Russian options against a US attack on Syria

This article was written for the Unz Review: http://www.unz.com/tsaker/russian-options-against-a-us-attack-on-syria/

The tensions between Russia and the USA have reached an unprecedented level. I fully agree with the participants of this CrossTalk show – the situation is even worse and more dangerous than during the Cuban Missile Crisis. Both sides are now going to the so-called “Plan B” which, simply put, stand for, at best, no negotiations and, at worst, a war between Russia and the USA.

The key thing to understand in the Russian stance in this, an other, recent conflicts with the USA is that Russia is still much weaker than the USA and that she therefore does not want war. That does not, however, mean that she is not actively preparing for war. In fact, she very much and actively does. All this means is that should a conflict occur, Russia you try, as best can be, to keep it as limited as possible.

In theory, these are, very roughly, the possible levels of confrontation:

A military standoff à la Berlin in 1961. One could argue that this is what is already taking place right now, albeit in a more long-distance and less visible way.
A single military incident, such as what happened recently when Turkey shot down a Russian SU-24 and Russia chose not to retaliate.
A series of localized clashes similar to what is currently happening between India and Pakistan.
A conflict limited to the Syrian theater of war (say like the war between the UK and Argentina over the Malvinas Islands).
A regional or global military confrontation between the USA and Russia.
A full scale thermonuclear war between the USA and Russia

During my years as a student of military strategy I have participated in many exercises on escalation and de-escalation and I can attest that while it is very easy to come up with escalatory scenarios, I have yet to see a credible scenario for de-escalation. What is possible, however, is the so-called “horizontal escalation” or “asymmetrical escalation” in which one side choses not to up the ante or directly escalate, but instead choses a different target for retaliation, not necessarily a more valuable one, just a different one on the same level of conceptual importance (in the USA Joshua M. Epstein and Spencer D. Bakich did most of the groundbreaking work on this topic).

The main reason why we can expect the Kremlin to try to find asymmetrical options to respond to a US attack is that in the Syrian context Russia is hopelessly outgunned by the US/NATO, at least in quantitative terms. The logical solutions for the Russians is to use their qualitative advantage or to seek “horizontal targets” as possible retaliatory options. This week, something very interesting and highly uncharacteristic happened: Major General Igor Konashenkov, the Chief of the Directorate of Media service and Information of the Ministry of Defence of the Russian Federation, openly mentioned one such option. Here is what he said:

“As for Kirby’s threats about possible Russian aircraft losses and the sending of Russian servicemen back to Russia in body bags, I would say that we know exactly where and how many “unofficial specialists” operate in Syria and in the Aleppo province and we know that they are involved in the operational planning and that they supervise the operations of the militants. Of course, one can continue to insist that they are unsuccessfully involved in trying to separate the al-Nusra terrorists from the “opposition” forces. But if somebody tries to implement these threats, it is by no means certain that these militants will have to time to get the hell out of there.”

Nice, no? Konashenkov appears to be threatening the “militants” but he is sure to mention that there are plenty of “unofficial specialists” amongst these militants and that Russia knows exactly where they are and how many of them there are. Of course, officially, Obama has declared that there are a few hundred such US special advisors in Syria. A well-informed Russian source suggests that there are up to 5’000 foreign ‘advisors’ to the Takfiris including about 4’000 Americans. I suppose that the truth is somewhere between these two figures.

So the Russian threat is simple: you attack us and we will attack US forces in Syria. Of course, Russia will vehemently deny targeting US servicemen and insist that the strike was only against terrorists, but both sides understand what is happening here. Interestingly, just last week the Iranian Fars news agency reported that such a Russian attack had already happened:

30 Israeli, Foreign Intelligence Officers Killed in Russia’s Caliber Missile Attack in Aleppo:

“The Russian warships fired three Caliber missiles at the foreign officers’ coordination operations room in Dar Ezza region in the Western part of Aleppo near Sam’an mountain, killing 30 Israeli and western officers,” the Arabic-language service of Russia’s Sputnik news agency quoted battlefield source in Aleppo as saying on Wednesday. The operations room was located in the Western part of Aleppo province in the middle of sky-high Sam’an mountain and old caves. The region is deep into a chain of mountains. Several US, Turkish, Saudi, Qatari and British officers were also killed along with the Israeli officers. The foreign officers who were killed in the Aleppo operations room were directing the terrorists’ attacks in Aleppo and Idlib.”

Whether this really happened or whether the Russians are leaking such stories to indicate that this could happen, the fact remains that US forces in Syria could become an obvious target for Russian retaliation, whether by cruise missile, gravity bombs or direct action operation by Russian special forces. The US also has several covert military installations in Syria, including at least one airfield with V-22 Osprey multi-mission tiltrotor aircraft.

Another interesting recent development has been the Fox News report that Russians are deploying S-300V (aka “SA-23 Gladiator anti-missile and anti-aircraft system”) in Syria. Check out this excellent article for a detailed discussion of the capabilities of this missile system. I will summarize it by saying that the S-300V can engage ballistic missiles, cruise missiles, very low RCS (“stealth”) aircraft and AWACS aircraft. This is an Army/Army Corps -level air defense system, well capable of defending most of the Syrian airspace, but also reach well into Turkey, Cyprus, the eastern Mediterranean and Lebanon. The powerful radars of this system could not only detect and engage US aircraft (including “stealth”) at a long distance, but they could also provide a tremendous help for the few Russian air superiority fighters by giving them a clear pictures of the skies and enemy aircraft by using encrypted datalinks. Finally, US air doctrine is extremely dependent on the use of AWACS aircraft to guide and support US fighters. The S-300V will forces US/NATO AWACS to operate at a most uncomfortable distance. Between the longer-range radars of the Russian Sukhois, the radars on the Russian cruisers off the Syrian coast, and the S-300 and S-300V radars on the ground, the Russians will have a much better situational awareness than their US counterparts.

It appears that the Russians are trying hard to compensate for their numerical inferiority by deploying high-end systems for which the US has no real equivalent or good counter-measures.

There are basically two options of deterrence: denial, when you prevent your enemy from hitting his targets and retaliation, when you make the costs of an enemy attack unacceptably high for him. The Russians appear to be pursuing both tracks at the same time. We can thus summarize the Russian approach as such

Delay a confrontation as much as possible (buy time).
Try to keep any confrontation at the lowest possible escalatory level.
If possible, reply with asymmetrical/horizontal escalations.
Rather then “prevail” against the US/NATO – make the costs of attack too high.
Try to put pressure on US “allies” in order to create tensions inside the Empire.
Try to paralyze the USA on a political level by making the political costs of an attack too high-end.
Try to gradually create the conditions on the ground (Aleppo) to make a US attack futile

To those raised on Hollywood movies and who still watch TV, this kind of strategy will elicit only frustration and condemnation. There are millions of armchair strategists who are sure that they could do a much better job than Putin to counter the US Empire. These folks have now been telling us for *years* that Putin “sold out” the Syrians (and the Novorussians) and that the Russians ought to do X, Y and Z to defeat the AngloZionist Empire. The good news is that none of these armchair strategists sit in the Kremlin and that the Russians have stuck to their strategy over the past years, one day at a time, even when criticized by those who want quick and “easy” solutions. But the main good news is that the Russian strategy is working. Not only is the Nazi-occupied Ukraine quite literally falling apart, but the US has basically run out of options in Syria (see this excellent analysis by my friend Alexander Mercouris in the Duran).

The only remaining logical steps left for the USA in Syria is to accept Russia’s terms or leave. The problem is that I am not at all convinced that the Neocons, who run the White House, Congress and the US corporate media, are “rational” at all. This is why the Russians employed so many delaying tactics and why they have acted with such utmost caution: they are dealing with professional incompetent ideologues who simply do not play by the unwritten but clear rules of civilized international relations. This is what makes the current crisis so much worse than even the Cuban Missile Crisis: one superpower has clearly gone insane.

Are the Americans crazy enough to risk WWIII over Aleppo?

Maybe, maybe not. But what if we rephrase that question and ask

Are the Americans crazy enough to risk WWIII to maintain their status as the “world’s indispensable nation”, the “leader of the free world”, the “city on the hill” and all the rest of this imperialistic nonsense?

Here I would submit that yes, they potentially are.

After all, the Neocons are correct when they sense that if Russia gets away with openly defying and defeating the USA in Syria, nobody will take the AngloZionists very seriously any more.

How do you think the Neocons think when they see the President of the Philippines publicly calling Obama a “son of a whore” and then tells the EU to go and “f*ck itself”?

Of course, the Neocons can still find some solace in the abject subservience of the European political elites, but still – they know that he writing is on the wall and that their Empire is rapidly crumbling, not only in Syria, the Ukraine or Asia, but even inside the USA. The biggest danger here is that the Neocons might try to rally the nation around the flag, either by staging yet another false flag or by triggering a real international crisis.

At this point in time all we can do is wait and hope that there is enough resistance inside the US government to prevent a US attack on Syria before the next Administration comes in. And while I am no supporter of Trump, I would agree that Hillary and her evil cabal of russophobic Neocons is so bad that Trump does give me some hope, at least in comparison to Hillary.

So if Trump wins, then Russia’s strategy will be basically justified. Once Trump is on the White House, there is at least the possibility of a comprehensive redefinition of US-Russian relations which would, of course, begin with a de-escalation in Syria: while Obama/Hillary categorically refuse to get rid of Daesh (by that I mean al-Nusra, al-Qaeda, and all their various denominations), Trump appears to be determined to seriously fight them, even if that means that Assad stays in power. There is most definitely a basis for dialog here. If Hillary comes in, then the Russians will have to make an absolutely crucial call: how important is Syria in the context of their goal to re-sovereignize Russia and to bring down the AngloZionist Empire? Another way of formulating the same question is “would Russia prefer a confrontation with the Empire in Syria or in the Ukraine?”.

One way to gauge the mood in Russia is to look at the language of a recent law proposed by President Putin and adopted by the Duma which dealt with the issue of the Russia-US Plutonium Management and Disposition Agreement (PMDA) which, yet again, saw the US yet again fail to deliver on their obligations and which Russia has now suspended. What is interesting, is the language chosen by the Russians to list the conditions under which they would resume their participation in this agreement and, basically, agree to resume any kind of arms negotiations:

A reduction of military infrastructure and the number of the US troops stationed on the territory of NATO member states that joined the alliance after September 1, 2000, to the levels at which they were when the original agreement first entered into force.
The abandonment of the hostile policy of the US towards Russia, which should be carried out with the abolition of the Magnitsky Act of 2012 and the conditions of the Ukraine Freedom Support Act of 2014, which were directed against Russia.
The abolition of all sanctions imposed by the US on certain subjects of the Russian Federation, Russian individuals and legal entities.
The compensation for all the damages suffered by Russia as a result of the imposition of sanctions.
The US is also required to submit a clear plan for irreversible plutonium disposition covered by the PMDA.

Now the Russians are not delusional. They know full well that the USA will never accept such terms. So what is this really all about? It is a diplomatic but unambiguous way to tell the USA the exact same thing which Philippine President Duterte (and Victoria Nuland) told the EU.

The Americans better start paying attention.

The Saker

Siotu on October 10, 2016 · at 3:31 am EST/EDT

John

You are wrong. What you are attempting to do is make excuses for the inexcusable. It won’t do. Your blustering does not cut it.

As is becoming all too obvious with your claims, you are just unable to provide solid evidence. You have not provided evidence of war-mongering billionaire oligarchs flooding into New Zealand and building massive, elaborate underground bunkers. What you managed to dredge up are somewhat inaccurate MSM puff pieces with some pictures of holiday homes in typically picturesque New Zealand (NZ) locations. An article mentions that some wealthy individuals have purchased property way over there, but are not resident (a steel manufacturer and an IT/software entrepreneur are mentioned). It mentions the place is peaceful and relatively orderly (which it is at present- there are no guarantees though and NZ has experienced social unrest in the not too distant past). It mentions some people are concerned about growing social instability in Europe and elsewhere (like the USA) and quotes some opinion about NZ as a place to relocate. So what if some people do that? So what if some move over there?

Just because someone has more wealth than you, is better than you, has been more productive than you or just plain luckier than you that, of itself, does not make them either a war-monger or a criminal. Most of them are neither.

People have been wising up to what an awful mess the North has become with some even heading for superior climes for a few generations now. Fortunately it has been a strict minority coming southward to Oceania, as most of them are infected with the shocking ideas that created the problems in the first place (and I am not referring exclusively to billionaires when I mention this attribute). Usually, over time, the nonsense gets knocked out of them as their rough edged ignorance and prejudices are smoothed away by the calming nature of our friendly Pacific. They do start to “go local” and change some. It takes time. Some never quite get it, although usually their children do better. Trouble occurs when the incoming numbers get large. This has been occurring all over the show in more recent times and the easy-going, peaceful lifestyle of the Kiwi (New Zealanders often refer to themselves as “Kiwis”) is getting severely eroded. It is not guaranteed that what the Kiwis have managed to create can survive indefinitely.

Inaccuracies contained in the articles ought to be addressed. Briefly I’ll attend to some. There were claimed tax advantages to be gained by going over to NZ. Fact is NZ is not a good location to reside if you seek favourable taxation treatment. If minimisation of tax is what you seek, then there are superior islands. You could even do a lot better if you avoided the South Pacific altogether and went to Russia or even China. Check it out.

The article showed a property which it claimed was ready for development. Just be sure you know what you are getting into if creating a fort and a bunker in NZ is what you are thinking of. Assuming you can navigate through the Overseas Investment Commission, or whatever it is the Kiwis run these days, you still need to get through a resource consent process prior to applying for a permit to build it. Getting the resource consent process completed will take years, since for an elaborate deep underground bunker a public consultation process is likely to be demanded and you can be assured that the local Iwi and (many) others will object strenuously. Good luck with that! You will be dealing with some tough, very opinionated Kiwis! Of course, now your hideaway is public knowledge. So much for that idea.

As stated previously, if you wanted to disappear over in New Zealand, there are better ways to do it than building a bunker. It is conveniently accomplished such that no-one would know where you were and you would be off-grid. I suggested some examples. Of course, there are encryption technologies and cut-outs and the like that could be arranged to allow a person to stay in touch while remaining undetected by the outside world. Still, there are easier places to do it than NZ. Australia is one. There are many others.

Anyway you cut it, you have not provided evidence for your claims so far- certainly not that war-mongering billionaire oligarchs are headed to NZ and building bunkers so they can start a big war elsewhere. Puerile nonsense, mate. “Get a grip”, as the Kiwi vernacular would have it.

‘’’’’’’’

As it happens, it is ironic you choose New Zealand as a target for your nuclear terrorism and its practical realisation. What, I wondered, would the Kiwis think of it. I did not have to look far to find out. An associate directed me to some history which lays it all out most clearly.

New Zealand was an early campaigner against M.A.D. It was considered, as the acronym implies, completely certifiably insane. The late Sir David Lange, former Prime Minister of New Zealand, explained the Kiwi position on the international stage. He did not mince words. He considered the possession, let alone the threat of use, of nuclear weapons immoral. His point was that millions and millions of people were being held hostage in a giant terror. It was thuggery of the worst order and completely anti-civilisational in its corrosive effect.

One merely has to look up the text of some of his interviews and speeches to understand the import of his argument. It turns out that he had widespread support as well, winning the seat of government consecutively. He passed legislation against nuclear weapons possession, construction or development in New Zealand. The weapons were outlawed. This was to have significant effect, as he, his colleagues and the citizens of New Zealand well knew.

While the Soviet navy did not routinely visit New Zealand at the time (although Soviet fishing and cargo ships did), the US Navy did sent warships to NZ from time to time. The legislation put them front and centre, for they would have to declare whether a warship was nuclear armed or not. This they were not prepared to do. They argued hard about how not confirming or denying the presence of nuclear weapons aboard a particular ship was an important part of their mad policy. Reading the literature (and the old news reports of the time) one is struck by how closely their statements mirror your arguments. In the end the legislation stood and the warships did not visit. So, they got mad (!) and tried to punish NZ. On the World stage they merely looked foolish. Bullies. The Kiwis stayed consistently firm to their principles, going on to oppose France in its nuclear bomb testing in the Pacific (even recommending to the French that it be done in France, right there in Western Europe, instead of half a world away). To this day nuclear armed ships from the US Navy (or from anywhere else for that matter) are not to come to New Zealand.

The NZ law does not just strike out the possession of nuclear weapons, it also states that Kiwis are not to be involved in the creation, storage, development or deployment of nuclear weapons anywhere in the world. Important for several reasons, this. Firstly, it is the moral principle that is raised here we ought to be cognisant of. Individuals are responsible for what they choose and do. Secondly, there is the example of moral principle being applied into a moral law. This is, as I have recently learned, most vital to understand and to uphold.

The stance of the brave Kiwis started a lot of people thinking about what they were putting up with, the terror that was being sanctioned in their names and the threat (and hostile fear) being pressed into their faces by their own governments. Protest and thoughtful opposition started to grow everywhere- even in the USSR (interesting articles I found in the library to that effect published after the fall of the USSR).

Prime Minister Sir David Lange certainly had the support of those he represented, in this matter at least. And he won a repeat mandate, so it was not a fluke or chance political event. Further, the policy and legislation remains in force today despite significant US pressure to revise it.

It can be concluded, the Kiwis would oppose you and treat your ideas as contemptible. They would conclude you are supporting an immorality, a terrible evil. They would, as Sir David once put it, “smell the uranium on your breath”. They would want you to understand that just because you dislike a few individuals who may or may not happen to be present somewhere in NZ that is not a justification for the terror you promote for imposition upon all Kiwis, indeed upon all people. They would want you to know that why you propose to threaten all of them, each and every one, with slaughter is not a valid justification for the terror you support and intend to see imposed upon them. They would remind you that NZ is a civilised country and that when a person has committed a crime there are civilised procedures to establish guilt and sanction to be taken. Those procedures do not include slaughter of the entire population (or the great majority of it). They do not include imposing terrorism against that population.

“”””””””””

I printed out your post and gave it to my colleague for comment. Whetu is NZ Maori. He was not impressed about the terrorist threat of slaughter you make, nor of the feeble justification you offered for it.

Quoting you, “As for 1, SS-18 destroying all of New Zealand you seem to forget that nuclear weapons give off radiation and nuclear fallout, which is what does most of the killing, not the original blast. New Zealand would be uninhabitable for 1000 years.”

He agrees this makes your magic number of death a minimum of 4,700,000 and probably a lot more with the suffering continuing for generations. Whetu was appalled. So he ought to be. In his position any sane man would be.

Quoting you, “If MAD is in full force as it was during the cold war, then no one will be bombed anywhere, everyone is saved, everyone lives.”

There are many issues we both had with this claim. It is based on blind faith or, in the Kiwi vernacular, “pig-ignorance.” The outbreak of a nuclear war during the Cold War era was only avoided by sheer luck on several occasions. Burnt out electronic components, misunderstandings, errors, carelessness and the like bought the entire planet within seconds of WW3 more than once. How can a sane person believe that these errors will not occur in the future AND that when they inevitably do, they’ll always, 100% of the time, each and every time without fail, be detected and resolved before they cause (or contribute) to the launch of unimaginable slaughter and permanent state of suffering for anyone who manages to survive the initial strikes?

Morally the position is untenable. All people, everywhere, not solely in NZ, are terrorised by the threat that for some reason (or lack of reason), nothing to do with them personally, nothing to do with how they live, nothing to do with their decisions, their lives can be eliminated at any time. This is the War of Terror that the world needs to emerge from and leave behind. It is the ultimate in terrorism.

Ending a problem is achieved not by embracing the elements that cause the problem in the first place and repeating them. It is achieved by avoiding those behaviours, by understanding the nature of the problem and by solving it.

Your continued support of the same immorality as those you pretend to oppose is unjustifiable. It is completely immoral and uncivilised.

Siotu

262 Comments

Peter AU on October 05, 2016 · at 10:22 pm EST/EDT

Some time ago, in trying to find out the capabilities of the Russian air defence systems, I looked up US military sites and think tanks. The opinion seemed to be that F22’s may be able to take out one S400 system, but where there were overlapping systems, there would be no chance.
I take it Russia would be setting up a layered defence in Syria, Pantsir’s protecting the S400 and S300, but also another close range system I have read about for protection against swarm missile attacks. If they have done this in Syria, then the overlapping, layered systems may be virtually impregnable to attack from the air.
- zed on October 05, 2016 · at 11:29 pm EST/EDT
  
  Once America attacks, Russia’s role in ‘protecting’ Syria is over. Putin will quickly agree a treaty giving Russia continuing access to the port, and otherwise run away as quickly as it can. This is because Russia has stated again and again that it is not prepared to risk or fight a greater war with the West over Syria (or Iraq, or Iran, or Libya or Yemen- notice the pattern).
  
  So it does not matter how good Russia’s defenses are (and they are excellent)- because they are there simply as a detterent, and *not* for actual use against the Americans.
  
  This is a mind game, and what you must ask yourself is what it would take for the USA to make the winning move, and attack Syria. Such an act is ‘illegal’ by every planetary law- but if the USA can get past that- and increasingly America states it needs to be ‘above the law’, then America wins once again in the Middle East.
  
  Again Russia will *not* fight a war with the USA over Syria, and if America chooses to attack, the only way Russia can stay true to its international strategy is to back down. This is a 100% certainty.
  
  To take away America’s winning move, Russia must demand the immediate removal of all non-authorised foreign forces, and state they have imposed a no-fly zone for American and other war planes. If Russia did this, America would back down- but Putin has a lot of West Deep State agents on his back desperately trying to prevent Putin from making Russia’s winning move.
  - Peter Watson on October 06, 2016 · at 8:30 am EST/EDT
    
    A lot of people seem to look at Putin as though he is a standard western politician. His background is KGB. He is loyal to Russia to the core. If a war is to be fought, it will not be on Russian soil unless it goes to nukes. Syria is where Putins Russia makes its stand. If the US want to break Russia in Syria it will have to go to nukes.
    - Anonymous on October 06, 2016 · at 9:56 pm EST/EDT
      
      The US forces are numerous, but they are overextended, and they need to defensively cover a lot of ground. They have hundreds of military bases and important maritime ways that may be really easy to block — see what is happening in Yemen, with missile strikes. And these places can also be covertly hit, they can be hit from Yemen and other places in the Gulf (e.g. Iraq and possibly Bahrein) that are sure to catch fire. Maybe it is the Russians that are taunting the US military to get them in a quagmire, and not the other way around. Here is probably why the Russians speak about possible tectonic shifts in the Middle East.
  - Othmar Regin on October 06, 2016 · at 10:54 am EST/EDT
    
    I don’t think a “cordial” exit is possible in Syria, both sides seem to have gone all-in and nobody can afford to be seen as the looser, yes the Americans *could* in thery back off and not lose too much face but they won’t compliments of the ZioCohns.
    
    The best strategy at this point is to bleed the Empire dry, makey them pay 10x the price for every move they make. The whole ISIS operation is run by CIA/Mosad/Saudis etc. the Jihadis them selves are just cannon meat and their structures would fall apart in less than a month if their “patrons” abandoned them.. I would therefor directly target the Command and Control centers and the foreign Agents on the ground without them ISIS has no real fighting capability. If the story about 30 killed by Kalibrs is true.. go for more much more.
  - proper gander on October 06, 2016 · at 10:56 am EST/EDT
    
    Disagree. Used repeatedly in the article is ‘caution’. Also discuses, correctly, that the US wants to start a hot, fast and higly illigal war, as per Germany’s invasion of Poland, but Russia and Syria have not given them the oppertunity. The core of the whole situation and also this analysis is that this is a fight to the death. Whichever gives way looses everything – one their empire, the other their sovereignty.
    
    China, china, china. Don’t forget China. They are working with Russia to break the US hegemonic goals. Syria is not an isolated situation. RU and CN have drawn the US into two theatres of military expansion at opposite ends of the earth, both a long way from the US home at a time when US revenues from international tribute (dollar trade skimming / debt issuance) are low and all their allies are fire fighting at home and their military is well tooled but undermanned. The fact is the US is having to pour resources into Asia at the same time as this. The US knows that their back has been broken between these two theatres since they loose their empire if they lose the middle east or asia. In this doom laden fate of the US lies the real fear of nuclear war, cos they can’t win a conventional one in these two theatres simultaneously.
    
    In 1914 we Brits went to war to prevent Germany cutting us out of our empire, shortcutting by rail over-land into the Persian gulf. Our first troops in September 1914, the Indian expeditionary force and the second devonshires, were deployed …. in Basra. We won the first WW? Ha! We lost everything, but handed the reins of Empire to the US. Same dilema now for the US, only they have no one to hand the batton to. It is game over, or use all their ordenance and hope.
    - Arioch on October 06, 2016 · at 5:14 pm EST/EDT
      
      UK (or should I say Windsors?) could meet China in Hong Kong and become (together) the new post-USA Empire, can’t they ?
      - proper gander on October 06, 2016 · at 9:44 pm EST/EDT
        
        My Scots grandfather fought in China aged 17 in 1919 in the last boxer rebellion, cutting their pigtails off. The have not forgotten the opium wars, or our subversion, and that the British are a duplicitous rag bag. China has no desire for Empire. They don’t think in 100 year stretches.
      - Nick Deutschland on October 08, 2016 · at 7:15 pm EST/EDT
        
        NO, they cannot
        We aren’t in John Steinbeck’s “Of Mice and Men” where the small crook rules over the big strong idiot.
        And IF the Chinese don’t know what a moral garbage, a false-flag-criminal, a liar and a hypocrite the UK is, who else?
  - scanfish on October 06, 2016 · at 1:18 pm EST/EDT
    
    Delusional. The pampered civilians who run the US deep state have no idea what a hot war against a highly capable opponent like Russia would entail and the horrible cost they would be forced to pay. To imagine that the Russians would cut and run in the face of superior numbers of western fighter jets and cruise missiles is just wishful thinking.
    
    To illustrate, can these suits plus the US public stomach 600 dead sailors from a single Russian antiship missile strike, just to ensure that ‘Assad must go’? What if it happens again the next day? How much is the US willing to bleed, and not over many years ala Vietnam, but over just a number of days?
    
    This is what the Saker means by ‘costs’, and i highly doubt that the Russians would walk away from a golden chance to teach the US and the west a harsh lesson in good manners for all the hostility and humiliation they have subjected Russia to over the last 3 years. Russia is going nowhere….take that to Goldman Sachs and cash it.
    - joe on October 06, 2016 · at 4:49 pm EST/EDT
      
      Spot on!
    - Paul S on October 07, 2016 · at 2:07 pm EST/EDT
      
      Russia could also play the Afghan card. The CIA take a whopping 1trill U$D in Heroin from Afghanistan . Rumor has it that Russia and Iran has started arming the Taliban, NATO still have an estimated 80.000 personnel still in Afghanistan that is virtually surrounded by Russia,Iran,China. Russia could easily choke the supply lines for the NATO forces and could also block the heroin trail coming out.
      - A.T. on October 12, 2016 · at 6:02 am EST/EDT
        
        That’s a good point; U.S. talk of escalation/MSM regurgitation seems to forget Afghanistan and what unpleasant (for NATO) cards would automatically come into play.
  - Eimar on October 06, 2016 · at 3:09 pm EST/EDT
    
    But such analysis seems to forget the main reason Russia went to Syria in the first place – terrorism,
    
    Leaving it to the Anglo-Zionists woujd mean constant terror attrition for Russia, and the ‘stans acting as conduits/launchpads for a perpetual war *of* terror.
    
    So I can’t see them leaving until some semblance of strong resistance mobilized and maintained.
    
    The Chinese also have a strategic interest in this.
    - Anonymous on October 06, 2016 · at 10:30 pm EST/EDT
      
      Its so nice with Russians that you can count on what they say, no hidden agenda or backstabbing. Putin went to Syria to stabilize ME said before they entered the show, they are going to stay in Syria until Syria is stabilised said lately.
      Nothing more, nothing less. Clear talk, but for confused Orweilian Westerns this can mean many many things.
  - joe on October 06, 2016 · at 4:52 pm EST/EDT
    
    This is not just a “fight with America over Syria” it’s a fight about a globalist bully…
  - Anonymous on October 06, 2016 · at 5:49 pm EST/EDT
    
    nonsense, mr zed.
    The “winning move” must take a minimum ten day preparation, sir.
    and the brave cowboys would before that be cut in their tails – in Yemen, in kiev. Just like it happened in march 2014 when a US fleet headed toward the Bosphorus and Crimea.
    The reasons given on public by Putin to the russian people in sept 2014 to go to Syria were that it was required to avoid jihadi attacks in the homeland.
    And any US attack in Syria will immediately boost the budget of both the Russian and Chinese arms race towards decisive new weapon systems.
    Russia has more at stake than washington.
    The syrian government can in one single hour approve a Chinese-Russian joint military base lease in its territory for 25 years.
  - Anonymous on October 07, 2016 · at 2:02 pm EST/EDT
    
    “Once America attacks, Russia’s role in ‘protecting’ Syria is over. Putin will quickly agree a treaty…..”
    
    Ha,ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha…..!!!
    Funniest joke I ever heard in my life !!!
    - Nick Deutschland on October 08, 2016 · at 7:19 pm EST/EDT
      
      What’s so funny? Better go count your plastic black bags with zip. You’ll need them for sure.
      - Franz on October 08, 2016 · at 7:56 pm EST/EDT
        
        Please check and make sure that you have not misread Anonymous’ post.
        I think you have. Play nice!
  - Nussiminen on October 07, 2016 · at 6:51 pm EST/EDT
    
    “Once America attacks, Russia’s role in ‘protecting’ Syria is over. “
    
    Typical Western Leftist mumbo-jumbo, veering between defeatism, utopianism, and Western imperial arrogance. The fact of the matter is that if Russia is to be vanquished, the only possibility available is by High Treason from within. As matters stand, the neoliberal rot is sinking the West, and the only way of reversing the decay is regime change accompanied by all-out rape and pillage of Russia and China. The very able presentday leaderships of these two countries, however, know this more than do most other people; especially so in the West.
  - flankerbandit on October 07, 2016 · at 7:40 pm EST/EDT
    
    Disagree…
    
    The idea that Russians talk loud and then back away is an inversion of reality…
    
    Reality is the opposite…US talks loud and shakes fists in the hope of winning by intimidation…ie by default…which happens a lot of the time…
    
    Everything I have seen from the Russian side in recent years is exactly opposite…they do not underestimate the opponent…they do not overstate their capabilities (the blowfish bluff)…they do not make hollow threats…
    
    Russian Defense Ministry spokesman Igor Konachenkov has stated quite simply what WILL HAPPEN in case of itchy trigger fingers…shoot first…ask questions later…
    
    The Russian firepower in place in Syria is perfectly capable of standing behind that promise…
    
    Don’t want to get into technicalities here…but Saker’s link to Ausairpower site is info that is about 10 years old…
    
    Also we do not know precisely what equipment…especially radar is in place with those SAM systems on the ground in Syria…
    
    But I will state this very confidently…there can be no successful attempt at a SEAD (suppression of enemy air defenses) operation by US/Nato in Syria…that is beyond absurd…
    
    I also think Saker is probably underplaying Russian capabilities in Syrian theater whn he says RF is much weaker than US/Nato…but that’s okay…it’s always best to speak softly and carry a big stick…
  - Anonimous on October 07, 2016 · at 11:52 pm EST/EDT
    
    You sound like a great expert on Russian psych. well, I have to say:”You are wrong on all counts”
  - Anonymous on October 08, 2016 · at 2:10 am EST/EDT
    
    This is Irans strategy
  - paul on October 09, 2016 · at 1:57 pm EST/EDT
    
    As far as I can tell, what Russia wants is a piece of the pie and maybe even a chance to preside over the Syria carve up as dealmaker. Russia doesn’t give a solid crap about Syria, as far as I can tell. Putin will agree with Erdogan, during his visit to Turkey, that Assad goes under the bus and how it is to happen. Assad will presumably get a private offer – choose the soft deal or the hard deal buddy. The US gets what it wanted – the destruction of Syria as an independent state. Regional powers get what they want. Russia gets bases and maybe even a pipeline deal of some sort with the US. Turkey gets a chunk of land and enhanced prestige as a deal maker. Israel gets enhanced hold on the Golan Heights and Hezbollah isolated/weakened. Saudi Arabia gets Iran’s back pushed to the wall. Etc. Etc.
    
    What a clatch of villains is gathering to ‘make peace’ in Syria (by which they mean, make pieces).
    - flankerbandit on October 09, 2016 · at 6:39 pm EST/EDT
      
      @ paul
      
      I don’t see any connection between your comments and reality…perhaps only wishful thinking…
      
      A statement like “Russia will throw Assad under the bus” is not even worthy of any discussion whatsoever…
      
      As to fantasies that Turkey and US will dictate Syria terms to Russia…well that is just Disneyland territory…
      
      FACT: Russia is dictating the terms on the ground…and effectively controls the airspace…the only reason US and “coalition” planes are able to fly there is because Russia lets them…in the hope that they may actually do some damage to Daesh…the purported mission of these flights…
      
      FACT: No US/NATO attack on Syrian or Russian forces or their assets can be successfully attempted…either by air attack or by cruise missile volleys from US ships offshore…
      
      The proof is in the pudding…if any such military “options” existed for the US coalition they would have already taken those steps long ago…
  - flankerbandit on October 10, 2016 · at 12:04 am EST/EDT
    
    @ zed…and other doubters of Russia’s seriousness and intent…
    
    “Syrian Jets Unleash Vicious Bombing Campaign on Al-Qaeda-Linked Terrorists”…headline from Sputnik News…~2300 GMT 10-10-2016…
    
    https://sputniknews.com/middleeast/20161009/1046159919/syria-bombing-airstrike-nusra-idlib.html
    
    Described as a “stunning bombing barrage”…on Nusra positions in several regions…including Idlib, Hama and Homs…two senior terrorist commanders killed…
    
    So we can see Russia’s “plan B” shaping up…
    
    You want a no-fly zone…?…You want to ground SAA and RF aircraft…?…You want to escalate…?
    
    First the French UNSC resolution gets the bird…now the equally resolute answer on the ground…
    
    I think VVP is speaking pretty clear language…hard to misunderstand…unlike some confused folk on this board…
- A.T. on October 11, 2016 · at 8:06 am EST/EDT
  
  I tend to agree. A greater war isn’t happening; the losses would be to great for NATO to absorb and still continue to operate in the Middle East while pruning the DAESH. As in, they could on paper scrub Russia from the board, but not without themselves being removed in the process. Assad will fight to the death; his anti-ship arsenal is intact and Russian-aided.
  
  Most Western operatives deep in Syria are mercs, not official SF, therefore completely expendable in the field or in ‘situation rooms’. Russia could pick them off with ease for every oopsie-bombing. Without those operatives, the U.S./NATO can’t prune the too-independently minded DAESH leaders and guide the movement.
  
  Israel isn’t even risking manned flights to snipe at Syria; they are using F-16 drones. The NATO late that is the Mediterranean is far less useful littered with sunken nuclear powered ships and subs.
  
  Turkey and Russia are deepening economic ties, preparing for the Eurasian future.
  
  http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-10-10/turkey-and-russia-sign-strategic-turkish-stream-gas-pipeline-deal
  
  http://www.tomdispatch.com/blog/175845/tomgram%3A_pepe_escobar,_who's_pivoting_where_in_eurasia/
  
  http://journal-neo.org/2016/10/04/the-eurasian-century-is-now-unstoppable-2/
  
  There isn’t going to be a war against Russia in Syria without Turkish complicity. Turkey 2016 is far different from Turkey 2013, one shot-down SU-24 and anti-Erdogan coup later. Turkey isn’t going to the wall for NATO.
  
  https://www.rt.com/news/362285-putin-erdogan-turkey-meeting/
  
  The threat of nuclear war isn’t going to make Americans come to their senses in Syria or anywhere else. For whatever reason, there is a determined bunch of preppers determined to embrace chaos and disorder and presumably be raptured or build a new (presumably extremist Christian) order on what’s left.
  
  The war in Syria isn’t over; is just a matter of how long NATO can drag out the loss. The hyperbolic rhetoric from Washington is commensurate with its impotence. If Washington were serious about war, they would be oopsie-bombing the SAA far more aggressively right now.
Richard Cley on October 05, 2016 · at 10:35 pm EST/EDT

Well, you can’t get more blunt than that!

Put up or shut up, is the correct English.

I’d say the most likely will be a false flag by the US that will make the Twin Towers pale in comparison blamed upon Russia.
- Blondinka Florida on October 05, 2016 · at 11:38 pm EST/EDT
  
  Agree totally.
Anonymous on October 05, 2016 · at 10:36 pm EST/EDT

I am starting to get the feeling that one morning I will log into RT and see a red headline “Breaking News : American attacks Syrian forces in Aleppo” folllowed by “Breaking News : Russia downs american aircraft.”
- teranam13 on October 05, 2016 · at 11:23 pm EST/EDT
  
  Well, that is the big question—WWRD? What Will Russia Do if the neocon- State Department-CIA -Centcom (midEast) cabal attacks Syrian airfields en masse? If the cabal is going to do the deed, it will not tip toe in with one toe into the water, it will go full tilt as their carpet bombing ilk is known to do.
  
  They may well bite it in Western Syria ( bye, bye Aleppo) and go for broke in Eastern Syria/Kurdistan/Iraq.
  
  Either way, the problem becomes how to sell it politically to the American people. And my ear to the ground hears tell that they are not buying bull these days. Although an American jet which is shot down will get a response; hopefully one of “get our guys out of there now. “
  - The Kulak on October 06, 2016 · at 7:39 am EST/EDT
    
    I haven’t commented here in a while, but it seems Lysander’s point stands, and no one has mentioned the fact that Putin in his interview with Bloomberg editor in chief (and former The Economist top Bilderberger) John Micklethwait a few weeks ago asked Micklethwait point blank if Russia’s sworn ‘partners’ are ready for a second Cuban Missile Crisis. The implication, hard to escape, is that Kheimmim may be defended against an armada that outnumbers it via the same means the Soviet expeditionary force in Cuba which was hopelessly outmanned and outgunned to a far greater degree by an armada of American jets and ships sortieing from the U.S. homeland itself in October 1962 — tactical nuclear weapons,. The Iskander hypersonic missiles are already in Latakia and have been there for months.
    
    So an attack on Kheimmim directly seems to be out, even if the S400s finally get used and blow U.S. or more likely initially NATO coalition jets out of the sky that are attacking Syrian forces. And some other commenter here a few threads back brought up the point that NATO during ‘Operation Allied Force’ against Serbia did not do very well at taking out the Serbs’ old SA-3 systems of late 60s/early 70s vintage. No doubt U.S. targeting capabilities have improved since then, but so has the S300/400s abilities to hone in on jamming aircraft like the EF-18 and blow them away, as well as the training of Russian SAM crews with the lessons of the 1999 conflict that a SAM battery often on the move can shoot and then scoot to avoid HARMs launched from well within the S400/300’s lethal radius.
    
    The more interesting deterrents I suspect will come not via air or air defense systems, but via the sea and perhaps China finally after the election visibly deploying a small but symbolic troop contingent to Kheimmim. Dr. Ben Carson and a few others have hinted that the People’s Liberation Army already had a few intelligence officers or observers present many months ago. Also watch for the Syrian Arab Army to receive delivery of Yakhont anti-ship missiles capable of severely damaging NATO ships out to Cyprus range as well as more surprisingly sophisticated weaponry for the Houthis. After all if Washington insists the poor denizens of east Aleppo including Al-Qaeda have a right to defend themselves, how much more Yemenis of Sa’naa from Royal Saudi Air Force F-15s or Eurofighters it would only take a few old Strela 10s to strike terror into the hearts of those cowardly Saudi pilots?
    - MikeH on October 06, 2016 · at 7:35 pm EST/EDT
      
      Would they use Saudi pilots or Israeli ones?
      
      This is the question IMO. Is Israel going to back an American attack into Syria and spark the regional conflict with Hezbollah in mere moments after their attack? I suspect yes but I don’t know. It depends how much faith they put in an Iron Dome defense against massive missile attack from the North.
      - A.T. on October 12, 2016 · at 3:38 am EST/EDT
        
        Israel will sit this one out pretending to be neutral while playing both sides and the U.S. won’t say boo about it. Like Turkey, Israel wants its cut of the Eurasian century, as well as their piece of Uncle Sam.
        
        http://www.timesofisrael.com/israel-and-china-enter-talks-over-establishing-free-trade-zone/
        
        http://www.timesofisrael.com/moscow-wants-more-trade-with-israel-russian-pm-tells-rivlin/
- zed on October 05, 2016 · at 11:36 pm EST/EDT
  
  Wrong- Putin has made it clear over and over again that he won’t fight a war with the West over any nation outside the Russian Federation (including Ukraine and Syria). Sadly this means if America flexes its muscles strongly enough, Russia will back down.
  
  The only thing holding the USA back is the last remnants of sane people in the Pentagon/military, and the fact that the sheeple are currently more pro-Russia than pro-USA in this conflict. It is the fear of internal political fallout, not Russia’s response, that holds the so-called ‘hawks’ back.
  
  If the mainstream media blitz demonising Putin and Russia was working better, America would have already attacked, and Syria would already be lost to the wahhabi forces of Saudi Arabia.
  - Anonymous on October 06, 2016 · at 12:37 am EST/EDT
    
    Yes, that is true, Putin has not said he would defend Syria, many assume an US attack on Syria would be treated the same as an attack on Russia by Putin, but in many ways that seems unlikely, Russia is just too weak, and definitely too weak in Syria, Russia needs time, time to modernised, train and re-arm, the more time the better.. Russia hase NATO Turkey in the north, USA occupied Iraq to the east, and Saudiarabia, Qatar and so forth in the south. Hardly a good situation, meanwhile Russia has a long logistic line back to Russia from Syria.
    
    If Russia downed an american aircraft it could be totally swamped in Syria. Of course, Russia would be within her legal rights to do so, as would Syria. But with humans, legality means very little, only power matter -, the ability to kill other humans, and USA has a massive advantage in that aspect over Russia especially in Syria,but also with conventional forces globally, US military budget is 500 billion, Russia is 50 billion, and compared to NATO Russia spends around 8% of NATO’s combined military budet.
    
    If Russia kept the conflict with USA localized in Syria, then Russia would be defeated most likely, if the conflict became globalized, Russia would lose again, and if it became nuclear, then I dont know. But I dont think the USA deep state would risk a nuclear war, if they were not safe and secure with the means to continue to govern after the nuclear war.
    - Anonymous on October 06, 2016 · at 6:17 am EST/EDT
      
      I have no doubt Russia would use strategic nuclear weapons if their forces are attacked by US in Syria. Kaliber with nuclear warheads comes to mind used on US bases all around Middle East. Also how much of those 500 billion goes to maintenace of almost 1000 of US military bases all around the world?
      - Dan on October 06, 2016 · at 8:30 am EST/EDT
        
        Russia’s FM Spokesperson Maria Zakharova’s statement: If US attacked Syrian Army, there will be an earthquake-like consequences in the whole Middle East.
      - Anonymous on October 06, 2016 · at 12:05 pm EST/EDT
        
        Perhaps, but if USA attacks, it likely only attacks Syrian forces. If Syrian forces are attack will Russia defend them? Probably not.
        
        Anonymous on October 07, 2016 · at 6:42 am EST/EDT
        
        Two weeks ago, I would’ve agreed but Russia’s rhetoric and attitude has had a marked shift towards confrontation.
        Today we hear via RT that an attack on the Syrian Army would be considered an attack on Russians.
        Today, I think the Russians would definitely shoot down a US or ally jet if they attacked the Syrians and then, send a few Calibre missiles to the residences of a few US Special Forces to send a serious message. Then, I believe Russia would try and get the US to the negotiating table and negotiate from a position of strength. If it escalates from there, it will be the US that does it not the Russians.
        To think the Russians will just pack up and go home after a US attack on the Syrian Army just doesn’t add up to me.
        Hopefully, the US will grow some brains and back off and stop funding ISIS and use the money back home where it is needed terribly.
    - Thiamin on October 06, 2016 · at 6:53 am EST/EDT
      
      I think we might be forgetting one thing: america is bankrupt. Should it declare war on Russia, China and Iran, it has to do so in a way that does not hurt the amerian patriots at home. Should the price of gaz rise to 8 dollars a gallon, you will soon find out that cops will have to shoot a whole lot more people to keep everyone quiet. In military things as in all things, it is not just size that matters.
      
      Without the economy to back it up, a big military means nothing. You cannot have a big economy if you declare war on the rest of the planet. So, they try to fight WW3 in secret, using jihadist that they get hooked on drugs, that way you dont even have to pay them. You just supply them with dope.
      - proper gander on October 06, 2016 · at 1:37 pm EST/EDT
        
        Agreed. The Romans and the British lost their empires when they became bankrupt, devalued their currencies from having intrinsic value, overreached, and their military became dependent on mercenaries.
      - T S on October 08, 2016 · at 3:56 pm EST/EDT
        
        Captagon rules.. LoL, but these fighters are also mercenaries and more than like being paid.. They demand it and with every defeat, they get more and more expensive (a very capitalistic feature).
        As for American aircraft.. don’t drones, Reapers and the likes count? The point is that one has to expect a probing action to try to evaluate the enemies capability. As the Saker has pointed out, the usual suspect for this probe will be the Israeli Air Force and it’s array of drones, but most likely their will be not the required response as Syria wants ‘bargaining chips’, bodies, prisoners.. people that can tell a tale. Up to now the US and its cohorts have bombed any figure or group that has deviated from their designs (as they just did again in Mosel) and this has been OK with the Russians and Syrians, as it has caused significant turn over when the SAA gets these people withing direct small arms combat range, the distance needed for a surrender that will preclude being bombed by the Coalition. The US Coalition has proved to be it own enemy.. Of course now the core of ‘unforgivables’ are being exposed and fought. Most will fight to the death. Some will ‘escape’.. so that the Coalition will have to pay.. What is the Coalition going to do? annihilate Turkey? The Turks are the biggest instigators and group of mercenary rats.. Then there are the the Kurds that harbor very unrealistic expectations (they want access to a port city). To bad, but they still have to do the process by the ballot box and that will take 100 years.
    - proper gander on October 06, 2016 · at 1:34 pm EST/EDT
      
      $500 billion US military budget vs $50 billion Russia. If I hear that again, I will spit kittens. I might have a £5000 watch. I will not take it camping, fishing, swimming, or into town on a Friday night, whatever it says on the back. It does not do what I want it to do precisely when I might need it. It is not fit for purpose.
      
      1. Look at the US domestic infra-structure; it is hugely expensive, bankrupt, inefficient and largely in need of massive overhaul. Anyone who thinks that a crumbling economy, culturally limp society, undermanned military (least since 1939) and corrupt political class can somehow field a twinkly, authoratitive, decisive, competent military is a fool. They have been exposed as way out of date in the only field they have been directly challenged – cyberwarfare. Last year they started updating their nuclear arsenal co-ordination systems from 1980’s 8″ floppy discs, for crying out loud.
      
      2. $500B USD at $2487 / month manufacturing labour costs in the US, plus huge wastage does not go as far as $50B at $550 / month in Russia. $50b in Russia equates into roughly $250B in the US, and better spent at that.
      
      There is a lot of bluster in the US. Don’t take a word of it at face value.
      - joe on October 06, 2016 · at 4:59 pm EST/EDT
        
        “$500 billion US military budget vs $50 billion Russia. ..” That means nothing. Motivation is everything and do not forget that a lot of expensive technology worth way less that it is sold for…
    - Anonymous on October 06, 2016 · at 2:54 pm EST/EDT
      
      “I am in blood Stepped in so far that should I wade no more. Returning were as tedious as go o’er.”
      
      If the Russians went into Syria not realising they would at some point be facing a direct military confrontation with the US then it does not reflect well on their military command. You only need to look back at history to see that strategically you cannot separate Crimea from the Bosphorus access and the wider Levant. It is very clear the US cannot in fact do not know how to back down. If Syria falls, Iran is weakened, Russia’s southern borders are more vulnerable. Not to mention the resource issues inherent in the conflict. They will have to confront the US – it’s all about the timing
    - joe on October 06, 2016 · at 4:57 pm EST/EDT
      
      You seem too optimistic…Years and years of propaganda brainwashing.How come the us is still in Afghanistan and could not defeat the Taliban?
    - Ari benDavid on October 12, 2016 · at 3:17 am EST/EDT
      
      Don’t underestimate Hillary Clinton. She has a demonic desire to destroy more nations after practicing on Lybia, Ukraine, and the others. She is desirous of decapitating Russia in the interests of her hegemons. Very smart in some ways, her weakness is a lack of appreciation for down-the-road consequences, and so will initiate nuclear war if necessary. One can only hope that down-the-chain generals will refuse her actions, but that would constitute mutiny, so only in the presence of military commanders with extreme courage could this happen.
      - A.T. on October 12, 2016 · at 6:18 am EST/EDT
        
        Oh, the competent courageous ones that somehow get past the glass ceiling of politics will have been fired or forced to resign well before mutiny at the top would ever become an issue.
        
        The neocons know their people and surely have a list of those who need to go if Hilary gets in.
  - Annonnymy on October 06, 2016 · at 9:12 am EST/EDT
    
    Check this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VY36P6Tyf98 and this: https://www.rt.com/usa/360317-carter-dunford-syria-russia-senate/
    
    Quote taken from link below: “Right now… for us to control all of the airspace in Syria would require us to go to war against Syria and Russia,” Dunford replied, drawing a rebuke from committee chairman John McCain (R-Arizona), who argued a no-fly zone was possible without war.
- Vineyard Moderator - PS on October 05, 2016 · at 11:52 pm EST/EDT
  
  Yes. Very soon.
  http://theduran.com/us-pentagon-throws-full-support-behind-al-qaeda-syria-exclusion-zones-ready-shot-syrian-russian-planes/
  - Vineyard Moderator - PS on October 06, 2016 · at 12:31 am EST/EDT
    
    It seems this is a little “old” [August. It doesn’t take long to be “old” in todays world !!]
    I didn’t check the date – sent to me by a friend while I was fighting with a printer scanner with a mind of it’s own – and a mean one at that.
    Apologies if I frightened anyone!!
- James lake on October 05, 2016 · at 11:56 pm EST/EDT
  
  The US already attacked the SAA
  And it did not get them anywhere it broke the ceasefire
- Anonymous on October 06, 2016 · at 3:48 pm EST/EDT
  
  likely israel downs US jets to make it appear as Russia did it
nmb on October 05, 2016 · at 10:41 pm EST/EDT

The Western clowns to fall in their own trap:
http://bit.ly/1pIGj0K
anonymous on October 05, 2016 · at 10:42 pm EST/EDT

Thank you Saker for your wonderful work.
You did not mention Iran and its response in the event of an attack by the US on Syria. Surely they cannot stand by and do nothing. They know perfectly well that if Syria is attacked, Iran is next. Your thoughts please.
Zverey on October 05, 2016 · at 10:48 pm EST/EDT

I very much hope Russia stands up to Jihadi mercenaries backed by NATO, and does not de -escalate to please the westerners. The West, and Israel, is openly now declaring its support for the most exteme forms of Islamism. NATO is the Al Nusra air force, and will happily send moderate syrians and russians home in body bags, to use their own words.

By bombing the western puppet jihadists, Russia has made the West use a lot of its intelligence and funding in the Syrian war instead of conflicts nearer Russia, because otherwise they would be fighting them much closer to home, in Chechenya, in Khazakhstan, in Nagorno Karabakh, South Ossetia..

If Clinton wins, she will immediatley command the overthrow of Assad. This will send a strong message to her new ex RepublicanNeo Con backers and the Israel lobby. Possibly they will tie it in with the ‘accidental’ shooting of Iranian jets over Syria. Clinton is determined to provoke Iran and provode a situation that allows USA to attack it. Doubt even Clinton is stupid enough to attack the Russian bases themselves though.
John Brown on October 05, 2016 · at 10:49 pm EST/EDT

This article is completely stupid in its assertion that Russia is militarily weaker then the USA. This kind of idiotic thinking is dangerous and is what will cause world war 3.

The American conventional military edge on Russia in Syria or any place on the planet is irrelevant and useless. Yes it is good to have some conventional military power to prevent any type of foreign backed color revolution etc. and to be able to last more than week or 2 before going nuclear as a kind of pause mechanism. Beyond that conventional forces today are useless and a big waste of money, unless you want to bombard and occupy a defenseless third world country.

Just as the Soviet advantage in conventional forces during the cold war meant nothing. It just made them good targets for a tactical or bigger nuke. The same is true of the conventional USA military advantage over Russia today, it is totally useless. Russia and the USA can project their full nuclear military power anywhere on the planet in 30 minutes and it is relevant how far any such country is from the USA or Russia. You can only destroy the planet once!

Russia needs to move some tactical nuclear weapons into Syria now and make it very pubic so the entire planet knows it. Russia should also announce they will not hesitate to use them against any country attacking its own forces or those of the Syrian government especially the USA, Saudi Arabia, Israel etc.

Russia is very smart in investing in its nuclear forces and doing so in such a way, so even a small corvette class ship is carrying nukes that can travel thousands of miles and wipe out entire USA carrier groups, bases or cities on the USA mainland. Such a strategy makes it very hard to destroy the Russian capacity to retaliate after a USA first nuclear strike. The Chinese need to do this a well ASAP.

Such stupid idiotic and dangerous talk that Russia can’t protect its friends it has treaties with is very dangerous and only encourages the mad men that rule America today. Russia needs to make it very clear to the billionaire criminal oligarchs, who rule the USA today, that if they don’t agree to get out of Syria and Ukraine etc. areas of vital Russian national interest ASAP and stay out , they, the billionaires specifically will all be destroyed along with their families etc, along with every American military base on the planet in 30 minutes.

Let them know this will be a war like no other in history. Not only will it be a nuclear war, it will be the first war in hundreds of years where those who start it, the ruling criminal elite, will be the first to die, not innocent civilians. Russia needs to demonstrate total nuclear commitment in this respect. This is what kept the cold war from getting hot. This is what the USA did in Cuba.

To do anything less is to make certain there will be a global nuclear war within 5 years or less.
When the billionaires know they and their families will be on the front lines of any nuclear war, no matter where they or their relatives may be living on the planet and that they will personally pay the price of their actions, peace will break out everywhere, as chicken hawks don’t care if the masses die, only if they die.
- Peter AU on October 05, 2016 · at 11:35 pm EST/EDT
  
  Saker’s take on armchair generals was interesting. Trying to see where each country is going, or what they are doing beneath the spin seems a legitimate exercise, but saying what they should be doing without access to their intel is a futile, perhaps completely stupid exercise.
  - Siotu on October 06, 2016 · at 10:06 am EST/EDT
    
    Peter AU
    
    You are surely right about that.
    
    Siotu
- Siotu on October 06, 2016 · at 12:12 am EST/EDT
  
  John
  
  The problem with this sort of approach is that you are calling for the slaughter of millions of people. You are asking for untold suffering of an incredible magnitude.
  
  On a practical level, it is far easier to locate a destroyer, frigate or corvette than it is to locate a particular person, family or group. For instance, if you wanted to use a nuclear weapon to murder the leader of a country, a banking conglomerate or, say, an NGO and for good measure his or her family, just where are you going to send it exactly? How can you be certain you did the job? Maybe you need more than one city hit to make certain? Do you intend to wipe out all the people who live in a few cities to achieve your objective? How much collateral slaughter is acceptable? What is your magic number, 1-million, 10-million, 100-million…? Just how much do you seek to destroy and kill? And, how precisely does this make you in any way the moral superior to those you oppose?
  
  The world came very close to a nuclear weapons catastrophe during the Cuban missile crisis. Do we need to run that risk again? My understanding is that there were men on both sides in the “control” rooms advising their leaders to “press the button”. Kennedy and Khrushchev managed to get through the mess without so doing. There seems to have been a realisation of their common humanity as well as that of all those who would be affected by their immediate decisions. Perhaps there will be such a realisation possible amongst the present leaderships of all sides today. Can you count on this being so? Do you want to make the bet you can trust all of them to arrive at that awareness, including all of those “others”? As is well asked, “Do you feel lucky today?”
  
  Better not to issue threats and ultimatums about going to nuclear war at all. You just never know what the “other” may actually do.
  
  Siotu
  - Anonymous on October 06, 2016 · at 5:27 am EST/EDT
    
    I don’t think a threat by the Kremlin that it will respond to a conventional attack with a nuclear response is out of the question.
    
    After 240 years somebody has got to stand up to these bullies.
    - scanfish on October 06, 2016 · at 4:35 pm EST/EDT
      
      That is in fact clearly stated in the revised Russian military doctrine of December 2015, and which calls for the US of tactical nukes if overwhelmed by conventional forces. Putin WILL NOT allow Syria to fall, because if he does, he will have Islamic terrorists only 1000 miles from Russia’s southern Islamic federal states, supported by the CIA/Neoon crazies to destabilise Russia. Better then to fight and finish them off in Syria first before they come to your doorstep. This war IS NOT about Syria, it is about Russia surviving as a sovereign independent state.
  - John Brown on October 06, 2016 · at 6:12 am EST/EDT
    
    Siotu, you are so wrong, it makes me wonder if you are (removed MOD) or a CIA disinfo expert? You are living and thinking in the past, like at least one generation behind. With the global internet and police state apparatus the USSA and the West has built up, which can easily be hacked, it is in fact extremely easy to know where any individual is today to the second and to the square meter, especially rich individuals, with their big bunkers and mansions etc. through their cell phones, internet connections, public records, police, FBI, CIA NSA etc databases.
    
    You also don’t understand the chicken hawks. Why do you think there is total news black out in the USSA about a possible nuclear confrontation??? If the USA masses Goyim find out there could be a revolution in the USSA. Russia needs to make sure Joe 6 pack American knows Obama’s puppet masters are getting ready for nuclear war to defend ISIS and Al-CIA-DA. How long would it take for the USSA government to fall if such news gets out after years of being told how evil ALCAIDA and ISIS are, they did 911 etc????
    
    Evil needs secrecy and darkness to win. Good works are done in the light of day. Russia is doing good fighting evil ISIS and AL-CIA-DA and the USSA criminal elite are doing evil and supporting ISIS and AL-CIA-DA. America and its conquered vassals in Europe need to know it before the world is destroyed.
    
    Thinking like yours will cause not prevent world war 3. In 1962 everyone, the entire world knew what was happening each day, it was on every single news channel. Everyone knew what could happen that is why it was prevented. Everyone who wants to prevent a nuclear war today must do the same today. Make sure the entire planet knows what is happening and that the world is on the brink of nuclear destruction! It boggles my mind that you think it would have turned out okay in 1962 if the world especially the American public had no idea about it and that it was kept secret.
    - Anonymous on October 06, 2016 · at 9:03 am EST/EDT
      
      Our freind here has a point.
      If the Russian federation do not step up and protect the few allies it have (Syria, Eurasian Economic Union countries, China …. and that’s basically all) it will be, it will be in my humble opinion, a huge mistake, that will probably spell the end of the Russian federation as we know it today.
      Abandonning the Syrian Arab Republic to a Libyan like nightmare after all the sacrifices they have made will completely discredit Mr Putin’s Diplomacy, the few allies and freinds Russia Have will invariably stay away from Russia and slowly submitting to the AZ Empire simply for the fear of suffering the sad fate of Syria.
      And in the end it will be Russia left alone against the rest of the world, how long it will take before it completely crumble and disintegrate ??? a few years to the max. We need to remeber that without the chineses economic life buoy in 2014, the AZ Empire sanctions would have been much more painfull.
      How will china react to the weakness of abandoning Syria and ultimately Iran, how will their crucial New Silk Road project evolve wit such an “unreliable” partner that Russia will be viewed if they abandon Syria ??
      - Secret Agent on October 06, 2016 · at 11:17 am EST/EDT
        
        You have to think, Russia is at a disadvantage militarily, but it and to a lesser extent its ally China sit on the strategic real estate. They occupy the heartland. It’s virtually impregnable.
        
        Look at a map of the world and note that American and allied bases surround Russia and China, but they are on the periphery, and are maintained at enormous expense, and are vulnerable to stand off weapons.
        
        The strategic ground is safe, and as soon as China finishes its Silk Road, the mighty American navy becomes obsolete.
        
        Anonymous on October 06, 2016 · at 1:11 pm EST/EDT
        
        I understand your point freind, but if Mr Putin abandon Syria, this will send a signal that Russia is weak and unable to abide by the treaties it signed.
        
        How will Belarus, kazhakistan, Iran, armenia …. react when they see how Russia abandonned a brave a heroic country to the claws of the bloodthirsty satanist AZ Empire ?? will they rather stick with an “unreliable” ally like Russia who will likely abandon them and share the same fate as Syria or will they just submit to the AZ Empire to spare their citizens of the “western democracy” miracle ???
        The Chinese Silk Road requires a stable and united Eurasian Economic Union, with a strong and powerfull leader who can guarantee that safety of the countries who join this project and dare say “FUCK YOU” to the zionist dogs. backing down now is not the signal that Mr Putin want to show to his allies.
        And all that without counting the catastrophic losses that will inflict the planned Qatari gas pipeline to the russian economy if Syria is lost.
        Mr Putin and Mr Lavrov are not amateurs, they knew from the start that the Russian armed forces intervention in Syria will put them face to face against the US armed forces. I highly doubt that they didnt planned this situation from the start.
        
        Anonymous on October 06, 2016 · at 2:06 pm EST/EDT
        
        https://www.rt.com/news/361800-russia-syria-usa-aistrikes/
        
        the russian MOD just confirmed my opinion, look at the paragraphe
        ““Russian air defense system crews are unlikely to have time to determine in a ‘straight line’ the exact flight paths of missiles and then who the warheads belong to. And all the illusions of amateurs about the existence of ‘invisible’ jets will face a disappointing reality,””
        this a polite and diplomatic (as always expected by Russians Proffessionals) way to say that a from no on, a direct strike on the SAA army will be considered an attack on the Russians Armed forces, and will be dealt with the appropriate manner (most likely an S300 missile in your *a..*)
    - Siotu on October 06, 2016 · at 9:47 am EST/EDT
      
      John Brown, put the bluster and blowhard talk on pause. Now engage the intellect and consider the questions you were asked. Think. Then directly address what you were asked. That is, answer the questions. No bluster. Be precise. Provide some detail.
      
      Here, for your convenience are those questions, so far unanswered, again.
      
      “…..if you wanted to use a nuclear weapon to murder the leader of a country, a banking conglomerate or, say, an NGO and for good measure his or her family, just where are you going to send it exactly? How can you be certain you did the job? Maybe you need more than one city hit to make certain? Do you intend to wipe out all the people who live in a few cities to achieve your objective? How much collateral slaughter is acceptable? What is your magic number, 1-million, 10-million, 100-million…? Just how much do you seek to destroy and kill?”
      
      Seriously, I would be interested in knowing what your magic number actually is. How many do you consider it acceptable to murder? In other words, how many would you slaughter were the decision yours to make.
      
      Finally, the most important question addressed to you.
      “And, how precisely does this make you in any way the moral superior to those you oppose?”
      
      Siotu
      - John Brown on October 06, 2016 · at 2:04 pm EST/EDT
        
        Soitu
        I am not talking about starting a war. I am talking about the fact that those who start one, the criminal oligarch elite in the West, knowing that they will die if they start one. They are pushing for one now, not me and not Russia not the people of the West etc.
        
        What I am saying is to let the criminal elite now that the doctrine of MAD applies to them. Billionaires are very happy to let the masses of useless, eater, goyim on both sides kill each other, which you seem to like. Killing those who give the orders seems to offend you. The billionaire elite are building bunkers in New Zealand etc. 1 single SS18 can destroy all of New Zealand. Telling the criminal elite they are targeted will prevent any war immediately and bring peace which is what I want. Your way making sure the criminal elite never face any consequence for starting a world war ensures a world wide nuclear war will start.
        
        I don’t want to murder leaders or anyone. The leaders of countries you refer to are phony puppets. I want to target those who give the orders, the oligarch criminal elite. For example Sheldon Adelson, George Soros etc. to eliminate such persons in a war they start is not murder. They are enemy commanders. Was it murder for Russia to kill invading Nazis in World War 2????
        
        The morality is this. I believe in leaving others alone and not starting wars. I believe in finishing wars others start, which is what Russia has done with Nazi Germany and Napoleon etc.
        
        http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3538525/Where-pandemonium-strikes-Super-rich-buying-underground-bunkers-installing-panic-rooms-luxury-apartments-protect-against-revolutions-natural-disasters.html
        
        https://amuse-i-d.vice.com/seeing-out-the-apocalypse-in-a-billionaires-bunker/
        
        Siotu on October 06, 2016 · at 6:36 pm EST/EDT
        
        John
        
        Off on a bit of a tangent here for a minute.
        
        Wherever did you get the idea of billionaire elite building bunkers In New Zealand of all places?
        
        Siotu
  - Anonymous on October 09, 2016 · at 6:18 am EST/EDT
    
    We are not in the 60s now
    There is no Kennedy. ..
    Just a cabal that doesn’t think logical
    Putin alone cant save us
- Dan on October 06, 2016 · at 8:35 am EST/EDT
  
  Do you think Russia don’t have any submarine armed with nuclear missile in the Mediterranean?
- Anonymous on October 07, 2016 · at 10:55 am EST/EDT
  
  You really think the “Billionaires”, deep state, ruling Amerikan blue-blood class will care….I do not think so. I think it will serve their twisted end game. They are the ones with the resources to survive….and they will. They will be left with fewer people to each have more resources…is that not their endgame…so what if a few hundred million over weight, undereducated, ill informed , under productive “citizens” die. As the world becomes more automated, and jobs vanish. What with they do with these people anyway…pay for their well being… Not a chance, they will see it as a way of not having to support the leaches that they so loath….
- A.T. on October 12, 2016 · at 7:27 am EST/EDT
  
  Your prescription would goad Russia into making the same mistakes their opponents readily make; why would they so level the playing field?
  
  Russia IS weaker than the U.S.; that only leaves a nuclear response to counter a determined military attack upon Russia itself. Russia could defeat a conventional blitzkreig invasion, but not a sustained conventional war of attrition from a country safe from land invasion as the U.S. is.
  
  So, the threat of MAD is implicit and the main reason why the U.S. is all in a huff. The bankster billionaire class understands full well the limits of their power and survivability.
  
  Deploying nukes in Syria defeats the purpose of a hybrid proxy war, to keep hot war below the nuclear threshold. The Americans would use the excuse to go nuclear with their first shot while claiming Russia went nuclear first. Under traditional rules the U.S. is obligated to only use conventional force against conventional force.
  
  Russia is at a disadvantage in Syria insofar as a determined prolonged conventional NATO assault will eventually breach their A2AD bubble. However, the damage from sunk nuclear powered warships from both sides will be devastating enough for the region. Added to that, NATO’s Mediterranean presence will likely be destroyed or degraded to the point where they couldn’t benefit from Russia’s removal, in fact be set back a generation or more. So, the Russians/Syrians only have to be strong enough to be not worth attacking.
  
  Talk of using nukes may scare the likes of Hussein or Gaddafi, but not a sophisticated power like Putin’s Russia. Actions like Russian nuclear evac drills are not signals of fear, but indicators that they are willing to fight at that level if so attacked. Similarly, the lack of nuke preparation in the West – save for the unofficial prepper movement – indicates first, they don’t care about the civvies, and second, they aren’t likely to attack with nukes but if they do and the civvies aren’t protected, they’ve lost the recovery. Not that there would be one.
  
  Overall, the Russian strategy is working out well. They have exactly what they need to accomplish what they have to do; stabilize Syria and kill off the DAESH, if not by political settlement then by attrition. If NATO attacks directly, NATO losses will be significant but only NATO is at fault if things go nuclear. While both sides will be removed from the immediate region, Russia has never had a deep Mediterranean presence to lose. Assad’s Syrians, likewise have nothing to lose and everything to gain by fighting to victory or death in Syria.
  
  Instead of criticizing Russia, maybe join a genuine antiwar group or at least advocate for reasonable solutions towards peace and not escalation and polarization. Its not Russia’s fault or Russia’s responsibility to shut down the Western U.S./NATO war machine, its ours, we who live in the West.
- Dan on December 04, 2019 · at 8:27 am EST/EDT
  
  Why the hell would moving nukes into Syria be of any use, given that Nukes can already be deployed from any random location on land or at sea, to arrive at any other place on the globe in a short order of time? That would kind of be like making sure your snipers were right up close to their target, even tho the whole point of a sniper is that they operate from a distance.
  If there is a nuclear war, everybody will either die or get sick.There is no singling out the ruling criminal elite with a nuke. It wont just be every american military base getting destroyed. a nuclear war in the current day equates to the total destruction of virtually ALL LIFE ON EARTH, as it would involve dispersing hundreds, if not thousands of thermonuclear devices all over the place, with the entire process taking 30 minutes from start to finish. So the reality is that the large military powers should slowly de- nuclearize, so that accidental nuclear exchanges do not take place or become limited in scale.
Greg Schofield on October 05, 2016 · at 11:08 pm EST/EDT

Excellent article as always.

A break out of peace in the Middle-East beginning with clearing out the mercenaries from Syria would seriously undermine the US strategy, and tear allies away from the hegemon, in the area.

The Chinese swift reconstruction work in Syria, which would pull many European migrants back home, would create a distancing from the US from right round Europe, and an alignment of people to Russia. That would finish the empire.

Russia should do what it is doing in the Middle east destroy the Aleppo pocket before November and then serious mopping up, which hopefully would lead to an extension to Iraq, and perhaps even Yemen and Egypt as an anti-mercenary move which after all Russia has been directly threatened. But military victories paving the way fort economic reconstruction and development is what America cannot and will not do — that is how it is defeated.
Anonymous on October 05, 2016 · at 11:10 pm EST/EDT

Syria has around
30 Mig 29
20 Su24
40 Su22
5 Mig 25
Over 50 Mig 21 + L39
20 – attack helicopters

This is more than enough to fight rebels . So why is Russia having to do the work for Assad? He should use his own air force ro defend his own country ? .Russian prescence is mostly a protection for Assad against the americans. Syria knows USA cannot attack while Russia is there.
- Siotu on October 06, 2016 · at 10:00 am EST/EDT
  
  How many of these aircraft are presently serviceable? What is TBO for each and how many hours are remaining on each air-frame? How many technicians do the Syrian forces have remaining to run the maintenance and overhauls? What facilities and equipment do they still have? How quickly can they turn their aircraft around after service/overhaul/damage-repair processes? Have they got the components and sub-assemblies? How long does it take to get the spares/replacements that they don’t have at any particular time (that is, what are their logistics and supply lines like)? How well trained and capable are the Syrian flight crews? What are the actual in-service capabilities of the flight crews and aircraft (including avionics, weapons systems, defensive systems etc)?
  
  I reckon if you found out about these details you might be in a good position to draw some informed conclusions.
  
  Siotu
  - John Brown on October 06, 2016 · at 6:06 pm EST/EDT
    
    Siotu
    
    How will American aircraft, Saudi aircraft attack Russians and Syrians in Syria if their aircraft carriers and bases are destroyed by nuclear weapons?
    
    How will Americans be able to service their aircraft, how many technicians will they have when their bases and carriers no longer exist???
    
    Do you really believe those Saudi cowards will do anything once they know they will be vaporized by an SS18?
    
    If the Saudis give man pads to ISIS and AL-CIA-DA in Syria, Russia should give man pads to the Houthis in Yemen. I bet Russian pilots will be better at dodging man pads then those Saudi cowards who only bomb civilians. Give the Houthis some good anti ship missile as well and as many anti tank weapons as they want, similar to the TOW missiles ISIS and AL-CIA-DA get.
    
    Once Russian anti tank weapons and man pads turn Saudi Abrams tanks and F16s to junk USSA sales of such arms will plummet!!
    - Siotu on October 06, 2016 · at 8:50 pm EST/EDT
      
      John
      
      Why are you lusting so for a nuclear exchange? What is it about massive destruction and nuclear slaughter that excites your fancy so much?
      
      Were you to look at what Anonymous of Oct 5 10am UTC is discussing you’d understand s/he is not discussing a nuclear exchange with anyone. He or she is suggesting that Syria has sufficient air power to deal with the terrorists/jihadists (whatever they are called presently) alone. On that basis he or she concludes that the Russian air-force is present to act as counter against the US and defend Assad. That second part may well be correct. Indeed the Russian airforce probably is present for that purpose to a greater or lesser extent.
      
      I am more interested in the idea that the Syrian airforce is capable of dealing with the terrorists alone. Notice it is the Russian airforce that has undertaken the heavy lifting against the terrorists. It has had the greatest effect upon them. The suspicion has to be that the Syrian airforce is not in very good shape any longer (and likely hasn’t been in good order for some time). Don’t forget they have been fighting these terrorists for years. This must have caused attrition. Their equipment is aged and likely the airframes are of advancing hours. Syrian infrastructure and supply chain has been seriously damaged. It is likely they have suffered loss of specialist technical staff over the prolonged time-frame. Several bases have been attacked, damaged and some lost (some since retaken, but at what cost and what condition do they remain in, what specialist equipment remains servicable). Finally, there is the question about what capabilities they do actually still possess. It is likely these have been degraded over time. It is highly unlikely they were ever capable of the precision work the Russian forces have demonstrated.
      
      Now, this is not intended to belittle the Syrians. They have been engaged in terrible hostilities for an extended period of time at great cost and expense. It would have to be expected that for a small nation like Syria such a war is going to erode capability. Nevertheless it is more than likely that Syria’s airforce was insufficient to have dealt with the terrorists alone. Without the Russian intervention the suspicion must be that all was lost. In the end though, the only way to know for certain would be to have the answers to the questions I posed for consideration.
      
      By the way. I recently responded to your comments in the earlier discussion above. I’m intrigued to see your answer.
      
      Siotu
      - John Brown on October 07, 2016 · at 1:03 am EST/EDT
        
        Siotu your standard CIA self projection techniques won’t work on me.
        
        I am talking about the doctrine of MUTUAL ASSURED DESTRUCTION which prevented a nuclear exchange for over 50 years. It has worked, it does work, and it will work.
        
        You want to move away from MAD to who knows what, which will cause a nuclear exchange, so it is you not me, who is lusting after a nuclear exchange, because you want to do real things in reality which will cause a nuclear exchange. Those mad men billionaires running the USA think like you, that they can have a war with Russia and Syria and win which means they just might try it. Only when they get the message from persons thinking like me, will they reconsider. If it was you in charge of Russia we would already be having world war 3 right now and we would all be dead as you seem to want.
        
        If it was me in the Kremlin it would not be a bluff. One operation Bararoosa was enough, never again! China should back it up with their nukes as well and send some of their own bombers etc and ships to Syria and some of the ground troops as well. India as well.
        
        It is evil men like George Soros who like you is trying to start world war 3, that should have a car accident or a heart attack along with many of his family members and associates.
        
        As I said the chicken hawk, oligarch, criminal, billionaire, elite pushing for war are cowards who will be hiding in their bunkers when the billions of goyim die, so if you want piece those are the ones you lean and threaten and every spy agency knows where they are at all times to the square meter including their bunkers.
        
        I want to do the opposite of you. I want to make sure that MAD is in full effect and that any who doubt it and start something will be the first to die.
        
        Siotu on October 07, 2016 · at 10:04 am EST/EDT
        
        John
        
        Calm down. The answer to everything that challenges your sentiments is not nuclear annihilation.
        
        Still you did not answer my questions, especially that one about morality. It is telling that you didn’t. Easy enough figure out why.
        
        In regards to your comments further up the page about New Zealand.
        
        Quoting you, “The billionaire elite are building bunkers in New Zealand etc.”
        
        Really? In New Zealand? What evidence do you have of that fantastical claim?
        
        Quoting, “1 single SS18 can destroy all of New Zealand.”
        
        New Zealand has a land area of around 286,000 square km, which is more than the United Kingdom, or Colorado state, or New York State, or even Michigan state, so it is a reasonably large piece of real estate is New Zealand. Indeed, it has the largest area of our Pacific Island groups.
        
        According to the Russian military, the SS18 is presently configured to carry up to 10 MIRV of up to 1Mt explosive yield each. For a 1Mt air burst (to provide the greatest area of destruction) it can be anticipated that out to about 7km radius regular buildings will be completely destroyed and out to around 20km radius there will severe damage and destruction of buildings, with the possibility some structures may survive (understand they will be damaged to the point of being structurally unsafe). So, let’s be generous and use a blast radius of 25km. In that case the destroyed area for one MIRV will be about 490 square km. Call it 500 square km. Now assume that all 10 MIRVs are directed to explode so that none of the blast areas overlap. The destroyed area would be some 5,000 square kilometers. That is not enough to destroy New Zealand (286,000 square km remember) and not every New Zealander would be killed, but if you bombed 10 centres of population you’d slaughter the majority of the population almost immediately.
        
        The latest data I can find about the population of New Zealand would have it that there are some 4,500,000 people there. Add to that over-stayers, recent immigrants (who have not yet shown up in the official statistics), tourists, returning ex-pats (thought to be up to 30,000 last year by some experts) and Australians (who can easily live and work there). So, at the least you can conservatively count on more than 3,000,000 people as immediate casualties; not every New Zealander, not every person on those islands, but many, many of them.
        
        The problem for you is that you’d not be certain you got your targeted individual. How would you know? Especially if he or she were, say, somewhere up around Erehwon or a few score miles out of Hokitika? Alternatively, perhaps somewhere in the King Country with the Tainui or even hiding out with some Tuhoe in the Te Ureweras. They wouldn’t even need to be in an underground bunker. One SS18 would not be enough to guarantee you got to assassinate your man, or woman as the case may be. It would be enough to guarantee that, conservatively, you’d slaughter more than 3,000,000 men, women, children and infants.
        
        Now let’s think on those causalities some. Remember the number. More than 3,000,000. Even though you could not guarantee you liquidated your hated target (assuming such a one was even in the New Zealand in the first place) as one of that huge number of murdered people, what you definitely do know, long before pressing the launch of your weapon is that more than 3,000,000 people are going to be slaughtered by your intent and deliberate action. You can’t not know it. So your magic number is somewhere north of 3,000,000 murders and likely upwards of that by a considerable margin. That sure puts you in august company.
        
        So, how does this make you morally superior in any way to those you state you oppose? Yes, I really am interested in your answer in regards to that particular point.
        
        Siotu
        
        P.S. Do you actually know any New Zealander people? Have you ever been there? Do you know anything about that place? ‘Cause if you had, if you did know, why would you even consider wrecking it while doing such an evil horror on those people?
        
        John Brown on October 07, 2016 · at 5:17 pm EST/EDT
        
        Siotu
        
        You seem to be deliberately not listening to what I say and continue to do yourself projection onto me. Don’t forget I already proved you 100% wrong about the ease of tracking where the criminal elite are in real time.
        
        As for 1, SS-18 destroying all of New Zealand you seem to forget that nuclear weapons give off radiation and nuclear fallout, which is what does most of the killing, not the original blast. New Zealand would be uninhabitable for 1000 years. Let’s see the criminal elite hold out in a bunker that long and dig themselves out from under billions of tons of radioactive rubble.
        
        Answer again for you, a third time. So, how does this make you morally superior in any way to those you state you oppose? Yes, I really am interested in your answer in regards to that particular point.
        
        If MAD is in full force as it was during the cold war, then no one will be bombed anywhere, everyone is saved, everyone lives. That is my goal!!! Your goal seems to be identical to that of the criminal, elite, to protect the criminal, chosen, racist, supremacist, oligarch, elite at any cost and to exterminate billions of useless, eater, goyim. You are behaving like a Lotar or perhaps you are an Ashrak? The only thing that can prevent the criminal, chosen, racist, supremacist, elite from killing billions of innocent goyim, not to mention all the wildlife that would die as well, is the knowledge of their own certain death and of all their own children, family, members, associates, all etc if they kill billions of innocent Goyim.
        
        Again see proof criminal elite making hideouts to flee to in New Zealand ASAP among other places. Now if they know an SS18 is going to hit where their bunkers are and the host slave country will basically be destroyed, no slaves to work for them, then they will have nowhere to hide which is the idea.
        
        Then no war, no bombing anywhere, on the entire planet, billons of innocent goyim saved, from you and the criminal, supremacist, elite, my goal. Answer again for you a fourth time. So, how does this make you morally superior in any way to those you state you oppose? Yes, I really am interested in your answer in regards to that particular point.
        
        Your goal kill 6 billion plus Goyim, elite can live in New Zealand and take over the planet in some kind of evil Dr. Strangelove delusion.
        
        What is Coming? Elite Feverishly Building Survival Bunkers:
        
        http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-04-14/what-coming-elite-feverishly-building-survival-bunkers-fear-uprising-99
        
        “About 3,000 individuals with net assets of $1 million or more,” left Chicago in just the last year alone according to the Chicago Tribune.
        
        Paris and Rome are also seeing a mass exodus of millionaires and billionaries
        
        Boltholes with airstrips’ in New Zealand that are being bought by world’s super-rich who want a hideout
        
        Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2931325/Super-rich-buying-property-New-Zealand-bolthole-case-west-goes-meltdown.html#ixzz4MP2e3wLD
        
        http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2931325/Super-rich-buying-property-New-Zealand-bolthole-case-west-goes-meltdown.html
        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wWJfdjVi6Ro
        
        Siotu on October 10, 2016 · at 3:31 am EST/EDT
        
        John
        
        You are wrong. What you are attempting to do is make excuses for the inexcusable. It won’t do. Your blustering does not cut it.
        
        As is becoming all too obvious with your claims, you are just unable to provide solid evidence. You have not provided evidence of war-mongering billionaire oligarchs flooding into New Zealand and building massive, elaborate underground bunkers. What you managed to dredge up are somewhat inaccurate MSM puff pieces with some pictures of holiday homes in typically picturesque New Zealand (NZ) locations. An article mentions that some wealthy individuals have purchased property way over there, but are not resident (a steel manufacturer and an IT/software entrepreneur are mentioned). It mentions the place is peaceful and relatively orderly (which it is at present- there are no guarantees though and NZ has experienced social unrest in the not too distant past). It mentions some people are concerned about growing social instability in Europe and elsewhere (like the USA) and quotes some opinion about NZ as a place to relocate. So what if some people do that? So what if some move over there?
        
        Just because someone has more wealth than you, is better than you, has been more productive than you or just plain luckier than you that, of itself, does not make them either a war-monger or a criminal. Most of them are neither.
        
        People have been wising up to what an awful mess the North has become with some even heading for superior climes for a few generations now. Fortunately it has been a strict minority coming southward to Oceania, as most of them are infected with the shocking ideas that created the problems in the first place (and I am not referring exclusively to billionaires when I mention this attribute). Usually, over time, the nonsense gets knocked out of them as their rough edged ignorance and prejudices are smoothed away by the calming nature of our friendly Pacific. They do start to “go local” and change some. It takes time. Some never quite get it, although usually their children do better. Trouble occurs when the incoming numbers get large. This has been occurring all over the show in more recent times and the easy-going, peaceful lifestyle of the Kiwi (New Zealanders often refer to themselves as “Kiwis”) is getting severely eroded. It is not guaranteed that what the Kiwis have managed to create can survive indefinitely.
        
        Inaccuracies contained in the articles ought to be addressed. Briefly I’ll attend to some. There were claimed tax advantages to be gained by going over to NZ. Fact is NZ is not a good location to reside if you seek favourable taxation treatment. If minimisation of tax is what you seek, then there are superior islands. You could even do a lot better if you avoided the South Pacific altogether and went to Russia or even China. Check it out.
        
        The article showed a property which it claimed was ready for development. Just be sure you know what you are getting into if creating a fort and a bunker in NZ is what you are thinking of. Assuming you can navigate through the Overseas Investment Commission, or whatever it is the Kiwis run these days, you still need to get through a resource consent process prior to applying for a permit to build it. Getting the resource consent process completed will take years, since for an elaborate deep underground bunker a public consultation process is likely to be demanded and you can be assured that the local Iwi and (many) others will object strenuously. Good luck with that! You will be dealing with some tough, very opinionated Kiwis! Of course, now your hideaway is public knowledge. So much for that idea.
        
        As stated previously, if you wanted to disappear over in New Zealand, there are better ways to do it than building a bunker. It is conveniently accomplished such that no-one would know where you were and you would be off-grid. I suggested some examples. Of course, there are encryption technologies and cut-outs and the like that could be arranged to allow a person to stay in touch while remaining undetected by the outside world. Still, there are easier places to do it than NZ. Australia is one. There are many others.
        
        Anyway you cut it, you have not provided evidence for your claims so far- certainly not that war-mongering billionaire oligarchs are headed to NZ and building bunkers so they can start a big war elsewhere. Puerile nonsense, mate. “Get a grip”, as the Kiwi vernacular would have it.
        
        ‘’’’’’’’
        
        As it happens, it is ironic you choose New Zealand as a target for your nuclear terrorism and its practical realisation. What, I wondered, would the Kiwis think of it. I did not have to look far to find out. An associate directed me to some history which lays it all out most clearly.
        
        New Zealand was an early campaigner against M.A.D. It was considered, as the acronym implies, completely certifiably insane. The late Sir David Lange, former Prime Minister of New Zealand, explained the Kiwi position on the international stage. He did not mince words. He considered the possession, let alone the threat of use, of nuclear weapons immoral. His point was that millions and millions of people were being held hostage in a giant terror. It was thuggery of the worst order and completely anti-civilisational in its corrosive effect.
        
        One merely has to look up the text of some of his interviews and speeches to understand the import of his argument. It turns out that he had widespread support as well, winning the seat of government consecutively. He passed legislation against nuclear weapons possession, construction or development in New Zealand. The weapons were outlawed. This was to have significant effect, as he, his colleagues and the citizens of New Zealand well knew.
        
        While the Soviet navy did not routinely visit New Zealand at the time (although Soviet fishing and cargo ships did), the US Navy did sent warships to NZ from time to time. The legislation put them front and centre, for they would have to declare whether a warship was nuclear armed or not. This they were not prepared to do. They argued hard about how not confirming or denying the presence of nuclear weapons aboard a particular ship was an important part of their mad policy. Reading the literature (and the old news reports of the time) one is struck by how closely their statements mirror your arguments. In the end the legislation stood and the warships did not visit. So, they got mad (!) and tried to punish NZ. On the World stage they merely looked foolish. Bullies. The Kiwis stayed consistently firm to their principles, going on to oppose France in its nuclear bomb testing in the Pacific (even recommending to the French that it be done in France, right there in Western Europe, instead of half a world away). To this day nuclear armed ships from the US Navy (or from anywhere else for that matter) are not to come to New Zealand.
        
        The NZ law does not just strike out the possession of nuclear weapons, it also states that Kiwis are not to be involved in the creation, storage, development or deployment of nuclear weapons anywhere in the world. Important for several reasons, this. Firstly, it is the moral principle that is raised here we ought to be cognisant of. Individuals are responsible for what they choose and do. Secondly, there is the example of moral principle being applied into a moral law. This is, as I have recently learned, most vital to understand and to uphold.
        
        The stance of the brave Kiwis started a lot of people thinking about what they were putting up with, the terror that was being sanctioned in their names and the threat (and hostile fear) being pressed into their faces by their own governments. Protest and thoughtful opposition started to grow everywhere- even in the USSR (interesting articles I found in the library to that effect published after the fall of the USSR).
        
        Prime Minister Sir David Lange certainly had the support of those he represented, in this matter at least. And he won a repeat mandate, so it was not a fluke or chance political event. Further, the policy and legislation remains in force today despite significant US pressure to revise it.
        
        It can be concluded, the Kiwis would oppose you and treat your ideas as contemptible. They would conclude you are supporting an immorality, a terrible evil. They would, as Sir David once put it, “smell the uranium on your breath”. They would want you to understand that just because you dislike a few individuals who may or may not happen to be present somewhere in NZ that is not a justification for the terror you promote for imposition upon all Kiwis, indeed upon all people. They would want you to know that why you propose to threaten all of them, each and every one, with slaughter is not a valid justification for the terror you support and intend to see imposed upon them. They would remind you that NZ is a civilised country and that when a person has committed a crime there are civilised procedures to establish guilt and sanction to be taken. Those procedures do not include slaughter of the entire population (or the great majority of it). They do not include imposing terrorism against that population.
        
        “”””””””””
        
        I printed out your post and gave it to my colleague for comment. Whetu is NZ Maori. He was not impressed about the terrorist threat of slaughter you make, nor of the feeble justification you offered for it.
        
        Quoting you, “As for 1, SS-18 destroying all of New Zealand you seem to forget that nuclear weapons give off radiation and nuclear fallout, which is what does most of the killing, not the original blast. New Zealand would be uninhabitable for 1000 years.”
        
        He agrees this makes your magic number of death a minimum of 4,700,000 and probably a lot more with the suffering continuing for generations. Whetu was appalled. So he ought to be. In his position any sane man would be.
        
        Quoting you, “If MAD is in full force as it was during the cold war, then no one will be bombed anywhere, everyone is saved, everyone lives.”
        
        There are many issues we both had with this claim. It is based on blind faith or, in the Kiwi vernacular, “pig-ignorance.” The outbreak of a nuclear war during the Cold War era was only avoided by sheer luck on several occasions. Burnt out electronic components, misunderstandings, errors, carelessness and the like bought the entire planet within seconds of WW3 more than once. How can a sane person believe that these errors will not occur in the future AND that when they inevitably do, they’ll always, 100% of the time, each and every time without fail, be detected and resolved before they cause (or contribute) to the launch of unimaginable slaughter and permanent state of suffering for anyone who manages to survive the initial strikes?
        
        Morally the position is untenable. All people, everywhere, not solely in NZ, are terrorised by the threat that for some reason (or lack of reason), nothing to do with them personally, nothing to do with how they live, nothing to do with their decisions, their lives can be eliminated at any time. This is the War of Terror that the world needs to emerge from and leave behind. It is the ultimate in terrorism.
        
        Ending a problem is achieved not by embracing the elements that cause the problem in the first place and repeating them. It is achieved by avoiding those behaviours, by understanding the nature of the problem and by solving it.
        
        Your continued support of the same immorality as those you pretend to oppose is unjustifiable. It is completely immoral and uncivilised.
        
        Siotu
isw on October 05, 2016 · at 11:12 pm EST/EDT

Thankyou for another well thought out analysis.

Is it naive of me to hope for The United Nations organization to “step up to the plate” and mediate?

Can I hope that it, the UN, has not lost it’s sanity?
Geneva Observer on October 05, 2016 · at 11:12 pm EST/EDT

Putin has dropped the gauntlet. This is an historic moment, the turning of a major chapter in history. The conditions are an ultimatum. Nobody since the British has ever talked to the US in such a manner, and right in the middle of a presidential election… Seems like payback for launching the Georgia war during the Olympic opening ceremonies back in 2008.

The plutonium was being bought and burned to generate cheap electricity in the US. Expect US electricity rates to rise sharply over the next twelve months as certain reactors need to refuel.

This will slowly but surely spread across the US economy, driving up costs, reducing US competitiveness on world markets. Has anyone got any figures?

Expect the shale gas within the US to be used up quickly for electrical production within the domestic market. This removes it from export markets, improving Russia’s long term pricing power.

This is a negative for future US Dollar prospects.

Obama cannot take time off the campaign trail without seriously risking losing his Hillary to Trump. He has very little time and sleep to take up the challenge. Every day of delay to respond diminishes the US prestige on the international scene…
zed on October 05, 2016 · at 11:15 pm EST/EDT

WW1 was a war that was ALWAYS going to happen- but the exact date wasn’t known so those that talked about the coming war were labelled ‘nutcases’. With WW2 the exact same thing happened. The war was known by all thinking persons to be an absolute certainty- just the date wasn’t known. The mainstream press of the West denied the inevitability of WW2 pretty much up until the day it formally began- despite the earlier growing regional wars.

WW1 and WW2 were manufactured by Deep State forces that knew their stranglehold on power made it a simple matter of ‘when’, and not ‘if’. The same thing if happening today with WW3.

Naive optimists and propaganda masters all use the ‘fact’ that ‘it hasn’t happened yet’ to ‘prove’ it can’t happen- just as they did in the years leading to WW1 and WW2. However, informed people see that every action of the Deep State in the West is designed to bring about this war, and their progress- slow or fast, is relentless and always edging closer to the goal.

Sadly Russia acts like a veteran bank guard who has noticed a team of notorious bank robbers casing his place of work. Russia thinks being on the side of ‘good’ is a ‘magic’ bullet that dissaudes determined evil- so the ‘guard’ makes a point of letting those ‘criminals’ see that he knows what they are up to.

Those that argue that Russia shouldn’t use ‘force’ (as in the disaster unfolding in Ukaraine for Russia- via growing demonisation and sanctions) always manage to ‘fail’ to ‘notice’ how the use of force by the West never backfires as they promise it must for Russia. No state actor or body in the West suffers for their invasion and destruction of Iraq, Libya etc- yet the usual suspects tell us that playing the same game (but this time using overwhelming military force for good) would be an ‘obvious’ ‘fail’ for Russia- as if Russia operates on a different plane of reality.

Yet the sheeple in general- whose ‘support’ is essential to Deep State plans- always respond positively to decisive uses of force- no matter what you may think of the tactic. Strong Russia builds the support from sheeple in the West- weak dithering demonised sanction ridden Russia looks like a ‘loser’ that people don’t wish to back.

In the curent Syrian situation, Russia has exactly two real choices- to follow the advice of the usual suspects, refure to use its military might, and thus slink away with its tail between its legs (and loathed as ‘evil’ by the sheeple cos of mainstream media propaganda).

Or to tell the West to remove its entire military forces and support from Syria because Syria is a Sovereign nation, and Russia is its legally appointed military defender. After all the ‘law’ is 100% on Russia’s side and no propaganda spin in the West can change that perception. This second option requires Russia to give the West days to remove its ground forces, and no time at all to end its bombing runs- with the absolute guarantee that non-Syrian/non-Russia war planes will be shot down on sight.

It is this black and white – and this state of affairs is why the usual suspects try to convince you otherwise. The neo-liberals of the West, and their barely hidden friends, will do anything to tell you that option two, the option used by the USA in all nations it allies and protects, is ‘impossible’ and ‘irresponsible’.

If Russia doesn’t choose option two, then the game lies entirely in the hands of the USA. If the ‘hawks’ (who are really a mask for people most wrongly think of as ‘left’ wing like Clinton and Blair) win and America attacks Syria, Putin will immediately back down- and simply negotiate a face-saving agreement to allow them to keep access to their ‘port’. This, of course, is the real situation in the Ukariane- where the West won 100% but allowed Russia to keep the Crimea base.

The West wins by never backing down, and having zero scruples in the use of its military might. It’s how every bully wins if no-one takes them on directly. It was Hitler’s only hope for ‘winning’ WW2- his own forces could never have won that war in a direct fight as history proved. Hitler prayed he would be the only ‘real’ ‘hard man’ at the table. The classic bully bluff. Yet the bully ‘bluffs’ by frequently ‘using his fists’ which is why fools don’t even notice the ‘bluff’ tactic.

So Russia either throws the USA out of Syria, or the game is in America’s hands- and if America chooses to strike Russia will lose. I think most of us would prefer to have Russia make a winning move, rather than wait and see if America makes its winning move.

PS Russia ‘losing’ isn’t a classic battlefield loss, but Russia choosing to run away from a fight (it could and would win) for reasons the usual suspects are constantly telling us are ‘sound’.
- Anonymous on October 06, 2016 · at 2:19 am EST/EDT
  
  Nice analysis, but I have to disagree with either options given.
  1st – Russia’s window of opportunity to inforce a no-flight-zone in Syria is long gone as Paul C. Roberts suggested. Russias hesitated in Syria when they had the upper hand and that is why the World is on the brink war!
  2nd – The idea that NOW Russia can call a no-flight-zone in Syria is laughable, US and Turkey are entrenched in North Syria… it would take nuclear strikes to wile these forces out o Syria, meaning WW3 and an uncountable destruction and death.
  
  The valid point was for Russia to call UN to expel US and Turkey illegal occupation from Syria, but that also is not real, the UN couldnt resolve the quagmire of an innocent man stuck in a foreign embacy in London leave alone a complex geo-political War scenario.
  
  We can all speculate, but it was Russias’ fault not to have come earlier to this War… now all odds are against Russia, strategically and militarily.
  
  We can only ‘hope’ that Trump wins… otherwise Syria and Russia assets will be attached in Syria and what the Russias’ response will be is a guess… but its clear that they do not possess the power to stop an all-out attack from the Western ‘partners’. In fact what tge West is waiting is ANY retaliation from Russia to open the floodgates and humiliate Russia.
  
  There is no Nuclear option for Russia in Syria, if Russia can bring nuclear to Syria so US to Ukraine.
  
  The situation is really bad for Russia and Assad, I would watch the US elections for a sign how long more the Russians would remain in Syria, I wouldnt be surprised if Hillary wins, next day Russia leaves Syria for good.
  - Anonymous on October 06, 2016 · at 3:33 am EST/EDT
    
    The number of S-300s and S-400s in Syria can create a no-fly zone, west of the Euphrates, in a couple of days.
    
    Russia and Syria weren’t interested in operating a no-fly zone as long as the coalition were just pursuing ISIS.
    
    The Russians and Syrians are now giving that a second thought after the massacre at Deir al Zour and the attack on the humanitarian convoy.
    
    An urgent proclamation from VVP to the leaders of all the coalition partners, including the US, should limit the damage of a Russian no-fly zone.
    
    As far as Turkey is concerned: it’s a puzzle, inside an enigma, wrapped in a mystery. Nobody knows the real relationship between Putin and Erdogan.
    
    We can only hope.
    - Anonymous on October 06, 2016 · at 4:33 am EST/EDT
      
      A Syrian no-fly zone is hardly like Cemetery Ridge at Gettysburg, where the US coalition keeps flying multi-digit dollar warplanes into the zone, like George Pickett’s soldiers doing the quickstep up the ridge to be shot down by Meade’s canon and troops.
      
      The coalition can’t keep sending F-35s into the Syrian/Russian no-fly zone to be shot down until such time as the Russians run out of their missiles.
      
      Our generals stopped that sort of strategy following trench warfare at Verdun in 1916.
      - Anonymous on October 06, 2016 · at 6:17 am EST/EDT
        
        @ Anonymous
        
        “Our generals… at Verdun”
        
        I have to re-read my world history as I didn’t know the Yanks were at Verdun – assuming you are from US.
        
        Anonymous on October 06, 2016 · at 6:48 am EST/EDT
        
        It’s a pity you don’t have reading skills.
        
        I never said our “generals were AT Verdun.”
        I said they followed trench warfare AT Verdun.
        
        In America in 1916, if you followed something, you read about it in the papers. You did not follow it in a colorful, horse-drawn Gypsy wagon.
        
        Our generals may not have been at Verdun, but they read the casualty figures telegraphed from there every day.
        
        If the history you studied told you our generals were not at all interested in the losses of the English and the French from trench warfare, could you show me a citation?
        
        s/
        
        Morse Code on October 06, 2016 · at 7:11 pm EST/EDT
        
        “In 1866, the British ship Great Eastern succeeded in laying the first permanent telegraph line across the Atlantic Ocean.”
  - proper gander on October 06, 2016 · at 4:49 pm EST/EDT
    
    To: Anonymous on October 06, 2016 · at 2:19 am UTC
    
    Why would Russia set up a no-fly zone? The US already has 3 illegal air bases in Syria. A single US breach of an imposed no-fly zone would result in either russia being humiliated by not enfforcing the zone, or enforcing – shooting at a US asset. One hand would domonstrate weakness, the other would result in full blown war, which is exactly what the US wants.
    
    So I would suppose they arn’t even thinking about a no-fly zone.
    - Franz on October 06, 2016 · at 5:38 pm EST/EDT
      
      Why leave Syria out of the equation? They have an AF and they have their own and Russian air defenses.
      It is Syria that is establishing its version of a no-fly zone. Russia is there to assist and has been there at that invitational capacity from the start.
      No matter how psychotic the US now is they still have an eye on their failing propaganda war and must keep in mind what history will say. Perhaps they even feel the coming of Nuremberg nooses around their necks.
      - Siotu on October 06, 2016 · at 6:49 pm EST/EDT
        
        The trouble with escalation by issuing threat and ultimatum (which is what the US has been doing) is that sooner or later a line is crossed and act you must, not necessarily on your terms either. In practical terms this means your options are severely restricted by your own utterances and threats. You are probably restricted to doing things that are not ideal or beneficial to your own position. It is far better to keep all your options open. You do that by avoiding putting yourself into a situation where by bluster and big talk you box your in.
        
        Consider, when was the last time you heard a chess grand master telling his opponent not to move pieces in a certain manner OR ELSE?
        
        Siotu
        
        Franz on October 06, 2016 · at 7:10 pm EST/EDT
        
        Re chess: I have done that to be nice to my opponent. Usually, if the game went on from there, I would lose.
        Americans are notorious for talking too much in a blustering way. It should be encouraged.
        
        John Brown on October 09, 2016 · at 3:32 am EST/EDT
        
        Message has been removed…. ad hominem attack … please discuss issues and ideas mod-hs
    - Anonymous on October 06, 2016 · at 7:46 pm EST/EDT
      
      Hasn’t there been a de facto no-fly zone over Syria since the Russians moved their assets in at the end of September 2015? The major breach thereof was Turkey shooting down an Su-24, which doesn’t affect a theory I came up immediately after.
      
      I believe Putin and Erdogan are in business together. Perhaps there were two crew in the Su-24 and one was saved and one of them parachuted in enemy territory and was killed. Or perhaps there was only one pilot in the jet (the second crew member was the gunner and wasn’t necessary for this deception) and he was rescued.
      
      This widely reported deception piled up Erdogan’s bona fides in Washington and the intelligence sharing with him and ended 7 months later with Erdogan’s apology and the following “foiled coup” with the cleaning of the Augean stables in Ankara.
      
      Most of the arrested spies or operatives were in the employ of the CIA, as you must know?
      
      Turkey refrained from flying over Syria until the apology. So as to reinforce the serious feud with Russia. The US and the coalition only flew at ISIL and al Nusra. Until Deir al Zouk.
      
      Why would Russia institute a no-fly zone? To protect its men and its assets, that’s why. A no-fly zone lets the operator thereof to plan to shoot down a missile or plane as it approaches the border and to launch just as it crosses over.
      
      I’m sure they have given great thought to a no-fly zone.
    - Anonymous on October 06, 2016 · at 8:10 pm EST/EDT
      
      A no-fly zone protects Russian men and assets
      - dg-moderator on October 06, 2016 · at 8:30 pm EST/EDT
        
        You keep us in suspense waiting for the other shoe to drop. Perhaps, elaborate on the thinking behind this comment?
    - Anonymous on October 06, 2016 · at 8:33 pm EST/EDT
      
      @ in full blown war, which is exactly what the US wants.
      
      The US wants full blown war the way I want cancerous brain tumors.
      
      Nuclear War is Pyrrhic War. There are no victors in a nuclear war.
      
      The real losers are the survivors. And I’m very sure the Russians have told the
      
      Pentagon that they have no intention of fighting a conventional war. And that a
      
      preemptive nuclear first strike is n their front burner.
      
      After all the MSM believes that Putin is Hitler and that the Kremlin is trying to
      
      reconstruct the USSR, so let’s give the boys in the Pentagon something to think
      
      about.
      
      The US knows the pyrrhic nature of nuclear fighting and wants to avoid it at all
      
      costs. The US has so much more to lose than everybody else.
- TRM on October 06, 2016 · at 5:44 am EST/EDT
  
  The west did not win in the Ukraine. Sorry but the whole idea was to get Russia out of Crimea and put a huge NATO base there. They have lost Crimea for good and have only a welfare case of a country that they will now support. Hardly a win by any measure.
  - Ari benDavid on October 13, 2016 · at 12:51 am EST/EDT
    
    The West (via Victoria Nuland and Hillary Clinton) put in their oligarchs in Ukraine. Subsequently, one of them “donated” $25 million to the Clinton Foundation.
- Anonymous on October 06, 2016 · at 6:00 am EST/EDT
  
  @ Zed
  
  Many of us here agree with your position but we are constantly reminded that the chessmaster, like the one who moves in mysterious ways, is always right and whatever he does turns s..t (Edited MOD) into gold.
  
  Prevarication and appeasement is not the language bullies understand
- Anonymous on October 06, 2016 · at 7:42 am EST/EDT
  
  “WW1 was a war that was ALWAYS going to happe”
  
  Correct – and a decent analysis.
  
  However, the same thing is not happening re WW3:
  
  https://www.corbettreport.com/episode-297-china-and-the-new-world-order/
  
  Quote:
  “…But the obvious question here is why. Why on earth would these crony capitalists be funding their erstwhile supposed nominal arch nemesis rival enemies…”
Isabella on October 05, 2016 · at 11:16 pm EST/EDT

How much do numbers alone matter?
If America has 500 warships carrying 5000 fighters, and Russia has less than one fifth of that, but Russia has a superb targeting device which shields it from incoming, plus the means of taking down the ships electronic communication, and can do a single missile successful hit, within a few hours – and the entire 500 warships are gone – did the numbers matter?

Or does the innovation, intelligence, accuracy and shock value of the lesser but better carry the day?

Without knowing how those “bigger numbers” are distributed, I’d say on their own they could count for less than we think.

After all, I think Hitler in his first invasions had many more men and tanks than Stalin. Didn’t matter in the end.
- Anonymous on October 06, 2016 · at 5:54 am EST/EDT
  
  @ Isabella
  
  Good point. I was thinking the same when reading the article. In fact the Saker made the same point before in one of his earlier analysis.
  
  Numerical superiority is immaterial in such theatres of war as Syria. There is very little the Anglozionists can do with their 5,000 warplanes or 500 ships apart from causing a gigantic bottleneck and lots of casualties by friendly fire.
  - Anonymous on October 06, 2016 · at 5:35 pm EST/EDT
    
    How about Vietnam? Who won there?
Lysander on October 05, 2016 · at 11:30 pm EST/EDT

Thanks for a great essay, Saker. I have a couple of points/questions for anyone to answer if they want to.

1) If it really comes down to a military confrontation, how could it not go nuclear? What prevented the US from invading Cuba in 1962? The USSR certainly could not have won a conventional war in the Caribbean. But obviously Kennedy did not want a nuclear exchange (perhaps some of his generals, like today’s neocons, were more enthusiastic.)

2) It seems to me the military balance in Syria is much more favorable to Russia than the balance in Cuba was to the Soviet Union.

3) Doesn’t Russia has every plenty of assets outside of the region that it can bring to bear on Syria? Can’t it (hypothetically) put at serious risk every US base on the region using forces inside Russia itself?

4) Isn’t the US entirely dependent on local allies to let them use their bases? Even vassals would hesitate to commit suicide. Which one of them is eager to throw themselves in the middle of a potential nuclear exchange? So I’m not sure the US can count on the use of Incirlic or even Al Udeid in Qatar.

5) The only forces the US can truly count on are it’s 6th and 5th fleets and I’m not sure that would be enough against Russian forces in Syria.

6) I hope we never find out for sure as I’m afraid any conflict is almost guaranteed to go nuclear and it will not matter at all who “won” the initial conventional exchange.
- Anonymous on October 06, 2016 · at 2:02 am EST/EDT
  
  Putin might give Bibi an invite to Moscow and put his balls 7n a vise, lets see how many problems evaporate…
- Harry_Red on October 06, 2016 · at 1:00 pm EST/EDT
  
  Your question Lysander leads to one of the questions I have always asked myself:
  
  What is the possibility of US bases in the Middle-East and particularly in the Gulf region (Bahrain, Qatar, UAE, Saudi Arabia, etc.) to be targeted in a nuclear exchange scenario ?
  
  What I am basically curious about is a Russian nuclear target list of targets outside of Europe and the US, and specifically for the Middle-East, which I believe is a relevant question since the world powers have now basically converged in the Middle-East.
Band on October 05, 2016 · at 11:37 pm EST/EDT

I think I’d say that systems like the S-300V would give the Russians similar situational awareness as the Americans. Syria is surrounded on three sites by countries that would gladly host radars or share radar info with the Americans. Israel probably has very good radars looking into Syria, and the Americans would certainly be plugged into this. Turkey to the north, and Incirlik airbase in particular probably host very good radars. And the US puppet state of Iraq lies to the west. I believe the US operates airfields in western Iraq, and I’d be surprised if a set of good radars aren’t a part of this setup. And in all three areas, if the Americans felt they had a hole that needed to be plugged, then they could move over the months that this situation has been developing enough mobile radar gear into a temporary setup in Israel, Turkey or govt controlled Iraq.

So, yes, the Americans like their AWACS. But, as you point out with the S-300V, ground based radars can perform such a role as well. Thus, I wouldn’t say that this move of the S-300V gives the Russian superior awareness in the area, but it does put them on a par with the Americans. The one advantage the Americans have is that ground radars in Israel and Turkey are probably immune from attack unless and until this thing really blows up completely into WW3.
- Anonymous on October 06, 2016 · at 6:09 am EST/EDT
  
  @ Band
  
  I presume you missed something. The S300v are a hell lot more than prying eyes.
- Anonymous on October 06, 2016 · at 6:55 am EST/EDT
  
  One should not forget Mt.Trodos (1954 m) just accross Syria and UK bases Akrotiri and Dekhelia. In the early sixties the only threee-dimensional radar covering the ME was there. And Volcano bombers armed with nukes in Akrotiri.
  
  In the meantime the Volcanos have been substituted, as has the radar equipment been upgraded. But they are still there. And if you think that the british (special relatives) will not join in with US, Israel, etc. you are naive. They attacked the Syrian army two weeks ago and bragged about it.
  
  The first official act of war, and no parliamentary discussion and vote. But Saker is right. They do need (the british) a grand false flag desperately. To make it nice and tidy by having “democratic” vote to cover the criminal intent.
  
  Жељко из Крајине
Thiamin on October 05, 2016 · at 11:46 pm EST/EDT

Excellent analysis. I suspect that, as long as Russia is stable financially, it would take a ground invasion to truly break it. This is no easy feat. I dont know if the europeans would accept to go to war against Russia yet again.

For the empire to truly have their way, I feel they will have to invade Russia itself, at some point. By then, it might be too late. The hegemony having decayed beyond repair. The allies having totally lost the will to fight.

This is what I am seeing in the desperation of the west, where the prize is almost at hand but slipping away little by little. So frustrating. The same sort of trap was used to crush many armies in the past. A slow war of attrition against any who covets Russian land.

P.S. ( Unless the Pentagon just wants to have a war just for the sake of keeping their defense budget and making their corporate partners happy.)
Kate Rosser on October 05, 2016 · at 11:50 pm EST/EDT

Hi Saker. Why are you no fan of Trump? What in the world is he doing wrong? I’m baffled. Is there something wrong with supporting Trump? Doesn’t he pretty much offer everything you’ve wanted in the way of foreign policy? Why must he always be vilified, just like Putin is vilified. Is it just perceived as cool to vilify good people? Give me some calm rational reasons please. At any rate, you recognize a Trump victory will probably forestall a US-Russia confrontation. Let’s keep that in the front of our thoughts :))
- Anonymous on October 06, 2016 · at 6:25 am EST/EDT
  
  @ Kate
  
  Maybe because Trump might become CiC and do as told like all CiC before and after. Part of the job description is to hate Russia.
- Anonymous on October 06, 2016 · at 2:39 pm EST/EDT
  
  Kate,
  Trump says two contradictory things (at least). He says that we should strike a deal with Russia, and NATO should pay for itself, but he also says that the US military is falling apart (poverty stricken Air force jets that are suffering from lack of money for maintenance.) If Trump is serious about backing off from Empire, he would talk about “making America great again”, by withdrawing troops from US military bases, and have them rebuild USA’s crumbling infrastructure. He would talk about a massive GI Bill for everybody, to give people the critical thinking and career skills which every success story of poor countries getting rich has done. See Singapore, South Korea, as good examples. He would talk about getting US off dependence on oil, by building a renewable energy infrastructure, so it doesn’t waste its money on bullying countries in the Middle East to sell oil in dollars. Etc. That happens to be the Green Party platform, but who cares about the marginal and irrelevant Green Party, even though their solutions make the most sense? Trump is fundamentally appealing to jingoistic ignoramus sentiments of the rednecks. While Clinton and Obama stupefy the so called Left Liberals with the phony Right to Protect, Humanitarian Intervention myth.
  
  People need to break out of the Republican/Democrat false paradigm, which koolaid the Deep State has been pouring down the people’s throats using arguments that appeal to the obvious racist/nationalistic right and the fake bleeding heart “destroying countries in order to save them rationalization of the so called Liberals.
  - Anonymous on October 14, 2016 · at 1:27 pm EST/EDT
    
    IT is precisely the fact that the american army is overextended that it is super-expensive and deteriorating at the same time. All those bases you mentioned. Plus obama has belittled American prestige in many ways, he’s mothballed the space program, tried to ax the A-10 Thunderbolt, foisted the lead slead aka the f35 on the military etc. America could pull back her forces, retool and stabilise the world all in one congruent policy.
    
    >People need to break out of the Republican/Democrat false paradigm
    
    Which is why Trump staged an insurrection (bigger than cuckSanders [moderator: I had to spell out ‘cuck’ because any censorship would be read as ‘c**k’.) that so many love here. Filthy Commies!) and the ‘Party bosses’ are on the run. TRUMP 2016
Vineyard Moderator - PS on October 05, 2016 · at 11:51 pm EST/EDT

This seems to have gone up quite late on The Duran.

http://theduran.com/us-pentagon-throws-full-support-behind-al-qaeda-syria-exclusion-zones-ready-shot-syrian-russian-planes/

It’s looking very bad.
- Orwell on October 06, 2016 · at 12:08 am EST/EDT
  
  This article is from August 23rd, regarding the Hasakah tensions between SAA and the kurds. Let’s not jump the gun here…
- James lake on October 06, 2016 · at 12:08 am EST/EDT
  
  This is an old link to a story in August a lot has happened since then
- Anon on October 06, 2016 · at 12:49 am EST/EDT
  
  That is an August 23, 2016, article.
Anonymous on October 05, 2016 · at 11:53 pm EST/EDT

The following Pentagon plan from 1992 explains why the US empire is waging war against Russia.

“Excerpts From Pentagon’s Plan: ‘Prevent the Re-Emergence of a New Rival’
…
Our first objective is to prevent the re-emergence of a new rival, either on the territory of the former Soviet Union or elsewhere, that poses a threat on the order of that posed formerly by the Soviet Union. This is a dominant consideration underlying the new regional defense strategy and requires that we endeavor to prevent any hostile power from dominating a region whose resources would, under consolidated control, be sufficient to generate global power.
…
the U.S. must show the leadership necessary to establish and protect a new order that holds the promise of convincing potential competitors that they need not aspire to a greater role or pursue a more aggressive posture to protect their legitimate interests. Second, in the non-defense areas, we must account sufficiently for the interests of the advanced industrial nations to discourage them from challenging our leadership or seeking to overturn the established political and economic order. Finally, we must maintain the mechanisms for deterring potential competitors from even aspiring to a larger regional or global role. An effective reconstitution capability is important here, since it implies that a potential rival could not hope to quickly or easily gain a predominant military position in the world.
…
access to vital raw materials, primarily Persian Gulf oil;”
http://www.nytimes.com/1992/03/08/world/excerpts-from-pentagon-s-plan-prevent-the-re-emergence-of-a-new-rival.html?pagewanted=all&src=pm

In 2009 the EU think tank ISS announced the current war against Russia and the motives for it:
“Hard power politics – Clausewitzian influence over alienated state regimes. Some alien-
ated regimes will still exist in 2020 – the key uncertainty here being the Kremlin. If so, we will need to retain a capability to meet their deliberate challenges to our vision of the world. This will require hard military power, but also an increased focus on asymmetrical forms of destruction, notably in the cybersphere. This is of major concern to the East-
ern members of the EU, and if the ESDP is unable to provide this then they will turn to NATO or directly to the US.”
http://www.iss.europa.eu/uploads/media/What_ambitions_for_European_defence_in_2020.pdf
Kate Rosser on October 06, 2016 · at 12:07 am EST/EDT

To the moderator: I may have made a typo in my last comment. Sites –> sights. Thx. :) The Duran report looks pretty scary.
Stefan Ratkiewicz on October 06, 2016 · at 12:36 am EST/EDT

It’s very simple ,if Syria falls the disease will spread .There are next to no options .The West certainly is not seeking an accommodation to OBOR .So yes the situation will deteriorate. The question is ? What will the Russian Navy do with its Warships basically stuck in the Med. and are the Russians willing to send a squadron or two of MIG 31’S to Iran . Oh by the way ,the S-300 that have been sent to Tartus ,are not for Tartus ,lets be clear about that.
Anon on October 06, 2016 · at 12:47 am EST/EDT

Did you notice how McGovern said that the elephant in the room was Israel, and that no one took up that point? It’s amazing how Israel has American cowed. McGovern, Saker, and Paul Craig Roberts are among the very few with real courage.
Anonymous on October 06, 2016 · at 12:54 am EST/EDT

Dear Saker, what about Gore.?

Are orthodox thinkers blinkered.?
Alexis TK27 on October 06, 2016 · at 12:56 am EST/EDT

Thanks for this informative text, Saker.

Regarding S-300V and generally the S-300/400 series of Russian long range air defence systems, they are surely formidable weapons, but I don’t think they are really a game-changer when it comes to the balance of forces in and around Syria.

Like you reminded several times, the Russian expeditionary force in Syria is small, and US forces could overwhelm it if the US president so decided. That applies to S-300/400 systems.

Long range air defence systems may be able to shoot down cruise missiles, but they can’t shoot down a really large number of them – they may have a few dozens air defence missiles no more, so if the cruise missiles are more numerous, then shooting all of them down is just impossible.

The US have 4 Ohio-modified submarines with 154 Tomahawk missiles each. One of these submarines launching a volley of cruise missiles coordinated to arrive on the objective at the same time would be enough to destroy at least a couple of S-300V systems – and Russia definitely didn’t deploy a large number of these systems, possibly no more than 2 actually. The submarine may e.g. be located in the Red Sea, so that Russian cruisers in the Eastern Mediterranean cannot provide advance warning. And America may also launch cruise missiles in large numbers from B-52s, if more are needed.

Now of course S-300V batteries are mobile… but they need time to move, on the order of several minutes if not more. And they won’t be able to detect the missiles with such an advance warning, if those fly very low. The latest “Block IV” version of Tomahawk incidentally include a degree of in-flight on the spot re-targeting capability, which would make it further difficult for the targeted S-300V system to escape the cruise missile volley.

Finally, the very fact that S-300V batteries include a radar – duh! – makes it obviously very easy to locate them. Take down the radar, and even if a few TEL of the system survive, they won’t be able to do much.

So if the US decided to incapacitate the Russian expeditionary force in Syria, they could do it relatively easily actually. Once the air defence is down, it would be fighter-bombers all over Syria, neutralization of air bases used by Russian fighters and incapacitation or downing of them. And then, without the Russian air force to support them, the Syrian government would find it much more difficult resisting to Jihadists pressure.

—

The two rational reasons not to do that from the US point of view are:

– Internal politics, for the majority of US population would definitely be against “War against a major power? For the sake of Syrians & assorted Jihadists? Are they nuts?” US military losses would risk being significant, and how could the US leadership justify them in front of the population?

– Long term global consequences. At first of course, delivering a military humiliation to Russia might feel very good – Moscow would never escalate to nuclear for the sake of Syrians – however in the long run this would be a sure way to have the Europeans take some distance, the Russians furious possibly in dangerous ways… and above all, to frighten the Chinese for real. The latter would be dangerous for America, because China for the time being is not spending much for its armed forces and they are already a power to be reckoned with… so what if they start spending 5%+ of GDP for defence, like the USA? They would become a military superpower, and Washington would _not_ like that

If rationality is sufficient in Washington, the US will never attack Russian forces in Syria.

The scenario of rationality in DC being sorely wanting is however not excluded. In that case, I agree some sort of false flag would be needed, or invention & distorting like for Racak in Kosovo 1999.

Now is potentially a dangerous time. What if the “October surprise”… was exactly that?
- Passer by on October 06, 2016 · at 2:15 am EST/EDT
  
  Do not forget that russian ships in the area have anti-air capability as well, there is russian aircraft carrier there, plus Russia could target US airbases in the area with Kalibr cruise missiles. Russia could strike US bases in the Persian Gulf from the Caspian Sea. Russian planes could use iranian airfields. The russians threatened that they could kill US forces within Syria. Although the US could definitely destroy the russian contingent in Syria, all of their bases in the Middle East have a big target on them, so they could suffer extremely significant consequences, especially if their ships in the Gulf are hit. Moreover, this could result in Russian cyberattacks that could hit WallStreet and paralyze it.
  
  Then the iranians warned the US not to attack Syria, or this could lead to their defeat. If this happens, 10k US troops in Iraq will be immediately attacked by iraqi millitias and the infamous Moqtada al Sadr. Americans in Iraq and Lebanon will have big targets on them.
  
  There will be big protests by China and other countries for this major US violation of international law. Plus this will ruin the plans of the Europeans for sanctions relief, so they wont be happy. Not to mention that an economic crisis is coming. Deutche Bank, as well as italian banks, are in very bad shape. This could cause negative economic consequences for the entire world.
  
  This could turn very dangerous for the United States, with high risk of escalation, and not just by Russia. Iranians proved that they are not afraid of killing US troops in Iraq. I think that Zakharova said it best – an illegal US attack against Russia and Syria will have tectonic consequences for the region.
- Anonymous on October 06, 2016 · at 2:19 am EST/EDT
  
  “the powerful advisor on foreign affairs to Iran’s Supreme Leader, Ali Akbar Velayati, was pretty much blunt, warning Washington that any direct US intervention would be a “suicidal action” and will only turn out to be “their (American) third military defeat in the region after Afghanistan and Iraq, and it will be a stronger defeat”.
  
  http://russia-insider.com/en/if-russia-wins-aleppo-its-end-american-hegemony-middle-east/ri16842
- Lysander on October 06, 2016 · at 2:33 am EST/EDT
  
  I’m no military expert, but it seems to me Russia is a lot closer to Syria than is the US is and can use plenty of military assets inside Russia to support its forces in Syria. Russia can launch plenty of cruise missiles itself from the Caspian or from Russia and might thus incapacitate US bases in the middle east…assuming hist countries allow the US to use them in the first place which is not a certainty. I don’t think they will be eager to risk even a remote chance of Russian retaliation.
  
  Also, the US can’t guarantee the Russians won’t retaliate by squashing a forward deployed nato base somewhere far from Syria. Exactly like the USSR might have done to west Berlin if the US had invaded Cuba.
  
  Russia definitely does not want to risk nuclear war for the sake of Syria, and rightly so. But at this point, a whole lot more than Syria is at stake. And I’m not sure Russia will accept a humiliation at the hands of the US.
  
  Most definitely, if the US did attack Russian forces openly, I expect the Russian response to be at a level of violence no one would want to imagine.
  
  The question is, what will Russia do if the US simply bombs SAAB forces? Russia will not openly attack US forces. And I don’t know how it would play out if “Syrian” air defenses start downing get US aircraft. That’s where the risk is. It is not clear how far Russia will take that, and what the US will do in response.
  - Tyzzor on October 06, 2016 · at 5:23 am EST/EDT
    
    “Russia definitely does not want to risk nuclear war for the sake of Syria…”
    No..Remenber, Russia is in Syria for Russia’s security, its a bigger vision than just Syria per se …so she will not allow Syria to fall. Russia knows ISIS et al are the mercernary armies of the US et al so there is no way Russia will let it fall. Just watch…
- Anonymous on October 06, 2016 · at 3:07 am EST/EDT
  
  Good points, especially about the long term consequences.
  
  One thing I wonder about: we have numbers for how the Russian expeditionary forces tally, but what about stealth military pieces?
  
  For example, I’m wondering about things like the 3M-54 system: https://youtu.be/mbUU_9bOcnM
  
  These things look like ordinary cargo containers, but they can contain either conventional or nuclear cruise missiles.
  
  Isn’t it possible and indeed likely that the RF has more equipment in Syria than we know about?
- Al on October 09, 2016 · at 4:14 am EST/EDT
  
  One reason for Russia’s cautious approach in Syria could be that they are making maximum use of the opportunity to test their S-300 and S-400 radars against stealthy US aircraft. For all we know the missile systems are a work in progress and they will keep buying time until they are sure they can take out enough USAF planes to deter the US.
natoistan on October 06, 2016 · at 1:05 am EST/EDT

Any feed back from the trip of neocon Nuland in Moscow today?Maybe she was bringing some kind of ultimatum?
The neocons only want Russia to surrender.Don’t forget that they just want to get rid of Putin,they are not going to nuke the country they need it to steal everything after(they believe)Putin is out or dead and a new puppet à la Medvedev will take care of their business…
If I was Russia I would scare the Europeans,who are vassals of their masters of course, but they have no balls at all.They are very divided.But we also need to know that the banksters are planning a financial reset and for that to happen they need a very big diversion like a war(Ukraine is even better for them because a real danger on the EU doorsteps).
Some kind of threat like cutting off the gas(winter is coming).Even for a short time(money lost I know but you need to choose).The German industry would rapidly collapse and almost all nordic and eastern Europe countries as well.
What are the neocons main goals?Qatari pipeline to ruin RF,Greater Israel and or the fall of Putin?
The neocons have zero loyalty to the US in my opinion,they are acting for Israel first(95 pct of them are jews).Some people say they are really looking for armageddon at any price even if they die.
The Messiah will only arrive after both super powers destroy each others and their wet dream of a world gov(with Jerusalem as capital city)will come true.
This is no conspiracy theory some of them are insane enough to believe it.J Attali(former Mitterand/ Sarkozy and still Hollande globalist analyst even said it clearly on French MSM and openly.

”World Government – the noose tightens.”
“We will have a world government, I don’t know whether it will be before or after the Third World War, but we will have one”

This is the prediction of Jacques Attali, our cosmopolitan and inter-planetary pundit, special adviser to our former presidents.

Jacques Attali saying “the ideal use of the city of Jerusalem would be as the planetary capital of a world government”:

https://geostrategieblog.wordpress.com/2015/12/10/world-government-the-noose-tightens/

https://youtu.be/pat53lh0Gp0 (fr)

Syria(which means for them..Israel top priority)is their main goal.Remember when in 2013 Obama did not attack at the very last second and Putin saved his face with the Chemical weapons deal.The neocons never accepted that defeat,this is why the Ukraine followed just after.
They do care more about Syria than about the Ukraine(eventhough they would have liked to have Crimea as bonus).
The decison has already been made to attack and to ‘regime change Assad’ at ANY cost.
You don’t try as hard during 6 years if it is not your main goal.
If Putin is defeated or leave Syria there will be a quick resolution of the Ukrainian problem as it only brings costs for the EU/US/IMF etc…it is just a mean to pressure Russia.
The Ukrop Junta will collapse anyway.
Of course if the Qatari and Saudis win this will be a big revenue source lost for the RF but on a medium term,they have time to find other options.And anyway if Killary is elected she will attack Iran.

New ‘Group Think’ for War with Syria/Russia.

https://consortiumnews.com/2016/10/05/new-group-think-for-war-with-syriarussia/

Exclusive: Official Washington has a new “group think” that is even more dangerous than the one that led to the Iraq War. This one calls for U.S. escalation of conflicts against Syria and nuclear-armed Russia, writes Robert Parry.

By Robert Parry

Not since the eve of the U.S. invasion of Iraq has Official Washington’s political/punditry class clamored more single-mindedly – and openly – for the U.S. government to commit a gross violation of international law, now urging a major military assault on the government of Syria while also escalating tensions with nuclear-armed Russia.

And, like the frenzied war fever of 2002-2003, today’s lawless consensus is operating on a mix of selective, dubious and false information – while excluding from the public debate voices that might dare challenge the prevailing “group think.” It’s as if nothing was learned from the previous disaster in Iraq.

https://consortiumnews.com/2016/10/05/new-group-think-for-war-with-syriarussia/
arminius on October 06, 2016 · at 1:05 am EST/EDT

The risk of nuclear exchange between the Soviet Union and USA during the cold war was rather limited for a simple reason: at that point there was a roughly equal number of Jews living in US and in the Soviet Union ( about 3-4 million on each side); since they occupied key positions in politics and economy in both countries, none of the two parties involved in running the world ( one under the Bolshevik spectrum, the other one under the capitalist one), would have launched nukes on each other.
Now, 30 years past the dissolution of the Soviet Union this major deterrent for nuclear exchange no longer exists. Most Jews have left Russia and other than a small minority of largely assimilate Jews ( no more than 150,000), they have left the country. With virtually no Jew left in Russia, the US cabal would have no restraining factors into harming Russia to the maximum extent possible. That economic ties between the two countries are very limited ( if any at this point) does not help defuse the situation either. This explains the Russian estimation that the risk for a nuclear exchange is real and imminent; hence, the recently ordered emergency drills targeting 40 Million participants. If Hillary wins, I will make contingency plans myself.
- Othmar Regin on October 06, 2016 · at 11:13 am EST/EDT
  
  You have hit the nail on the head there, the real question has always been the “jewish question” as in how many of their own are they prepared to sacrifice to keep their New World Order alive. Putin needs to make it absolutely clear to Israel that in the event of WW3 they will get wiped of the map 1st.
- ioan on October 06, 2016 · at 5:58 pm EST/EDT
  
  natoistan, arminius and Othmar – I agree with you.
James lake on October 06, 2016 · at 1:11 am EST/EDT

The war is being fought on the ground by
The SAA and Iran and Hezbollah.

The talkin the article is all about Russia but you have not addressed the other parties and there views and positions on Syria

They are equally if not more important than Russia and they are fighting the ground war.

Do you have any insight into this
Anonymous on October 06, 2016 · at 1:15 am EST/EDT

Two assurances about Trump:
He voiced today in Henderson Nev. about working with Russia against ISIS.
Even being hit during the debate of VP candidates over his respect of Putin’s strong leadership and popularity in Russia, he went right to it today. Trump wants relationship with Russia to fight terrorism.

Assad? Trump’s position is: a secular dictatorship is what we should have left in Iraq and Libya, and he will leave it in Syria. He does not believe in the Bush democracy crusade. He also does not believe we have any stakes in the ME except defense of Israel and others who pay us to defend them (SA and Gulf States). He does want a relationship with Egypt. He and al Sisi met in NY and they got along well.

I would say that Russia should use Ukraine as strategy against any “war” in Syria with US.
Syria and Ukraine create huge problems for US. This would break the US public backing for anything the US does. It would instantly look like WW3. They want no part of a WW.

Ukraine could be taken as a second front, swiftly sliced into Novorossiya. The nazi battalions destroyed. And a Donbass army doubled or tripled with citizens freed from Mariupol, Odessa and Kharkiv. The RF troops can swiftly leave Ukraine and Novorossiya.

That would put a bigger, wider buffer between Russia and NATO. Also, Belarus and other CIS nations would be at the ready. NATO wants no war. The price to US would be enormous to start anything with RF.
- JJ on October 06, 2016 · at 8:40 am EST/EDT
  
  agreed–ukr forces becoming increasingly more active, Rus has R2P its own cultural peoples….slice of NR to protect it, clearly Minsk is failing has failed, UKr government is failing to implement Minsk and ATO troops and battalions totally ignore the haha ceasefire in Donbass….Minsk will never succeed?-usa will still try to set up everything to accuse Russia, maybe when it is holding currently the Presidency of UNSC……Rus has already “indicated’ it is only in Syria while there is strife, it will leave when all is settled there…..whenever it is settled………….is a different question.
Misza on October 06, 2016 · at 1:24 am EST/EDT

Combined Russian-Chinese (Peace) Forces invited by Assad would put the end to Syrian Conflict, and perhaps saved the World from full blown WW3. I wonder why it has never materialized, you scratch my back I scratch yours.
- Quintus Sertorius on October 06, 2016 · at 5:55 am EST/EDT
  
  Another excellent article, the Saker. Israel and the Western-based Zionist network are the fundamental reason for the United States’ involvement in Syria via Jihadi useful idiots, ‘special ops’ and mercenaries. If Israel wasn’t next to Syria, the CIA and Pentagon wouldn’t have wasted the billions of dollars they have wasted attempting to overthrow Assad’s legitimate, secular government in Syria.
  
  I do think Russia has no choice at this point: they know that the Empire’s end goal is the destruction of the Russian nation, with a war that has already begun on two fronts: Ukraine and Syria, with more fronts waiting to open anywhere on Russia’s European NATO borders. The Zionists completely control the MSM in the West, their unrelenting demonization of Russia and the Assad regime are signs they intend no compromise. I believe that some crazies like Victoria Nuland and her husband somehow believe that the West will win, even after a nuclear holocaust destroys much of Russia and much of the US. Nuland, a key architect in the Maidan coup, is the grand-daughter of Ukrainian Jews. Surely, she would have been told stories in her family of past pogroms against Ukrainian and Russian Jews, real or exaggerated, which accounts, in my view, for much of the Russophobic hatred I have personally witnessed among a number of Jews from Eastern Europe.
  
  When Nuland was deciding with Pyatt, as revealed by the “F*ck the EU” leaked conversation, who would rule in post-coup Ukraine, she knew full-well that some of the new cabinet members of her new government were neo-Nazis, people of the same ideology of those who several generations earlier used to voice an inimical discourse against “her own people.” We even later see photos of Nuland shaking hands with Svoboda members. Now why would she do this? Is she “a self-hating Jew”? I think not. Certainly, she, like other neocons, has a master plan, a long-term vision of revenge, like that of the NED’s Gershon “Ukraine is the biggest prize,” i.e. Trojan horse to the destruction of Russia. Nuland would shake hands with Ukrainian neo-Nazis *only because* the revanchist in her knows/believes that the wresting away of Ukraine away from the Russian sphere of influence is bound, at some point, to lead to a major war, in which many Ukrainians will perish: when Nuland was shaking those Ukrainian neo-Nazi hands, I can imagine she was saying to herself “you fool Nazi trash bag, little do you know that in a few years from now, your country will be torn to pieces, we will entice Ukraine to attack Crimea, commit atrocities against Russians, force Russians to retaliate by invading Ukraine, and then we will have the excuse we need to attack Russia.” Nuland does not “forget and forgive.”
  
  Putin clearly doesn’t want war. But I think he now knows that the Empire is hell-bent on the destruction of Russia. If Russia loses Syria, not only will it make Putin look weak and defeated in the eyes of his own people and the international community, the Empire would then be better able to concentrate its efforts on the next steps of their plan of full-spectrum dominance: either taking out Iran or stirring up a full-out war between Ukraine and Russia, both closer to Russia’s borders. Since the Empire’s end goal is the destruction of Russia, who stands more to gain from buying time? Putin must be asking himself if world war can still be avoided. How he will react to Zionist provocations, false flags in Syria or in the world, open attacks on the Syrian government and Russian army, will depend on whether he thinks there really is a chance of avoiding WWIII. Because if Putin concludes it is inevitable anyway, that NATO will attack Russia in the near future, no matter what Russia does, short of a pledge of submission, then all bets are off. “Why wait” becomes a question to which there is no obvious answer.
  - natoistan on October 06, 2016 · at 9:58 pm EST/EDT
    
    Neocons are fake jews.Real jews are from Palestine and north Africa later.They hate Russia more than anyone else on this planet.
    
    Leaked report: Israel acknowledges Jews in fact Khazars; Secret plan for reverse migration to Ukraine
    
    Only yesterday came news that Syrian rebels plan to give Israel the Golan Heights in exchange for creation of a no-fly zone against the Assad regime. In an even bolder move, it is now revealed, Israel will withdraw its settlers from communities beyond the settlement blocs—and relocate them at least temporarily to Ukraine. Ukraine made this arrangement on the basis of historic ties and in exchange for desperately needed military assistance against Russia. This surprising turn of events had an even more surprising origin: genetics, a field in which Israeli scholars have long excelled.
    A Warlike Turkic People—and a Mystery
    
    It is well known that, sometime in the eighth to ninth centuries, the Khazars, a warlike Turkic people, converted to Judaism and ruled over a vast domain in what became southern Russia and Ukraine. What happened to them after the Russians destroyed that empire around the eleventh century has been a mystery. Many have speculated that the Khazars became the ancestors of Ashkenazi Jews.
    
    http://blogs.timesofisrael.com/leaked-report-israel-acknowledges-jews-in-fact-khazars-secret-plan-for-reverse-migration-to-ukraine/
    
    GOG, MAGOG AND THE
    KINGDOM OF THE KHAZARS
    
    http://www.apfn.org/thewinds/library/khazars.html
Axelin on October 06, 2016 · at 1:40 am EST/EDT

Greetings of Peace-new to your blog-what role -if any would the Chinese play or be playing.So far we have not taken in China?
Jim G on October 06, 2016 · at 1:51 am EST/EDT

Where is the Russian aircraft carrier Admiral Kuznetsov? I thought it was going to be in the “Eastern Mediterranean by now.
- vot tak on October 06, 2016 · at 4:12 am EST/EDT
  
  Jim G
  
  Russia to send aircraft carrier Admiral Kuznetsov to Mediterranean
  
  https://www.rt.com/news/360178-russia-carrier-syria-kuznetsov/
  
  Mid Oct.
Sam on October 06, 2016 · at 2:33 am EST/EDT

Why should the Americans start “paying attention,” when, as you insist, they are so much stronger than the Russians? They will push and push until Russia genuflects before the master. If Russia will never do that, then war is absolutely inevitable.

Moreover, the Americans, as regards the Middle East, are in the hands of the Zionists. McGovern made that very clear on Crosstalk, but no one had the courage to follow-up. As he said, it’s actually the “elephant” (elephants are very big, you know) in the room. The Zionists, both in the US and in Israel will never, never, never give up their intention to destroy the Muslim world and create the conditions for “Greater Israel.” It’s “creative destruction.” Get it through your heads. This is the real power behind the events. Syria must go down, and then it’s Iran’s turn. That is their plan, and has been for decades.
- vot tak on October 06, 2016 · at 3:58 am EST/EDT
  
  Sam
  
  Most definitely israel/zionazis are behind the war against Syria, and ALL of these wars against predominantly Muslim countries. The americans are their cannon fodder. Their big stick.
  - Peter AU on October 06, 2016 · at 7:36 am EST/EDT
    
    “The americans are their cannon fodder”
    
    If the US move to a hot war with Russia this will most likely be the case. The problem is though, Israel relies on the power of the US dollar and the US military. Nuke war means US, Russia, perhaps China and a number of other countries destroyed.
    Are the puppets – the hired help – going out on their own?
Mr Reynard on October 06, 2016 · at 2:36 am EST/EDT

Quote: The main reason why we can expect the Kremlin to try to find asymmetrical options to respond to a US attack is that in the Syrian context Russia is hopelessly outgunned by the US/NATO, at least in quantitative terms. ?? What a lot of hogwash ?? If Russia would be hopelessly out-gunned, then you can be sure & certain that US/NATO troops would be by now in Vladivostok & Khordokovsky would be in Kremlin with Kasparov as PM ??!
Anonymous on October 06, 2016 · at 2:53 am EST/EDT

The US think tank, Atlantic Council, is pushing for the American military to prepare for a major war against a “peer competitor” with ‘levels of violence and death far beyond what has been seen in Iraq, Afghanistan and Syria”:

The “major and deadly” wars to come
http://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2016/10/03/pers-o03.html

America’s aggressive war rampage is nothing more than global genocide disguised behind propaganda deceptions about “defending freedom and democracy.”

The United States is like a rabid beast that is increasingly depraved in its bloodlust.

As such, the American Menace must be “terminated with extreme prejudice.”
dom on October 06, 2016 · at 3:13 am EST/EDT

If War is looking to be about to start between the USA and Russia, Russia must not be hesitant. Go all in conventional with Nuclear on a hair trigger. Then pull that trigger first. The West has gone mad. We, humanity, need a Western Regime change.
- ioan on October 06, 2016 · at 6:16 pm EST/EDT
  
  What about the “chosen people” ?
natoistan on October 06, 2016 · at 3:16 am EST/EDT

Ayrault(french FM)is flying to Moscow this thursday to meet Lavrov.Why?And then as a good US vassal he will fly friday to Washinton to meet warmonger neocon Kerry.
Is it an ultimatum?For those who know the guy(Ayrault)it is funny as he is even weaker than Hollande(yes it is possible).He said today that Putin was a butcher…One year ago poor Holande was rushing to Moscow to form a big coalition with his friend Vlad(after the Paris attack).It did not work more than a few days due to usual US blackmailing.

Imagine that the former FM Fabius famous for his statement ”al nosra does a good job”is on the short list for the Nobel Peace prize.What a joke.France has been sending weapons and money for at least 3 years to Al Nusra according to TH Meyssan.

When there is a US attack usually it is during the sunday to monday night(ME time)before the opening of the markets.Very strange gold lost 6 pct since friday,probably a fed/gs manipulation?
But this collapse is very strange(so fast).The oil is gaining ground(brent at 52 usd).And suddenly the Deutsche bank crisis evaporated from the radar screens.
The US one more time has a very big mean to pressure Merkel (if necessary) with this DB story.
If this too big to fail bank collapse the financial system is done.

Maybe one question for the Saker?Some alternative media talk about the real reason for this current propaganda and russophobia since friday,is that special ops troops are trapped in Aleppo east but not only US ones(uk,french,qatari,saudi etc..so called instructors).They just want to save them for later use.They are talking about 300+ soldiers or agents.Not to count the mercenaries.

Remember in the Donbass the same happended in a cauldron full of special forces and suddenly Merkel and Hollande rushed to Minsk to stop the fighting and later sign Minsk2.
Fidelio's Automata on October 06, 2016 · at 3:26 am EST/EDT

Speaking of horizontal escalation, the propagandists have been chattering on about alleged Russian cyber-attacks on the Empire. I believe most of the stories to be BS, but would if the Russians were to actually do it? A well-planned all-out attack could have a devastating effect on America, forcing it to bring its troops home to restore order. Yet it would also be very risky for Russia; surely the neocons would advocate a nuclear response. Would the sane realists in the American deep state be able to stop them?
vot tak on October 06, 2016 · at 3:39 am EST/EDT

Saker

Excellent analysis. Regarding the S-300, from the following article, it appears the newer S-300V4 version is what got sent.

This is How ‘Extremely Efficient’ S-300 Will Boost Russia’s Defenses in Syria

https://sputniknews.com/military/20161005/1046013786/russia-s300-defense-syria.html

See also:

Russia Deploys S-300 Missile Battery in Syria to Protect Naval Assets

https://sputniknews.com/middleeast/20161004/1045995360/syria-protection-assets-russia.html

Basing the battery in Tartus provides protection for Syria from sea based aircraft and missile attacks coming from the Med., taking advantage of the S-300V4 capabilities against low altitude “sea skimmers”. This negates the usn’s units stationed in the Med. taking advantage of a blind spot in the Russian air defenses that are stationed further inland at the air base, though Russian ships stationed in the eastern Med. already mitigate this somewhat. Obviously the Russians wanted the zionazis to know of the S-300V4 deployment so this would be a deterrent to rational zionazi escalation plans.
- Peter AU on October 06, 2016 · at 5:59 am EST/EDT
  
  VT, do you remember seeing an article in Sputnik some months ago about Russia deploying a new system to protect its SAM sites from swarming missile attacks? From memory the unit consisted of perhaps a hundred short range missiles. This was being deployed alongside the Pantsir’s for protection of the S400 systems in Russia.
ΑΣ on October 06, 2016 · at 4:15 am EST/EDT

Despite what you may think, these people very much care how they are perceived. Especially to their own people. They want to be the heroes of history and must convince the people to see the truth of this. History must be allowed to be presented to show them as the heroes they know they are.

If you look at the previous global conflicts, the official narrative follows this way of thinking, only reluctantly entering the wars after being attacked. If you look at the second war, their involvement was a response to Pearl Harbor. Or so the story goes. Few are aware of the pressure they put on the Japanese, that made the Japanese fear that they would be attacked, and that it would be better for them if they attacked first. Perfect. That was all that was needed. Like a paparazzi hiding in the shadows who manages to capture that bad angle. This is the picture that will be published. This is the picture the justifies them.

Fortunately for for the world today there is more than just the trash tabloids that there used to be. Today it is the responsibility of the good to deny them this justification. They must not be allowed the opportunity to twist reality to conform with their delusions. Lies must be attacked and documented so that they can never be escaped. So that they can never be blotted from history. Perhaps then we will see a return to sanity. Or perhaps then the masks will finally come off.
Arthur Brina on October 06, 2016 · at 5:57 am EST/EDT

Time and Timing are the most relevant factors here. Will the Americans escalate before the election? Or will they wait until after the election?

Obama is leaving office (unless the “unthinkable” gives the “Deep State” a reason to suspend the election). Losing the Syrian civil war is not what he wants to be remembered for.

If his inner circle wants to squash the Russian protege -Assad- like a bug, he would most probably do so before January 20, 2017. If Turkey cannot grant Russia safe passage for its warplanes and missiles over Turkish territory, then Russia cannot provide military cover for Assad for very long, once the attack begins.

So far, Russia has given warnings, not apologies. I expect that Russia is forcing the USA to show its hand and to act first, then to assess the situation afterward.

The Israelis have claimed that they know how to neutralize the S-300/400 detection and targeting systems. If this is true, then the Americans know how to do this as well.Syria would provide an excellent opportunity for both sides to find out.
- Peter AU on October 06, 2016 · at 8:22 am EST/EDT
  
  If the Israeli’s were capable of neutralising the S300/s400 then they would be capable of neutralising an unarmed drone that fluttered over into their air space. Israel has not been burning its bridge with Russia.
  - Arthur G Brina on October 06, 2016 · at 3:43 pm EST/EDT
    
    Yes Peter. But you would be referring to Israel’s own air defense systems. I am referring to the Russian systems.
    
    It is good diplomacy to maintain relations with all sides.
    
    Long before the Jews had a country to call their own, they adroitly conducted affairs with both sides of major conflicts. This was the case during the American Revolution and its Civil War; and also was the case during the Napoleonic wars.
    
    Even during the Cold War period, Israel kept the channels open with the Soviet Union. The Israelis went so far as to help the Iranians maintain their F-4s during the war between Iraq and Iran.
    
    The Jews do not have “friends”. They have “interests”.
    - Peter AU on October 07, 2016 · at 9:44 pm EST/EDT
      
      I was referring to Russian electronics. Russia seems to have an edge in this field but I am not sure how much of an edge.
      It is the advanced electronics in the SAM systems (S-300/S-400) that make them dangerous and difficult to overcome.
BTS on October 06, 2016 · at 5:58 am EST/EDT

@ Saker
“Neocons, who run the White House, Congress and the US corporate media”

Isn’t their power minuscule compared to the generals in the Pentagon who of late have been running the show?

Foremost in their minds are dwindling oil supplies — running on empty in 25 or 50 years. Have they not decided to do what’s good for the military and not what’s good for the people?

The Pentagon loves all the chatter about the powerful Neocons because it takes the spotlight off of them.
Anonymous on October 06, 2016 · at 6:01 am EST/EDT

Next move should definitively be asymmetrical and (for once) inspired by Hollywood: “Shoot the hostage” (Speed 1994).

As quite rightly pointed out, Russia is running out of dilatory moves, short of resorting to hot war with the Financial empire and military associates. International relations should be approached from the same perspective than judicial process: Two sides fighting to create a narrative that will become the truth, even if moral high grounds and human rights have to be trampled in the process.

Russia should remove or incapacitate Assad overtly or covertly. This would create a totally new situation on the ground, essentially freezing US (“The president and the state department are closely monitoring the situation”). A providential Syrian (“a la Abdel Fattah el-Sisi in Egypt”) will be tasked with forming a transitional government. France will provide best hosting and F&B options in an international conference in Paris. China will pledge billions for reconstruction… Business as usual.

KSA, TR and QR will hold their enraged horses for a while (move the terrorists monthly allowances and bonuses to Martian calendar), trying to assess if the new situation can help them stemming the rivers of money.

As the new US administration will find a new situation, the suggested move simply nullifies the choice made by the American people.
- Anonymous on October 06, 2016 · at 6:21 am EST/EDT
  
  “Russia should remove or incapacitate Assad overtly or covertly.”
  
  And, ipso facto, place the Laurel Wreath on the brows of Obama and the Rebels
  
  Bah.
  - Anonymous on October 06, 2016 · at 7:40 am EST/EDT
    
    Would A Pyrrhus victory be a better solution? For Syria? For Russia?
    
    Even if the spin doctors will label this “Eventually, Russia got tired of Assad”, it will still not let chaos prevail and avoid Syria to become another Libya. The real moderate opposition (assuming there is an identifiable one) will be dragged to the negotiation table. Any attempt by other forces to continue fighting can safely be met with extreme ferocity by all the actors, without media interference.
    
    It is all about creating the necessary community of interest for various parties currently at loggerheads, while retaining the control of the situation for which Russia fought, bled and financed.
    Is it that different than to retreat after a battle, dragging the opponent further into your territory, stretching their resources and increasing the cost of continuing the fight? Sounds familiar?
    
    This move would create another situation where the previously aligned parties (QR, KSA, TR) will start focusing on their own beef and, in the process, disband their union. Divide ut regnes.
  - Anonymous on October 06, 2016 · at 8:10 am EST/EDT
    
    Call it a controlled Viktor Fedorovych Yanukovych move…
Richard Steven Hack on October 06, 2016 · at 6:45 am EST/EDT

I think Russia has a couple of options not mentioned in the piece which was concerned with the military options.

First, I suspect that if there is ANY “engagement” with US military forces, i.e., aircraft which is likely to be the first use of force by the US in Syria, Russia will go to the UN Security Council immediately after or during the initial engagement.

It is likely that the US will “test the waters” and not engage in a full-scale military attack on Syria first. This implies a limited engagement between the US and Russia. In fact, it is likely that the US won’t attack Russian assets at all in this case, but instead either bomb Syrian military assets or engage Syrian air force jets. This gives the US a chance to see how Russia will react, and gives Russia time to complain to the UN Security Council, which, again, has SOLE authority of enabling war between countries.

And we know the UNSC will not be able to authorize the US to go to war with Syria without Russia and China – and possibly others – vetoing that authorization.

Not that the US would abide by that veto, of course, but it would put the rest of the world on Russia’s side if it isn’t already – even including the populations of most of the main NATO countries. Roughly the same situation as occurred when Obama threatened war in August, 2013.

Secondly, it is likely that Russia will also “test the waters” before and after any overt US military action against Syria. For instance, Russia could use its radars to “paint” US aircraft as it allegedly did during the attack on Deir Ezzor. It could keep that paint on for as long as possible as US aircraft returned to their bases, giving a clear signal that it was capable of shooting those planes down. Only if US planes continued to engage Syrian military targets would Russia actually shoot one down. Most likely they would send up their air superiority fighters and directly warn the US planes to return to their bases first before either engaging in air combat or using its AA systems to shoot down US planes.

All of this gives Russia time to engage in diplomatic action in the UN and with NATO and regional states – which as we know Russia is very good at doing.

While it is true that the Russian air defense systems could be overwhelmed by cruise missile, that would depend on the US conducting such a massive attack directly against Russian assets either early on or later in a series of escalations. This is unlikely and very dangerous for the US to do as a first step. If they do not do that as a first step, then Russia has time to react, turn everything on, engage in political maneuvering, and prepare their assets for their own massive retaliation on the next engagement as well as fly in new assets even including S-500 systems.

US subs may have many cruise missiles, but I assume Russian subs are in the vicinity as well. It is possible Russia could destroy those subs if an overwhelming cruise missile attack is attempted. Russia also has the ability to destroy from long-range or from subs in the vicinity the US aircraft carriers launching planes and cruise missiles. I would expect this to only occur if full-scale hostilities are clearly occurring. In short, only the first wave of US cruise missiles are likely to get through. The second wave might have a harder time launching from sunken US vessels. However, if the conflict reaches this point, the situation will be VERY dangerous as US response to the loss of thousands of naval personnel from a carrier or even a couple hundred from a sub would probably be severe.

If the US launches a massive cruise missile attack against Syrian military and/or government assets ONLY, then Russia has a much harder decision. If Russia engages the US assets, Russia will be painted as the aggressor against the US. If Russia does not, Syrian assets will be lost. OTOH if Russia only engages the cruise missiles themselves and not the assets launching then, Russia can make the case of “defense only.” This still gives Russia time to react politically and increase its own assets, possibly even flying in more defensive and offensive systems.

Russia also has the option of retaliating in the Ukraine theater AO. Depending on the severity of the situation in Syria, Russia could employ a range of escalations in Ukraine, up to and including taking out the Ukraine government, tit for tat with the US attempt to take out the Assad government, either using Donbass forces reinforced with Russia units or directly using Russian units. The goal here would not be to occupy Ukraine, but to destroy the Ukraine oligarchy, degrade the Ukraine military so it is no longer a threat to Donbass, install a puppet regime, then go home. This would leave Ukraine quiet as a problem for Russia, and allow Russia to deal with the US without worrying about Ukraine. It also gives Russia a bargaining position – give up attacking Syria and we’ll talk about Ukraine.

I have been critical of Russia’s engagement in Syria over recent weeks as being too hesitant. But it is clear from the new deployment of Russian AA systems, as well as the report that Russia will send thousand more Special Forces troops to Syria. that Russia is reacting to the obvious direct threat of the US attacking Syria directly. Russia is upping its game, and the Pentagon may be forced to admit their options are more limited than in 2013. While there are “crazies” in the Pentagon and idiots in the White House, let us hope that cooler heads will prevail.

Nonetheless, as I’ve said before, the US and Israel elites HAVE TO remove Syria as an effective actor militarily in order to enable the preconditions for an Iran war, which is the ultimate goal of both elites – Israel to get Iran off the table and the US to make war profits from a decades-long war with Iran. Russia has become the number one problem for these people – and it’s hard to say how far they will go to remove Russia from Syria.

The important thing is that Russia realize that losing Syria will mean loss of the entire Middle East. Once the Syrian military is destroyed, Israel will attack Hizballah in Lebanon in the Bekaa Valley via Syrian territory. Once that is done, Israel will start a war with Iran and the US will attack Iran in support. It may take years for this scenario to play out, but there is no doubt this is the game plan.

Only Russia can decide whether this outcome is worth risking military engagement and escalation with the US and NATO.
- Anonymous on October 06, 2016 · at 7:12 am EST/EDT
  
  @ It may take years for this scenario to play out,
  
  We can only hope the polar ice caps melt before it plays out
JJ on October 06, 2016 · at 8:06 am EST/EDT

just wondrin…if usa and coalition launches a few or mass cruse missiles…..can Assad request or already has set up an understanding with Rus that those “sources” can be now instantly publicised as war against a sovereign state and instantly be targeted by Rus and or Syria if eg they are located in international waters, or even in another country….would Assad defer to russian military advice-probably-does Syria actually have mutual defence Treaties with Russia…….how would the crazees in UNSC react with yet another illegal war action by USA ie how strong and valid are the current UNSC Syrian resolutions, USA might say situation on the ground has changed they will seek permission later, or they are invoking R2P their own troops located somewhere in the middle east……, are they waiting until Russia’s rotational presidency is finished, who is next in turn……

Turkey has already been told you do not fly without Syrian permission,, so has Israel……just wondrin, wondrin how or where it will all end…………..what else is being set up behind the scenes, but hopefully rus intelligence knows it all………………
Pelle/Swe on October 06, 2016 · at 9:00 am EST/EDT

The White Helmets were founded in collaboration with USAID’s Office of Transitional Initiatives—the wing that has promoted regime change around the world—and have been provided with $23 million in funding from the department. USAID supplies the White Helmets through Chemonics, a for-profit contractor based in Washington DC that has become notorious for wasteful aid imbroglios from Haiti to Afghanistan. While members of the White Helmets have been implicated in atrocities carried out by jihadist rebel groups, the names of many of the firms that supposedly monitor and evaluate their work have been kept secret by USAID on unspecified security grounds.
http://www.alternet.org/grayzone-project/how-white-helmets-became-international-heroes-while-pushing-us-military
_smr on October 06, 2016 · at 9:37 am EST/EDT

Russia’s intervention in Syria was always going to be the game changer.

It took the chicken hawks in Washington DC only twelve months to shake themselves out of their Assad-must-go-Assad-must-go voodoo trance and come to their chicken-senses.

Total war against Russia it will be! On Syrian soil, by the way, just that you know!

On Syrian soil? Honestly?

Putin’s trap is set.
- JJ on October 06, 2016 · at 5:36 pm EST/EDT
  
  Usa saying they know the risks of confrontation with Russia in Syria….means they have risk assessed it, and are willing to sacrifice their assets to impose their will or do something, blame Russia get them out of UN and then run way saying yah boo sucks to you……
Nestorian on October 06, 2016 · at 11:11 am EST/EDT

What a stunning admission we have here by The Saker!

If Russia’s stance is explained by the fact that it is still much weaker than the US, then the US’s stance can only be explained by the fact that it is much stronger than Russia.

How does this power disparity cash out? In the minds of US war planners – and perhaps in reality as well – it cashes out in terms of the notion (or the reality?) that the US possesses the capability of executing a nuclear first strike against Russia, without itself thereby incurring substantial harm.

Or how else is one properly to construe the reality that Russia is much weaker than the US/the US is much stronger than Russia?
- Anonymous on October 06, 2016 · at 1:40 pm EST/EDT
  
  Google “Dead hand” and see what you get.
Delmar Bolshi on October 06, 2016 · at 12:00 pm EST/EDT

I was surprised to see Saker posit this question, even rhetorically:

“Are the Americans crazy enough to risk WWIII to maintain their status as the “world’s indispensable nation”, the “leader of the free world”, the “city on the hill” and all the rest of this imperialistic nonsense?”

Obviously they have been “risking” W3 since 1945…with “gadgets” since Truman threatened the Red Army posted to Iran – when? ’46?, Or even before the Nazi defeat, when Truman abused Molotov in the White House. It can even be argued that W3 began with the Normandy Landings, as these stopped the Red Army from liberating all of Europe… Anyway, war is always with us, whatever the name by which we call it.

Crazy is defined by actions…and the actions are plain to see.

Pax
- Anonymous on October 06, 2016 · at 4:50 pm EST/EDT
  
  Yes, this is true.
  
  America has been risking World War 3 for nearly three-quarters of a century in order to maintain its status as the global overlord… I mean “leader of the free world.”
  
  What do people think a little thing called the Cold War was REALLY about–making the world safe for freedom and democracy?!?
  
  ROFLOL.
  
  The Cold War was about making the world safe … for the American Empire and its global dominance.
  
  This continues today with America’s fake War on Terrorism.
  
  The more things change the more they stay the same.
  - Franz on October 06, 2016 · at 5:43 pm EST/EDT
    
    Both the oringinal post and your reply are excellent in tone and information.
    I took the liberty of removing an acronym as I felt it was not only superfluous but marred your post – mod fk”
Arioch on October 06, 2016 · at 12:34 pm EST/EDT

a somewhat plausible de-escalation scenario is given in The Last Enemy: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Enemy_Papers

However it requires qquite strong pre-conditions:

1) both adversaries grew tired of war, they want to be driven to peace en masse, they agree to surrender initiative in general, but not to the adversary or its advantage. In particular both sides side with and protect their radicals in all cases no matter who was wrong. Persecuting own radicals is seen as weakening oneself thus playing into enemy’s hands.
2) there comes a third party strong enough to claim the initiative and to chase and destroy radicals of both adversaries. The party is strong enough to do it and is strong enough so both adversaries give them a waver for that hunt, rather than protecting their radicals and pushing the third party towards the enemy.
3) the third party manages to state not only unbiased, but not seeking for benefits and profits for itself. It demonstrates will to sacrifice its own lives and well-being less so profits just to squash the fires, never to became the third contender wishing to win the war and rule-them-all.

Given everyone else were bleeding hopelessly for decades it is hypothesized most persons would rather clutch to the straw and give miracle a chance than run deadly circles.
Keith Leal on October 06, 2016 · at 1:44 pm EST/EDT

You say, “…the Neocons might try to rally the nation around the flag, either by staging yet another false flag or by triggering a real international crisis”. This is a good possibility. And knowing the totally dumbed-down nature of the US street folk, would probably work like a charm.
But I still nurse my dream – That the US people will rise as one and cure their own diseases.
- Anonymous on October 06, 2016 · at 3:40 pm EST/EDT
  
  They are rising up, and it’s called “Trumpism”.
  
  It’s not “as one” because the US is deeply divided, but it’s unified enough to be considered an uprising of sorts. The MSM is desperately trying to spin this out of existence, but it’s really happening.
  
  The old saying was “better the devil you know,” but after decades of empire, war, lies, and misery, the new mood seems to be: “better the devil you don’t know.” That is, millions of Americans are ready to vote for Trump, warts and all, because they feel he might actually change something. They may not be tuned into the alt media but they know the US has gone off the rails and a vote for Clinton is just a vote for the status quo.
  
  However, if Trump will really change things (again, it’s hard to say for sure), this means increased pressure on the deep state actors to carry out that false flag or international crisis before he becomes POTUS.
  
  And maybe that’s part of the recent escalation of tension in the ME?
  - A.T. on October 12, 2016 · at 7:37 am EST/EDT
    
    Killary Clinton is not status quo. She represents something far worse.
    
    There seems to be some tension between the Deep State globalists and Deep State American nativists as to who’s really in charge, and Hilary represents the globalists. A President Hilary will give the neocons the keys to the empire and turf the people who built it thinking they were serving themselves and the U.S. and merely using the other forces.
    
    http://www.thedailybell.com/news-analysis/disgraceful-debate/
Anonymous on October 06, 2016 · at 2:08 pm EST/EDT

Russian warning of planned major zionazi escalation in Syria. Very importsnt development.

Intel Suggests CIA, Pentagon Behind Media Leaks About US Strikes on Syrian Army

https://sputniknews.com/news/20161006/1046061966/cia-pentagon-strikes-syrian-army.html

“Russian Defense Ministry believes that the leaks to the media about possible US strikes on the Syrian army could be a preface to real action, spokesman Maj. Gen. Igor Konashenkov said.

“A number of Western media outlets have published “leaks” about the talks held in the White House administration about the possibility to hold missile and airstrikes on the positions of the Syrian army,” Konashenkov said. “As history has shown, such “leaks” often prove to be a preface to real action.”

“I point out to all the ‘hotheads’ that following the September 17 coalition airstrike on the Syrian Army in Deir ez-Zor we took all necessary measures to exclude any similar ‘accidents’ happening to Russian forces in Syria,” Konashenkov said.

Konashenkov also said that any missile or air strike on the territories controlled by the Syrian government, would pose clear threat to Russian military personnel.

“Today, the majority of Russian officers from the Russian Centre for reconciliation of opposing sides in the Syrian Arab Republic, are working on the ground, providing humanitarian help and holding talks with the leaders of local communities and militia units in the majority of Syrian provinces.”

He commented further that “Russian S-300, S-400 air defense systems deployed in Syria’s Hmeymim and Tartus have combat ranges that may surprise any unidentified airborne targets. Operators of Russian air defense systems won’t have time to identify the origin of airstrikes, and the response will be immediate. Any illusions about “invisible” jets will inevitably be crushed by disappointing reality.”

K is not screwing around, I hope the few rational leaders left in zionazis are listening and reign in their neocon kids.
- teranam13 on October 06, 2016 · at 2:53 pm EST/EDT
  
  @ anonymous @ 2:08 10/6/16… oh yes…this should be headlined all over the world. The worm has turned and it has teeth, international law on its side, position, Iskander missiles etc. and the will to win.
  
  These are dangerous times.
- vot tak on October 06, 2016 · at 3:06 pm EST/EDT
  
  Scott & Herb
  
  This kind of warning from the Russians is VERY unusual. I think they are expecting these attacks to begin in the next couple of days. With hurricane Mathew hitting Florida friday-sunday, a zionazi blitz over the weekend would be their style.
  
  Remember how the sods arranged their attack on South Ossetia during the 2008 Olympics? They used the Olympics as a cover for their initial attack, then belatedly covered the war after the Russian counterattack. I think they will try to do the same in Syria this weekend, using hurricane Mathew attention as a cover for their initial attack, which won’t be reported in the media. They will portray Russian defensive measures as offensive, then escalate to much greater aggression.
  
  Whatever the zionazis got planned, I think the Russians expect major trouble the next few days. It might be useful to create a new blog entry about this so people can follow these developments easier and keep each other informed as it goes down.
  - Vineyard Moderator - H.S. on October 06, 2016 · at 3:12 pm EST/EDT
    
    Got your message … good idea … will implement when needed … mod-hs
- JJ on October 06, 2016 · at 4:05 pm EST/EDT
  
  Al-Qaeda is plotting terror attacks in Britain and Europe and is just ‘biding its time’ waiting for ISIS to collapse, reveals Defence Secretary Michael Fallon
  Fallon said Al-Qaeda posed a ‘very direct threat’ to the UK and Europe
  New charge of terror is believed to be led by Osama bin Laden’s son
  He has recently issued audio messages aimed at challenging ISIS’ hold
  By SARAH DEAN FOR MAILONLINE
  PUBLISHED: 08:51, 6 October 2016 | UPDATED: 16:08, 6 October 2016
  
  Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3824671/Al-Qaeda-plotting-terror-attacks-Britain-Europe-just-biding-time-waiting-ISIS-collapse-reveals-Defence-Secretary-Michael-Fallon.html#ixzz4MJyK5wiG
  Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook
  
  probably why usa coalition and europe does not want Syrian settlement to take place—-to keep it all going over there, over there, over there……..mind you Mogherini met someone the other day…..
  ah yes
  
  MOSCOW, October 3./TASS/. Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov and EU foreign policy chief Frederica Mogherini confirmed on Monday that the Syrian settlement must proceed without unilateral preconditions, the Russian Foreign Ministry reports after a telephone conversation of the two diplomats.
  “The Syrian issue was discussed in the conversation,” it said.
  “The sides confirmed that each direction in efforts towards the Syrian settlement – ensuring the ceasefire, expanding humanitarian access and launching a political process – must be effected, as it is envisaged in UN Security resolutions, without unilateral preconditions and attempts to condition progress in one sphere on progress in another,” it said.
  
  ie Eu saying someone else can sort it all out but it ain’t me says EU, we are way out of our depth , on a long leash from our usa masters but still on a leash and bound up in our naivity?????
Delmar Bolshi on October 06, 2016 · at 4:00 pm EST/EDT

Not all delusions cause conflict, and conflict, in the sense of “natural” conflict, occurs without will, but the the matter of human conflict depends absolutely on delusion. This is to say an a-priori conceptualization of objective reality that is incoherent or simply false is prerequisite to an Nth conflict event.

Avoiding conflict or impedance of conflict is, thus, achieved through the agency of knowledge, knowing “yourself” and knowing your opponent, if there is one, as well as knowing the environment. Sun Tsu tells us this obvious truth…

Many may mourn the evident fact that belief systems not in accord with reality are among the most
obdurate of human qualities and that cognitive dissonance often presages the most truculent and irrational states and actions when the diseased persons “bang into” reality. This is so profound that they generally keep on banging for a while, over and over, unwilling to accept that their own delusions are, in fact, delusions.

The fine fellas in the celestial regions of Empire are obviously delusional…they’ve been banging along for some time now, louder and louder…

This has certain implications.

Options are mooted in the post. To these one might comment that effective strategy is almost always indirect. (Liddell Hart)

That’s the map. So while we wait…here’s Pete!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=24VOo7-ctKU

Pax.
Jean de Peyrelongue on October 06, 2016 · at 4:12 pm EST/EDT

What the Saker is saying sounds very rationale.
What worries me is my understanding that the people’s majority in the US believes that their country is protected by the Antlantic and the Pacific Oceans. If a war with Russia should occur , it would happen in Europe as usual.
The US might loose some military bases in Europe or in Central Asia but it sounds like a minimum damage for the US.
I think that the US people are pretty confident in their anti-ballistic system so they do not seem to be afraid of a war with Russia. They are convinced that they would win the war.
This confidence level in the US system is what worries me because war is not for them, the end of the world but just another way of playing the game.
In Europe, people are not waking up to the risk induced. The European leaders are under Washington’s control and the will probably quit the boat as soon as the war will start to manage the war fron the US soil.
vot tak on October 06, 2016 · at 4:21 pm EST/EDT

RT also headlining the Russian warning:

‘S-300, S-400 air defenses in place’: Russian MoD warns US-led coalition not to strike Syrian army

https://www.rt.com/news/361800-russia-syria-usa-aistrikes/

The zionazis are so excited at the prospect of fresh, innocent blood to feed upon, they are already having their quislings propose new sanctions.

Germany considering European sanctions against Russia over actions in Syria – report

https://www.rt.com/news/361772-germany-sanctions-russia-syria/

That putrid sow merkel never fails her israeli-american massas.
joe on October 06, 2016 · at 4:48 pm EST/EDT

“Russia is still weaker than the USA”…. And these assuptions are based on the fact that Russia still does not want war? That tells that the western world does not understand the Russian character..The Russians went through the WWII at home ;the US did not. Pride always precedes fall..The American people do not have anything to do with the globalist’s war.Is those idiots’ and their sympathizers war only.In case of a broader war the American people we’ll go against the globalists…
JJ on October 06, 2016 · at 5:05 pm EST/EDT

Breaking…RT news… Russia defence ministry …we will shoot down any perceived threat in Syria…..the General in charge emphasis the range of their missiles, and that there may not be time to distinguish friend from foe…….
- ioan on October 06, 2016 · at 6:41 pm EST/EDT
  
  I was watching the RT and CNN almost all day. This is a clear statement by the Russian Defense Ministry. What will mean that is obvious, there will be no back track from Russia this time. I wonder if this statement will be true if in case Israel will launch an attack as before against the Syrian troops with his air-force.
S113 on October 06, 2016 · at 5:12 pm EST/EDT

To me, it looks like the Canadian government is coming under heavy pressure to support further military action against Russia. It is worrisome.

In response, Canada’s government seems to be implementing some deterrence by denial, and delay. This response follows a similar pattern to the NATO Warsaw Convention in the summer. Not during the Warsaw talks, but after, when that crazy plane hijacking took place here and so on.

First, Canada’s PM Trudeau pulls a “look, over here, shiny object!” to the Canadian public. In the summer, it was the announcement of a new Child Tax Credit (“find out how much you will receive!”). This time, it’s a revamped Canada Pension Plan (“find out how much you will receive!”)

National Defence Minister Sajjan had my undivided attention during this tense time in the summer. I remember this tweet from him, at a critical time, enjoying a pleasant dinner with a visiting Bollywood actor. (me: what? After reading Saker’s analysis, this makes more sense). This is accompanied by assigning much of Canada’s military hardware to other tasks, like maintenance (“sorry, NATO, we’d love to help you start WWIII, but all our submarines are in the shop”). Today, Canada’s Armed Forces sent three of Canada’s warships to participate in Operation CARIBBE, a multinational campaign against illicit trafficking in the Eastern Pacific Ocean and Caribbean.

The response to the war hawks is restricted to Canada’s Global Affairs department. Foreign Minister Dion released a statement on Tuesday, “Canada denounces Russian support for ongoing attacks of medical facilities in Syria.” This is the first statement he’s made in a while, in which he blatantly points to Russia like that. Previous ones were much more non-specific (or diplomatic, I suppose!) in wording. So I assume he is adopting the more aggressive tone to satisfy someone else.

The same day the government informed all Canadians that they now have finalized an agreement on a stronger Canada Pension Plan.

The Armed Forces gave an update on Wednesday about Canada’s fight against DAESH in Iraq (they use the term, DAESH), but I haven’t found the media coverage of it yet. Tense times.
- SanctuaryOne on October 06, 2016 · at 7:02 pm EST/EDT
  
  Remember that Canada was one of three countries (USA, Ukraine) to vote against the UN resolution against ‘Glorification of Naziism’. Supposedly because of something to do with ant-semitic outcomes which is ironic because Israel voted for the resolution.
  
  If it didn’t like the wording, Canada could have abstained as did 55 other countries but it seems in bondage to its minority Ukrainian population and their descendants. Canada has adopted ‘highly-visible’ vassal status to the Hegemon.
  
  Handmaiden to the barbarian, Trudeau junior holds tightly on to the apron strings of his Hegemon and while thus protected feels safe to taunt Russia.
  
  Trudeau senior must be rolling in his grave.
  - Franz on October 06, 2016 · at 7:19 pm EST/EDT
    
    Canada also likely supplied the murder weapons which were used on the Maidan. The question of a shipment of smooth bore rifles (forensics cannot trace the rounds) from the Harper Government to persons unknown in The Ukraine (not to the legitimate Yanukovych government) was shamefully hushed up.
    It is also known that Canada allowed the use of its embassy in Kiev as a command and control center for the CIA-induced fake ‘uprising’ but very real coup d’etat.
    
    Prime Minister Hairdo shows little signs of being the son of Pierre. And given his mothers antics as a rock and roll groupie while married, there is little wonder.
    Many of us knew that Canada was finished as a soveregin and non-Fascist state when the University of Toronto suddenly was endowed with a Chair of Ukrainian Studies.
- S113 on October 06, 2016 · at 8:35 pm EST/EDT
  
  This just in: Prime Minister of France to visit Canada, arriving Oct. 12
  http://pm.gc.ca/eng/news/2016/10/06/prime-minister-france-visit-canada
  
  Is this related to possible NATO action? Or just coincidence?
  - S113 on October 07, 2016 · at 1:18 am EST/EDT
    
    Oct. 6, evening – PM Trudeau meets with World Jewish Congress President, Ronald S. Lauder.
    
    Through the PM’s website, I signed up to receive his itinerary by email everyday. This meeting was not scheduled on his itinerary for today.
    - S113 on October 07, 2016 · at 4:50 pm EST/EDT
      
      Also on Oct. 6th:
      
      “Ministers Dion and Sajjan meet with US special envoy for Global Coalition to Counter ISIL”
      
      http://news.gc.ca/web/article-en.do?mthd=index&crtr.page=2&nid=1134179
      
      Meeting was held in Ottawa. Which is becoming quite a popular destination! Usually our reps travel to the other NATO nations, don’t they?
      - S113 on October 07, 2016 · at 7:32 pm EST/EDT
        
        One further Canadian warship update: HMCS Charlottetown, currently assigned to Central/Eastern Europe since NATO gathered in Warsaw in July, is going to train off the coast of Scotland, Oct. 9 – 20, during Exercise JOINT WARRIER.
        
        http://news.gc.ca/web/article-en.do?mthd=index&crtr.page=1&nid=1134739
        
        I don’t know what all this warship movement means. But I pass it along for the Sakers and Auslanders among us, who probably do know what this means.
        
        A.T. on October 12, 2016 · at 4:40 am EST/EDT
        
        Uh, you don’t have to be a military analyst like the Saker to know, it means nothing.
        
        http://www.cgai.ca/canadas_hidden_plan_for_predicted_failure
        
        Its no big secret. The Canadian navy was reduced to a coastal navy with the retirement of its command destroyers and supply vessels.
        
        http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/navy-tough-decisions-1.3649643
        
        The remaining jewels of Maritime Command, the Halifax class frigates, are plagued with minor problems like mould in the ventilation even after a successful modernization program. They are stopgap vessels pending replacement by what are so far, fantasy warships.
        
        http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canadian-frigates-mouldy-1.3685779
        
        http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/modernizing-canadas-halifax-class-frigates-05062/
        
        Canada has also lost the capacity to build warships. None of her domestic shipyards can build new warships without major upgrades. It doesn’t help that the system has Americanized, becoming more about splashing cash than building anything useful.
        
        http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/warship-cost-contract-signed-1.3601839
        
        To fight a real global war, logistics at sea are paramount. Loaners and civilian conversions are hardly going to cut it.
        
        http://ottawacitizen.com/news/national/defence-watch/chilean-navy-supply-ship-arrives-in-esquimalt-to-provide-support-to-royal-canadian-navy
        
        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MS_Asterix
        
        Appropriately, the pending supply ship conversion was named after a scrappy little cartoon character…
        
        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asterix
        
        Real warfighting is no cartoon. Canada is no more prepared for real war than Europe. Perhaps even less so.
        
        Harjit Singh may have been a competent soldier and be an OK defense Minister, but realistically, a visible minority would not rise to a prominent cabinet post in Canada if that post carried any real weight. It doesn’t; that plans to combine the U.S. and Canadian militaries were even considered, indicates Canada no longer has an independent military.
        
        http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canada-election-2015-military-integration-canada-us-1.3248594
        
        In terms of intel Canada can pull its weight as one of the ‘Five Eyes’, if only because the Canadian brand still inspires a default level of trust and gathering intel is far more affordable than warfighting machines.
        
        If the entire Canadian Navy were composed of three or four Protecteurs in their prime and two Halifax escorts for each, a Canadian contribution would be useful. An unsupported frigate is just another large (if photogenic) mouth to feed for someone else’s logistics train.
        
        Anonymous on October 12, 2016 · at 1:42 pm EST/EDT
        
        A.T., I thought it might indicate that NATO is looking for warships (not US). For some reason.
        
        A.T. on October 18, 2016 · at 8:39 am EST/EDT
        
        The U.S./NATO has no shortage of fighting ships; Canada’s traditional edge in training is constrained by limited materiale resources.
        
        They’re looking for political support, but the quality of Canada’s support is proportional to the degree of its genuine independence. Once upon the time, a moral stand by Canada backed by a warship might have meant something more than its militarily significance because it was an independent position reflective of its people.
        
        Canada today is not the Canada of PM Pierre Trudeau in the ’70’s. When PM Brian Mulroney sold out Canadian interests to American, the quality of the Canadian brand took a huge qualitative hit and has never stopped bleeding moral meaning.
        
        There is significant popular support for the BDS movement, for example. You’d never notice from the stance of any of the elected political parties. The A-Zs have no problem putting the slapdown on that, even demonstrating is political capital on the irrelevant Green Party, which is little more than the personality cult of Elizabeth May.
        
        http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/elizabeth-may-green-party-leadership-1.3728225
        
        One frigate in the last stage of its operational lifespan and the political support of an A-Z dominated Canadian government is meaningless in geopolitical gamesmanship.
        
        Do Canadians want war? No. Does the Canadian government care? Not really. Do The People care that the government doesn’t care? Not really. The informed apathy is resounding.
lb on October 06, 2016 · at 5:14 pm EST/EDT

i am a lucid dreamer for the ones familiar with the concept..plus, on occasions i get to enjoy prophetic visions -all within my “dream state”, while i keep my daytime consciousness intact..rather than bore you any further with how the visions appear, i’ll just say that last night one of those came and it was a larg blod in the sky with PanAm written on it which got DESTROYED. “destroyed ” was the main message and i stood there in awe..not just me, many otner people were present to witness it too.
the skies were blue and it can’t have been seen clearer.

when i got back to this dimension so to speak, when i woke up, i did not take long to decifer PanAm.. from what i recall, PanAm stands for pan-american.

personally , i have no doubt in my mind about how this will eventuate..i’ve had other similar visions, though not often.. and not often as strong and clear . it usually takes somewhat longer to understand.
- Franz on October 06, 2016 · at 6:11 pm EST/EDT
  
  “Empire follows art, and not vice-versa.” – William Blake or “Reality follows dreams and not vice-versa”.
- mikael on October 07, 2016 · at 9:02 pm EST/EDT
  
  I had the exact same dream/vision flash my self, I ges we where there, on an high peak of an mountain, the image was what you persived, crystal clear, I can close my eyes and see it.
  
  peace
  - lb on October 09, 2016 · at 6:11 pm EST/EDT
    
    hi mikael
    in case you are revisiting, could you remember what emotion surrounded your flash vision? is there anything else you can remember or describe?
    From my end, i agree with your perception, it was a high ground with lush vegetation around, though not sure if it was a mountain.
    Among the people witnessing, there was no fear or joy but the sense of mindfulness as if there was still things to be careful of, but overall, it was peaceful with no surrounding devastation…all was at peace, except for that blob in the sky which was being eaten away, eroded, by some black mass i.e destroyed..pan-Am was being destroyed with no debris falling on the ground/onlookers.
    
    i was awe stricken at the sight, but collected and serene..
- JJ on October 08, 2016 · at 12:57 pm EST/EDT
  
  Hmmm…usa been flying too high gonna crash and burn..go down the pan.
  ?
Carlos on October 06, 2016 · at 5:17 pm EST/EDT

Its not really as simple as that theres already a pressident of a leader that militarily lost to NATO and limped on to be overthrown and then sent to the hauge before dying in jail.

The Russian public wont support a leader that didnt retaliate and looses face. That means a coup, death or / jail maybe both.

If he retaliates in a half hearted manner that means death by a 1000 cuts saddam hussain style as russia is thrown out of swift and just about every international org thats dominated by the US. ( imagine putin turning up at the G20 after hitting a US base)

This would lead again to the first scenario of an eventual coup and possible death /jail.

So for putin it really is back to the wall shit or bust.
JJ on October 06, 2016 · at 5:22 pm EST/EDT

Full hybrid war…?! USA announces that Russia and Syria may face, by multilateral means, additional “costs” (whatever they may be) sanctions etc without UN approval… note Germany may be imposing more sanctions, yet Russia is re-setting up its PACE group… I would not bother, tovaritch.
- Anonymous on October 06, 2016 · at 6:28 pm EST/EDT
  
  @JJ
  if they continue on this path, there would not be much for the UN, US, EU to set up anything..sir/madam
natoistan on October 06, 2016 · at 5:42 pm EST/EDT

Angela Merkel pledges allegiance to Al Qaeda and ISIS. Wants EU to impose more sanctions on Russia.

Wall Street Journal reports that a push to place more EU sanctions on Russia is being considered in Germany due to Russia’s actions in Syria.

http://theduran.com/angela-merkel-pledges-allegiance-al-qaeda-isis-wants-eu-impose-sanctions-russia/
- ioan on October 06, 2016 · at 7:03 pm EST/EDT
  
  The Germans are drinking their beer and having their fest
  While Merkel is barking on command and doing her “best”
  By bringing her own people to more stupidity knowing this,
  Giving them feasts of war, like an evil, deadly, poison kiss !
  The Germans are drinking their beer and having their fest
  But they don’t have peace and they won’t get their rest
  While sleeping the all day long as a brain death with beer
  Soon will come that day, when they will not sing and cheer.
  - Franz on October 06, 2016 · at 7:20 pm EST/EDT
    
    Bravo!
ActivePatriot on October 06, 2016 · at 6:28 pm EST/EDT

Excellent insights and analysis by many here.

What was little discussed is Iran, Turkey and Iraq roles where there to be military action against Syrian troops initiated by US.

Iran
Feedback from people on their possible response? In my opinion they have as much or more commitment to Syrian mutual defense by their defense treaty than does Russia. A US direct attack on Syrian troops obligates Iran to assist in their defense. How that takes form is the question. Strait of Hormuz would be my target if I were an Irianian war planner. Very quickly spreads American regional assets. Less likely option is for full blown Hezbolla attack on Israel but doubt that very much since US would definitely go all in for that.

Turkey
Russian retaliation to US strike triggers NATO mutual defense treaty and shuts down supply to Syria from Black Sea. In my opinion, this is what makes the US threat of military strike the most credible and is one of the main objectives in this latest escalation. This route getting shut down makes Syrian operation 4× more difficult and expensive overnight. Will Turkey do it? I think they will. If Russia takes measures to keep it open, this opens another front. What would Erdo do? Man, I can’t read that guy and have no idea. I don’t see him turning away from Nato though, doing just enough to maintain that relationship and no more.

Iraq,
Because of the Turkey situation above, Iraq is one of the most critical pieces of the puzzle. US assets there but, I would not say they are not completely counted in America’s bag. Obviously Irianian fighters/equipment traverse across Iraq to support Syria. US airpower could close this route. Iraq is turning away from US but not completely there yet and does not have enough strength to control its own airspace. I could see US success in Syria leading to ultimate full loss of Iraq in its sphere of influence.
- Franz on October 06, 2016 · at 7:02 pm EST/EDT
  
  It would be good if Israel knew that it was last, but not least, on many ‘little lists’.
  Since most of the ‘crazies in the basement’ in Washington are Israelis at heart if not overtly, the change in US bellicosity would be instant.
natoistan on October 06, 2016 · at 6:33 pm EST/EDT

Imagine if Russia had a less moderate leader than Vladimir Putin…

…First of all due to the terrorist attacks and outright war on the people of Donbass, one might imagine a less restrained Russian leader declaring war on the illegitimate government in Kiev.

The war would be won by Russia in less than a fortnight and Russian tanks could well remain on the border with Poland for years to come as a precautionary measure.

The fascist coup leaders in Kiev could well face a Nuremberg style trial for their very real crimes against humanity. Simultaneously, the legitimately elected/illegally ousted Viktor Yanukovych would be brought back to power.

Because of the EU’s hostile policies towards Russia, including sanctions, a leader less far sighted and calm than President Putin might well ban all European products from import into the Russian Federation.

He would also ban all European air traffic from Russian airspace and would seize the assets of European companies in Russia.

Of course there would be short term economic hardship due to this, but a President less inclined to build bridges than Vladimir Putin wouldn’t care and would simply double up trade with China, India and the large South America countries.

If Russia had a less forgiving leader than Vladimir Putin, such a Russian leader would demand that ‘Erdogan must go’ at every world forum and might even try to sabotage the Turkish government, employing the methods by which the destabilises states it doesn’t like…

http://theduran.com/imagine-russia-had-less-moderate-leader-than-vladimir-putin/
- Franz on October 06, 2016 · at 7:04 pm EST/EDT
  
  I think that the leaders of the CIA-installed junta in Kiev would need too many troops to protect them from Ukrainians.
  They should probably just be tossed to them for their swift and richly earned ‘justice’.
Occams on October 06, 2016 · at 6:41 pm EST/EDT

The “Russia is weaker than the US” is a bit questionable, since, in a verified report, Pentagon generals met with Obama and told him, without question, “America cannot win a war against Russia”, and Russia has demonstrated some uncomfortable assets, like the Donald Cook incident.

As far as “Americans better start paying attention”?

Hah! We’re ‘exceptional’, and live by the core-belief; “If it’s not happening to [me], then it’s not happening”.

On my local page of Craigslist’s Rants & Raves, the HUGE concern is the mayor’s sudden support of a new, mega-millions stadium for a mediocre football team – paid for by the tax payers. THAT…..is what most concerns the ‘Amerikans’ in my city.
ActivePatriot on October 06, 2016 · at 6:42 pm EST/EDT

Keeping with theme

China
I expect them to do what is in their best intersts. Which is stay out of it and make moeny rebuilding stuff afterwards. Syria is not of direct strategic interest to them to the point of supporting direct military confrontation. Expect them to take advantage of distraction of conflict to advance interests in other areas. Basically sit on the side and let a rash young empire collapse upon itself and fade into the pages of history.
JJ on October 06, 2016 · at 6:48 pm EST/EDT

Russia insider is carrying an article re white helmets and supporters, I propose these are a suitable case for treatment by Russia.
JJ on October 06, 2016 · at 7:04 pm EST/EDT

Lavrov saying Kerry has never mentioned with him re military solution in Syria…..is he calling his bluff, calling him out, and if so….exposing exactly who is or is not in charge, if anyone actually has any? kind of responsibility?? with in usa regarding Syria, via, white house and pentagon and military???????
Carmel by the Sea on October 06, 2016 · at 7:14 pm EST/EDT

Breaking News:
Russia’s Defense Ministry

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=EQ0cTxABUY8

What he is saying is : ” We ain’t playing”.
natoistan on October 06, 2016 · at 7:27 pm EST/EDT

The showdown

by Thierry Meyssan

For Thierry Meyssan, the Syrian conflict can escalate at any moment in World War III. The US is no longer able to meet their commitments, as seen with the agreement of Eid, but do not want abandoning its objective (preventing the development of China and Russia to maintain a unipolar world order). Moscow and Beijing, meanwhile, believe to be now in a strong position. We are approaching the key moment to overthrow the world order or nuclear war.

Moscow has never believed in the sincerity of Washington. However, since June 30, 2012, it has continued to chain agreements never held. He does not consider the United States as the master of the world, but as a declining empire. Aware of the enormous military power of the Pentagon, including nuclear, it means gently bring Washington to the cemetery, avoiding it bristled and triggers World War.

Not leading to the United States not to sign the cessation of hostilities of the Eid in Syria, Russia intended to limit the options a bit more of his “partner”. In fact, despite its soothing declarations, Washington has not been able to separate any “moderate” “extremists”. However, the agreement provided that moderate appointed by John Kerry would be integrated into control device against the jihadists and would be included in the national unity government of President Bashar Assad [1]. Washington has only two options: either to withdraw from the Syrian conflict, or get in front war against Russia, globally.

Washington then released selected excerpts from a discussion between John Kerry and representatives of the opposition Syrian salon, allegedly recorded “unwittingly” on 22 September in New York. [2] We hear the Secretary of State deplore the US Congress refuses to send men to overthrow the Syrian Arab Republic and adviser for opponents to find another military power to do the job for them and bring them to power. The new sponsor could be that the alliance already in place in Saudi Arabia, Israel, Jordan, Qatar and Turkey. In other words, Washington renounces war, but nothing really changes on the ground. It continues under the sole responsibility of his vassals.

For its part, away from fear itself showdown, Russia maintains its claims in Syria and has secretly deployed militarily in Yemen during the summer. Saturday, she fired a ground-sea missile on the HSV-2 Swift, catamaran-piercing waves of the UAE army and destroyed. Although Atlantist according to press reports, the missile was fired by the Houthis and the Navy’s flagship UAE would have been only damaged, facts are stubborn. The message was addressed to both NATO and the petro-dictatorships of the Gulf: general war is possible and Moscow will not leak.

Washington does not react to the incident and Yemen relies on his vassals.

Whereas the litigation is not limited to Syria, but the problems are mounting for years, Moscow believes that the Third World War has already started even if it only holds a limited territory, Syria. For five years, 129 States and 16 international organizations support the United States against Syria, Algeria, Iran, Russia, China and North Korea. Putin dismisses Russian-USA agreement on the limitation of military plutonium; a decision that appears to nuclear deterrence. Filing a bill in the Duma, he asks that the agreement on the plutonium will be restored when Washington will keep its promises: removal of weapons installed by NATO in former Soviet states, repeal of anti-Russian sanctions accumulating since the Magnitsky Act until coup in Kiev; all claims that take us 15 years back.

Washington believed he could limit Russian space and influence; he could promise not to take and send apologies. This was true during the collapse of the USSR. It is no longer today.

google translated from

http://www.voltairenet.org/article193544.html
ActivePatriot on October 06, 2016 · at 7:34 pm EST/EDT

Contd..

United States
The unkowns determine the level of commitment to a strike against Syrian troops.

Election – the more likely Trump is to win the election, the more likely it is that the US will strike taking the decision from Trump and handing him a war to manage with US casualties dumbass Americans will want to avenge.

Rumored US advisors trapped in Aleppo – If rumors are true and there are US troops embedded in Aleppo in danger of being killed/captured then I can realistically see US conducting airstrikes followed by spec ops to extract them. Exposure of captured US troops embedded with terrorists is too big of issue to go under radar and expect Americans and world to turn a blind eye to. What I find a bit off on this scenario is why the US has not brokered some type of agreement with Russia on their safe passage out. If the scenario is true and Russia has refused to allow safe passage out that is an indication to how hot this war and Aleppo truly is. I personally thought the last truce and safe zones for exit of “civilians” was set up to let Americans withdraw. If true and Americans did not withdraw then it shows how critical Aleppo is to US plans. Aleppo is won by Syria short of US airstrikes.

Overall committment – I think we have all seen enough to know that US is as committed to its objective in Syria as Russia is. This is the hot front of a global war for power not going away. Neither side feels they can afford to lose this and i don’t know how it will be won in the end nor by who.

If any of the above are true – If the US strikes before the election, it means that they have judged that despite all efforts Trump will win November election. If no strike before it means they are still holding out hope HRC will win or they are stealing election. It Trump wins and there has not been a strike yet, they will strike before he takes office.

All actions by US lead me to believe a strike by US will happen before the end of the year. Very little on the side of letting the next administration make that decision. This leads me to believe the odds of Trump being elected are far higher than we a lead to believe but, it won’t matter too much because we will already be in a full scale war with Russia, Iran, Turkey, Iraq involved.
natoistan on October 06, 2016 · at 8:45 pm EST/EDT

Trump Change On Russia may Suggest Briefings On A Military Strike

https://youtu.be/03IMd4oTdZI

Breaking: Russian General Konashenkov Warns US against Attacking Syrian Forces

https://youtu.be/COvZKe9JfEY

Russia Officially Announces Preparation For WW3 – 10/05/2016

https://youtu.be/I9ar6W4EDrc
Alex Laborich on October 06, 2016 · at 11:38 pm EST/EDT

Very good analysis with right conclusions, including the final one. I tell you this as an ordinary Russian. But the author missed one thing in his analysis. By all means, Russia does NOT make any aggression. She only defends herself and is made to react on aggressive steps of the USA. America as well as the rest of the West were satisfied with the collapse of the USSR (aka Russia) and stated themselves as winner/s in the Cold War who became the only and indispensable power in the world. Modern Russia never ever has aim to spread own ideology like own let’s say Russian exceptionalism over the world. She as well as every country just wants to keep developing own economy, social level, science, etc. And for that Russia was (and still is) open for broad and mutually beneficial cooperation with every country, including America, of course. That was (and still is) Russia’s path. But it looks like one proclaimed oneself to be the only ONE in this world is not happy with that Russian path as well as she (or he) is not happy with the China’s path, etc. This is the unfortunate matter. We have a really dangerous global aggressor. And this is DC/Neocons/Pentagon/Banksters – i.e. the USA establishment. The thing is also that America in fact has never was involved in a really large-scale war since its own civil war. In all big wars, America just took some part. In other words, America won not any war in her history merely because of absence of such wars. Moreover, Vietnam syndrome is still alive among Americans. Additionally, as well as America during last 200 years has no war, especially on the own land, she doesn’t know what real suffer is. Europe knows, Russia knows, China knows, Japan knows, many other countries know what it means to suffer from war. America doesn’t. So that is why the situation is dangerous, i.e. America like a teen bully boy want to show her might, she wants war to show all over the world that she is might. And there are two major reasons for it: (i) America has not real victory in her history because of lack of real war in it (only cartoon Hollywood wars), and (ii) America doesn’t know what war-suffer really is – also because of lack of the real full-scale war in her history.
- Anonymous on October 07, 2016 · at 12:52 am EST/EDT
  
  The Americans are blase about war because they have not a real war fought on their precious bloodstained soil for a long time.
  
  The Americans love to play armchair general/analyst and debate about war like it is some parlor game.
  
  Or they think of war like one of their idiotic Tom Clancy/Call of Duty video games. Just look those Predator Drone pilots who operate from the safety of some military base in Nevada and are even given awards for their “valor,” while bombing Iraqi, Afghani, or other “ragheads” thousands of miles away.
  
  That is how pathetic America is.
  
  World War 3–which we are already in the early stages of–will become a living reality for Americans, as their cities are leveled into radioactive ash, and they choke on their own blood.
  
  As Malcolm X once said, the chickens do come home to roost for America.
wes17 on October 07, 2016 · at 3:53 am EST/EDT

Nuclear war is a certainty as the global economy teeters on collapse. Fascinating to perceive how events seem to be assuming biblical dimensions. Prophecy or unavoidable destiny. Gloom and doom on steroids, everywhere you look.
Fatima Manoubia on October 07, 2016 · at 10:59 am EST/EDT

In the opinion of Thierry Meyssan, WWIII is already on the way, for now limited to Syria but with the pissibilite to extend to other areas of conflict ( article only available in Spanish, French….not in English, you must translate ) :

http://www.voltairenet.org/article193557.html
Fatima Manoubia on October 07, 2016 · at 11:49 am EST/EDT

“PSYops: Operation Syria”

http://www.voltairenet.org/article193474.html