at 10:18 pm EST/EDT

Thank you Saker for these explanations. It is high time that these things are said in no uncertain terms. Inside Syria there is deep respect and appreciation for the amazing multi-faceted role Russia plays and those who condemn Russia for not intervening militarily in Syria just show their ignorance and lack of character. Russia in the latter part of 2013 saved Syria from annihilation and this included, according to a diplomatic leak to Al Manar, Russia preventing two ICBMs from making their way to Syria. Thank you Russian leadership for your wise, responsible, intelligent and highly skilled handling of matters such as Syria. Syrians know that Russia is their true friend and will never let them down.
- Anonymous on September 04, 2015 · at 2:05 am EST/EDT
  
  http://www.unz.com/ishamir/the-die-is-cast/
  “Russia is about to embark on an ambitious expansion of its Syrian presence, likely to change the game in the war-torn country. Russia’s small and dated naval repair facility in Tartous will be enlarged, while Jableh near Latakia (Laodicea of old) will become the Russian Air Force base and a full-blown Russian Navy base in the Eastern Mediterranean, beyond the narrow Bosphorus straits. The jihadi multitudes besetting Damascus are likely to be beaten into obedience and compliance, and the government of President Assad relieved from danger and siege. The war with Da’esh (ISIS) is to provide the cover for this operation. This is the first report of this fateful development, based on confidential and usually reliable Russian sources in Moscow.”
Anonymous on September 04, 2015 · at 1:28 am EST/EDT

Su-34s have been seen and photographed flying in Syria.
Flashpoint: White House Confirms Russian Presence In Syria, Warns It Is “Destabilizing”
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-09-03/flashpoint-white-house-confirms-russian-presence-syria-warns-it-destabilizing
- The Saker on September 04, 2015 · at 3:12 am EST/EDT
  
  Two questions:
  
  1) Since when is the al-Nusra Twitter a credible source?
  2) How can you tell where/when these photos were taken?
  
  and, for the aircraft identification amateur,
  
  3) on which of these photos do you see a SU-34?
  
  Cheers!
  
  The Saker
- blue on September 04, 2015 · at 3:55 am EST/EDT
  
  White House warns of WMD in Iraq, Barrel bombs used by Assad in Syria, WTC brought down by some guys with crate knives, Iraqi soldiers dumping Kuwaiti babies from incubators, invasion of Russian soldiers into Ukraine, Gadaffi is tyrant of Libya, etc. etc.
  
  Who gives a damn what these liars say?
Secret Agent on September 04, 2015 · at 5:32 am EST/EDT

And yet we continue to see reports of Russians in Syria. They are probably advisors.

I think the Russians have beaten the NATO to the punch.

The refugee crisis we presently see is a manufactured crisis. Where are all these refugees coming from? How are they getting into Greece and the Balkins? Usually you have to pay a smuggler a lot of money. Where are they getting the cash?

Is the purpose of this crisis to soften Europe up in preparation for a NATO humanitarian intervention in Syria? How would this intervention be possible if the damn Rooskies are already there?
Francis Lee on September 04, 2015 · at 3:42 pm EST/EDT

Putin may not at this time be contemplating overt intervention in the Don Bas, but he has made it clear on more than one occasion that he will not see the DPR/LPR over-run and ethnically cleansed by Kiev’s neo-nazi stormtroopers. The quote the president ”we will not allow this to happen.” If the Ukronazis do threaten a break-through then, like it or not, Putin’s hand will be forced. Retreat is not an option since a retreat in the Don Bas will mean a new front opening up as the Ukies, egged on by Washington, stage an invasion of Crimea.

The Don Bas is Russia’s red line. The Russian president has made this clear. The Anglo-zionists are upping the ante and pushing hard to see if Putin will cut and run. But Putin’s back is against the wall, he knows it, the Anglo-zionists, know it, and the ultra-nationalists in Russia know it.

In what has become a dangerous game of chicken the Anglo-zionist empire can ultimately back down, since they have room to manouvre; their vital interests are not threatened; for them it will become some face-saving deal on a de facto partition of the Ukraine. Of course special status or autonomy for the LPR/DPR will simply amount to de facto secession, but this will be dressed up in appropriate, bullshit verbiage to make it seem that the Don Bas is still part of an integrated Ukraine – which it would be in the de jure sense.

So there we have it. We shall wait and we shall see.
RR on September 05, 2015 · at 12:23 am EST/EDT

Putin will deal with ISIS in the ME when he has all of his ducks lined up in a row and then within 4 weeks at the most ISIS will be no more. I would not doubt that even Chinese will be visible performing some sort of role in the clean up. Putin is trust building now in both the ME and in Europe as well as mobilizing for war. With each day that passes Russia’s efforts are paying dividends. No one in Europe wants the sanctions, informed people KNOW that a fascist coup took place in Kiev and that ISIS is a proxy US, Israeli mercenary force. Seriously, what economic force can stop Russia and China and the Silk Road. My hope is that like the Junta in Kiev, the EU will collapse as well as NATO and in two years time Europe will be begging to join whatever “economic zones” that the two world leaders Russia and China propose. This eastern economic forum is another winner for Putin. I would not doubt if we saw the reunification of Korea and Japan joining in the Silk Road in a couple of years. Only Dr. Strangelove can stop these developments from taking place and the rest of the world has had it with US hegemony. The difference between development in Russia and China and the West is that the West looks to exploit and impoverish whereas the development projects put forward by the “East” seeks to generalize prosperity among the indigenous population. Infrastructure gets a D rating in America, they should invest in their own infrastructure and put people back to work instead of acting like hyena’s looking to steal the fruits of the labour of others. The US is desperate and has little time left to accomplish their PNAC goals, THAT and only that motivates the deep state in America. Obama will not start a major war during the election cycle. The networks make to much money off these elections for any major distractions from interfering with the billions that are to be spent-by the time a new President takes office-it will be to late, the caravan will have passed and America will have missed it.
Davie Macdonald on September 05, 2015 · at 3:17 am EST/EDT

Not sure the point of this question in your article but since you ask “when is the last time any country send its soldiers to help Russia and, if needed, die for her? Ans 1941 -1944
Davie Macdonald on September 05, 2015 · at 3:37 am EST/EDT

Without going into forensic detail about the reasons why the Soviet Union intervened in Afghanistan your accusation of commentators (who might include my self) as nostalgic of the “good old days” is Ultra lefistist or White Russian nonsense. You also claim “the Soviet Union was involved in conflicts in Asia, Africa or Latin America” this is also totally incorrect in the sense of directly being involved Ofcourse if you mean the support of nations a liberation movements with military equipment eg the likes of Vietnam and or the provision of support for construction of civilian infrastructure then say so. Your lack of military nouse eg strategic positioning of Russian forces,, equipment capability, and deployment of units vis a vis Higgins and Bellingcat on the other side is an embarrassment. I often see your material posted. I suggest you keep to what you are good speculation and conjecture
- Anonymous on September 05, 2015 · at 7:09 am EST/EDT
  
  “I suggest you keep to what you are good speculation and conjecture”
  
  Perhaps you are missing a word and punctuation.
  
  Perhaps your sentence should read
  
  I suggest you keep to what you are good at, speculation and conjecture.
  
  If so, perhaps your notions on the uses made, and the receivers of, broadcast media is limited.
  
  However perhaps a more relevant caution may be try to minimise speculation and conjecture, but likely this would detract from the uses of broadcast media such as blogs, including by unduly reducing the noise/signal ratios.
  
  “Without going into forensic detail about the reasons why the Soviet Union intervened in Afghanistan….”
  
  Omniscience is not possible and hence neither are comprehensive forensic detail/expositions.
  
  However broadbrush hypotheses made available to test may minimise resort to speculation and conjecture, and encourage changes in perception which could aid lateral challenge.
  
  One such is to be found above:
  
  /on-russian-military-interventions-or-lack-thereof/comment-page-1/#comment-141610
  
  It is a strategic error of the first order to posit either omniscience or sole agency, but in the abscence of omniscience broadcasts are at best amalgams.
Avatar singh. on September 05, 2015 · at 3:35 pm EST/EDT

No. I do not think so aswell. Because that would be agianst the trend of Russia to sa rifice and betray ber allies unlike the soveit union.
That is why russia is under attack because she did not prots t her flanks and allies.
Robert Bruce on September 06, 2015 · at 2:09 am EST/EDT

IF Russia wants to sit on the sidelines and just wait to be encircled and destroyed then just sit there and don’t do anything. The whole refugee crisis is a way to get the European people to support Western intervention in Syria. The object of the game is to get rid of a pro Russian/Iranian Assad and put in a Western puppet. Russia will lose big time. Russia can’t win the geopolitical game by sitting on its hands and letting important allies go down. I am starting to see the game for what it is, being a big charade. Think I am crazy? Why would Russia keep playing games with sending Iran S-300s? This is beginning to look a lot like Orwell’s 1984 with continuous warfare among the big blocks, but it is limited war, just enough to justify big defense budgets and repression at home. Do you think Putin is really a saint? He has the Russian people all hyped up on wear it on your sleeve patriotism, like us Americans, even when economy is going down the toilet. He has done nothing to diversify the Russian economy, etc. His foreign policy is a loser thus far. He who defends everything defends nothing is the famous dictum of Frederick the Great. In this instance I agree with that. If Iran loses Syria, then they will lose Hezbollah next, then they will be isolated for the big “kill”.
Robert Bruce on September 06, 2015 · at 3:48 am EST/EDT

I still say it isn’t a bad thing for Russia to get involved. The West created ISIS as a justification/pretense to remove Assad. If NATO lands in Syria and does its thing, game over for Russia and Iran. Lebanon and Hezbollah will be next, thus isolating Iran. Russia won’t have any real allies in the ME anymore as the Sunni Gulf States are all bought off and own their very existence to the UK/US.
- Anonymous on September 06, 2015 · at 10:58 am EST/EDT
  
  “I still say it isn’t a bad thing for Russia to get involved. “
  
  Mr. Bush alleged that US opponents hated their freedom; where as the US opponents hated US freedom to attempt to impose the US agendas.
  
  Some opponents in areas containing one or more of the 700-1000 US bases through direct contact began to hate the US for cultural reasons, the US way of being, their notions of exceptionalism.
  Okinawa is one example of this.
  
  One of the bases of US exceptionalism is their presumption that they know best and can give advice to, and pass judgement upon, the affairs of others.
  
  In addition the modes chosen by the US to activate their presumption multiplies the effects above by delivering this in a culturally ignorant manner.
  
  This cultural ignorance is often perceived by the objects of this presumption, even if they do not speak English.
  
  Symbols can speak louder than words:
  
  for example courtesy of the smirking message delivery of Ms. Psaki, or by a person distributing alms/dry bulka on “Independence Square” in Kiev.
  
  Due to an immersion in notions of US exceptionalism, some “objects “who think themselves “subjects” by dint of being “US citizens”, think they live in a democracy with “rights”, including the “right” to express their opinions, with or without any base of knowledge on the subject upon which they are expressing opinions.
  
  In representative democracies the prevailing narrative is that every he/she has the right to express their opinion, although practice suggests this should be qualified by adding the following suffix:
  
  especially if they cannot facilitate it.
  
  Representative democracy is one of the ideological tools underpinning the present socio-economic system in the “United States” and other states.
  
  Blogs are broadcast media which can be received by a wide audience.
  
  One of the presumptions of this particular blog appears to be that expressing opinion containing some or all of the characteristics above is aiding to “Stop the Empire’s war on Russia”.
  
  On the bases of some research it would appear that this may have some validity, including in the realms of useful foolery.
  
  Omniscience doesn’t exist and knowledge is often an amalgam of “knowing” and “alleging”.
  Evaluation is always a function of purpose as is strategy.
  
  It may therefore be wise to practice humility, and from being informed by this humility, practice silence as appropriate.
  - Anonymous on September 07, 2015 · at 9:56 am EST/EDT
    
    The world is a stage and we are all caught up in the narrative being played out before us. There are no countries only land no Russians or English or Moslems or Jews only living breathing souls with a mind and a body, we have to stop filling the roles they try to get us to play and realise that existence is cooperation and the biases of our realality
    - Anonymous on September 07, 2015 · at 3:20 pm EST/EDT
      
      /on-russian-military-interventions-or-lack-thereof/comment-page-2/#comment-142740
      
      With the exception of the notion of “souls” this appears to be broadly correct on present data, and a significant part of the reason for the uses of the terms opponents, colleagues and co-operators, which many appear to resent.
      
      This also forms a significant part of the reason for focus on challenging ideology which appears to be similarly resented.
Publeus on September 07, 2015 · at 3:09 pm EST/EDT

Thoughtful work. A little biased, defensive, but I suppose that’s understandable given the onslaught. Poor Russia. Never accepted as real Europeans. Perhaps that’s for the best, considering the genocidal tendencies of Europe. Having been raised in the Cold War, I find the fear mongering of “The Russians are coming!” to be almost funny, except for the horrible implications of a preemptive strike, such as the U.S. tried with the failed Archangel fiasco, before the time of wholesale W.M.D.s. Strange that no one seems to remember that. “What’s a little snow?”, right? Russia never invaded the U.S., but we did invade them, and we declare them the threat. How dreadfully diabolical. I remember one thing most from the cold decades. Direct confrontation with Russia is summed up as M.A.D.. Mutually Assured Destruction. Yes, we can destroy Russia, as they destroy us. Is that where we are going? Have the Elite decided to cull the herd, as the screamers warn? We did the proxy dance for a long time without ‘acknowledged’ direct action. We can fight without blowing up everyone, but it’s tricky, and savages many other territories. I still don’t understand the Cuban missile crisis, really. Cuba seemed our ally. Nothing is so profitable as a wolf at the door. Maybe it was just a show. Riveting TV.

What I find interesting now, no one else seems to.

1) Saudi threatens Russia with Chechen terrorist. — The significance of this cannot be overstated. Only a fool would do such a thing, and the hushed retraction (apparent, anyway) doesn’t even come close to settling the matter. It was a declaration of war, Did Russia accept? Did we?

2) The familiar connection between Russia and the so called ‘Russian Jews’ of Israel. Just as the U.S. has a friendly, yet contentious relationship with Israel, so does Russia have an unfriendly, yet devoted relationship with Israel. For the U.S. and Russia, Israel is the marriage from hell. This is almost never discussed, and yet may be the biggest elephant in the room, given the antagonistic behavior of Israel towards the allies of Russia. If some action seems to come out of nowhere, this may be the source.

Will we blow up the world? Are we M.A.D.? This is the fear that binds us. With so many people disenfranchised from their own countries now, including the U.S., the possibility of a deliberate end seems more likely than ever before. In the past, enough people were able to profit to sustain the madness, but now…

People who have nothing left to lose…………………might win, by crashing the Empire. The stampedes intentionally directed at the borders of the U.S. and Europe are in no way accidental, or unexpected blow back. Neither are those tactics the real fault of the hordes of immigrants (refugees). They are directed by us. In the U.S. we even sent a child wave to collapse our southern border. The hallmark of the most despicable regimes. They are in detention centers (concentration camps) now, and are being traded on the open market. Much the same is happening in Europe.

Slaves.

How odd that after the Soviet atrocities, Russia should gain the moral high ground, but then Europe, and it’s colonies, never set the bar very high.

We do live in interesting times. What a convergence of evils. What good will come?

Who will save us; for we dare not save ourselves.

To do that, we would have to confess.

We are not so exceptional.

We are as common as the rest, subject to the same laws, both national, and international.

We are even subject to the Laws of Nature.

Murrow said it best…

“Good night, and good luck.”

Hope is a luxury that I can no longer afford, so now I court the Lady Luck…………..

………………….that fickle &^%@# !!!
- Anonymous on September 07, 2015 · at 11:45 pm EST/EDT
  
  “How odd that after the Soviet atrocities, Russia should gain the moral high ground, ”
  
  Often internal “Soviet atrocities” are deemed to be synomymous with, and restricted to, the Gulag and the purges.
  
  Many of those who did not live in the Soviet Union were/are unaware of the relatively constant coerctions which took many forms, and the ensuing widely held frustrations of Soviet society.
  
  Amongst the catalysts in the mid 1980’s facilitating the demise of the Soviet Union were the practices of the nomenklatura in attempting to “protect” their offspring from being subject to conscription, especially noticeable during the war in Afghanistan, and the practices of the same nomeklatura following the explosions and release of radiation from Chernobyl.
  
  For example in Ukraine shortly after the releases of radiation from 26th April 1986 onwards, the nomenklatura did not inform the population of dangers, whilst simultaneously reserving supplies of iodine and sending their families out of harms way, whilst not cancelling the May 9th 1986 festivities in Kiev.
  
  The organisation of the May 9th 2015 festivities in Moscow and elsewhere, were in direct contrast to the May 9th 1986 festivities; the 2015 festival was in celebration of victory in a people’s war with placards showing relatives who fought
  
  The leadership was part of the crowd, their participation was not restricted to waving from on top of a mausoleum.
  
  Russia is not the Soviet Union because many in the Soviet Union were motivated to facilitate the transition to Russia. Some of this motivation was facilitated by the many “attrocities” perpetuated during the Soviet Union.
- Anonymous on September 09, 2015 · at 8:24 am EST/EDT
  
  “Russia should gain the moral high ground”
  
  Since the opponents’ strategies are based on coercion and death, Russia and everyone else should have limited obstacle to attaining the high moral ground.
Anonymous on September 08, 2015 · at 1:11 am EST/EDT

Depopulating Syria, it is the way to defeat Assad – Syria. It is for real, it is happening, and Russia is hopeless because no one is left to fight for Russian Geopolitical Interests.
Anonymous on September 08, 2015 · at 3:29 pm EST/EDT

Mercouris over at Russian Insider just agreed with your take.

http://russia-insider.com/en/politics/russia-not-fighting-syria-there-disinformation-campaign-underway/ri9583
rezzo on September 09, 2015 · at 5:35 am EST/EDT

Good comment I agree
RR on September 30, 2015 · at 8:20 am EST/EDT

They are the same war different fronts, each with their own specific situational considerations. The enemy of course is the same. Western Imperialism and the PNAC.
Cheers,
RR
RR on September 30, 2015 · at 8:24 am EST/EDT

It would not be illegal for Russia to get involved in Syria their ally militarily….if requested, they would be honour bound. Putin is asking Parliament for permission to send troops outside the country.
Cheers,
RR
RR on September 30, 2015 · at 8:35 am EST/EDT

The people in the Donbas are preventing NATO from eventually creating a military base in the Ukraine. To prevent this is in Russia’s national interests. It is not Pornoshenko who is preventing Russian aggression against Europe as he claims, it is the people in the Donbas who are preventing an eventual attack on Russia from a NATO base in the Ukraine.
RR
RR on September 30, 2015 · at 8:48 am EST/EDT

Hezbollah is no longer on the US terrorist list. And does not have the support of Obama and many in the US who would like to see AIPAC inc out of their country. Dual Citizens or not. And from the look on Bibi face…when he went to Moscow he had made a boo boo in his pants. Obama is going to have to pull in a lot of different forces that they have been supporting Turkey already called for a meeting of the 28 member states under article 5. and put a leash on those dogs of war who are funding terrorists and bombing Syria against international law. KSA announced it had arrested two for financing ISIS so perhaps the chance at those Iskander missiles got their attention. The KSA is about to experience a coup btw from the heir of the former King who is contesting the thrown.
RR