by Vasily Kolosov
Translated by Leo.
Source: https://e-news.su/mnenie-i-analitika/306358-uroki-kaddafi-vyucheny-vozdushnyy-most-v-siriyu.html
November 18, 2019 – One of the reasons for the destruction of the Libyan state and the death of Colonel Qaddafi himself was the desire to sit “on two chairs”, the desire to get support and guarantees not only from Russia, but also from the West. Therefore, when there was a real threat to Libya and its leadership, Qaddafi hesitated for a long time in a situation requiring quick and decisive action. The result of these fluctuations is known.
With Syria, everything was different. Assad did not hesitate for a long time and turned for help to the only reliable allies – Russia and Iran. At the initial stage of the operation of the Russian military in Syria, in August-October 2015, the country’s leadership was faced with the problem of quickly, covertly and safely transferring the necessary forces and means to a remote theater of operations. At the first stage, the need for the organization of the Russia-Syria aerial bridge “clearly emerged.”
On the technical side, this decision was fully ensured: the existing air fleet (about 100 Il-76 military transport planes and nine heavier An-124s) was enough to transfer 50% of the most needed equipment. However, with the provision of an air corridor for the flight of these Russian aircraft visas to Syria, problems arose.
Image 1: “Who is ready to allow Russian military cargo to Syria”
Red: Countries that refuse Russian military transport planes in the air corridor to Syria. (Bulgaria, Turkey)
Blue: Countries allowing an air corridor. (Greece, Iran) – BBC Russian Service
Looking at the map of the region, you understand that the shortest air route to Syria from Russia passes over Turkey. However, this route was immediately rejected over the “difficult” relationship between Erdoğan and Assad. In addition, relations between Russia and Turkey by this time were complicated due to the forced landing in Turkey of a Russian plane flying to Damascus with military cargo for air defense systems.
Theoretically, there were two more routes left:
– over the neutral waters of the Black Sea, through Romania, Serbia, Macedonia and Greece.
– over the neutral waters of the Caspian Sea through Iran and Iraq.
Romania almost immediately announced that “we won’t allow Russian planes to pass.” Bulgaria immediately joined it, although nobody asked it about possible flight paths. As always, Bulgaria, in a difficult moment, showed its rotten core.
A last route remained – through Iran and Iraq. The establishment of an air corridor to Syria required big political and diplomatic efforts. Iran’s consent was not difficult to obtain, as it was interested in the strengthening Russian help to Syria. The Russian Embassy in Tehran quickly received permission for all requested flights of Russian planes. Moscow and Tehran then established close contacts on this given question.
Image 2: Approximate air corridor route to Syria.
But with Iraq everything turned out to be very, very complicated. The Americans were still very strong in Baghdad and had serious leverage over the ruling elite of the country; they could not only block financial and military assistance to Iraq, but also introduce serious sanctions against it. The US State Department, personally Secretary of State John Kerry, was squeezing Iraq with frightening force.
Kerry demanded that the Iraqi leadership force all the aircraft flying from Iran to land and conduct a thorough search of them by the Iraqi police and US intelligence agencies.
However, Iran’s influence on Baghdad was even stronger – since the spring of 2012, an Iranian aerial bridge was organized across Iraq, through which Iranian C-130 transport planes regularly transferred weapons and equipment to Syria. And the US could do nothing with this corridor. All they had achieved was a short-term flight ban for the Iranian Air Force, but it lasted only 2 months.
Therefore, in organizing the flight of Russian military transport planes through Iraq, recent Iranian developments had to be used. In addition, Russia provided Iraq with serious military-technical assistance.
Image 3: Russian Il-76 military transport plane at the Khmeimim airbase (Syria)
The Russian air corridor through Iran and Iraq was earned in August 2015. From August 18 to August 24, 2015, our specialists renovated the Khmeimim airfield. On August 24, our first airbase supply group arrived in Khmeimim – 24 people. And on September 10, the main staff arrived – 298 military servicemen. On September 30, the air group at Khmeimim was fully formed. This allowed the Russian military to begin the planned operation to rescue the Assad government and then provide a turning point in the Syrian war.
Thus, the Syrian campaign has become a kind of indicator for Russia to assimilate the “Libyan experience.” It was the Libyan events that forced the governments of Russia, Iran, Iraq, Syria to act in a fundamentally different way than it was in solving the “Libyan issue.”
thanks for very informative essay on this topic including Libya – it was so awful when it was happening – Cynthia McKinney actually flew to Libya at that time to see what was going on for herself.
The airlift capabilities of the Russian Military were begun by Shoigu when he was still managing EMERCON. By the time he took the MOD position in 2012, he had a flow of planes coming into service for the military to use in just such a military operation as Syria presented.
The Intel services, FSB and SVR and GRU had been studying the Syrian war since 2011. Thus, the decision by Putin to go to war in behalf of fighting an anti-terror war and to save Syria as an integral nation-state had a firm foundation of logistical and strategic analytical basis.
Putin and the Military had decided they would wage an air war, not a ground war. The Syrians, Hezbollah and Iranian militias would be the ground forces. The Russians, as well as the Chinese and Iranians, would additionally supply the Syrians with whatever weapons and munitions and other logistical needs it would have, and, thus, a Black Sea to Tartus naval base supply line was begun by ships, called the Syrian Express.
Russia was “all in” with blood and flesh (we know the stories of several of the heroes who died fighting the terrorists). However, the military operation is one of the most modulated in modern combat military history. The fewest planes, helicopters, special forces, and other specialists (de-miners, medical staff, reconciliation specialists, humanitarian aides) were put to risk. Yet, the excellence of the Russians created such impact on the many battlefields that soon the Syrians went from near defeat to control of their enormous cities, key facilities and vital swaths of Syrian territory.
All war has a logistics basis. The Aerial Bridge was the first sign that the Russians would succeed.
(Compare the wars of CENTCOM and all the other wars of the Hegemon since WWII.)
Assuming for the sake of argument, that Gheddafi had not “sat on two chairs” and that Putin had been president and not Medvedev at the time. Would an air-bridge have been really possible? The air-space from Russia to Libya is under Nato countries’ control, and the only friendly pit-stop, so to speak, seems Greece, which doesn’t seem to have much leverage. Don’t know… не знаю … кажется сложно.
The great threat to Libya was the No Fly Zone. S-300s and Pantsir-1s and 2s would have been brought in by ship. Then NATO would not have the NFZ, and Ghaddafis military could have won the war against the uprising which was heavily led by Al Qaeda forces. His Touareg mercenaries would have controlled the battlefield.
It was the NFZ that decimated his forces.It allowed NATO planes totally free air space.
It is doubtful in 2011 that Russian military would have done much more than bring in as much anti-air defense weapons as they could. They didn’t even have PMCs like Wagner in those days. It is unlikely they would have even inserted special ops.
But Libya would have survived if only Medvedev had vetoed the UNSC action. He underestimated the West’s true desires to destroy Libya and kill off the Green Revolution Socialism of the Colonel as well as his uniting African nations against the West.
What did Gaddafi do for Russia to make him and Libya worthy of saving?
Russia took a LOT of flak for taking part in saving Syria.
What it was in Gaddafi and Libya in 1995-2005 which would make saving Libya reasonable?
Well, it depends on your geopolitical objectives. But assuming that Russia had an interest in a more multipolar world with less control by global hegemons, supporting Gaddafi would be quite important. Thing about Gaddafi was, sure, he was personally colorful and weird, which the media played up and so everyone thought of Libya as this quirky unimportant place. But it wasn’t. Gaddafi’s Libya was a leader in Africa. Aside from the best standard of living, education, health care and so forth in Africa, it also had a good deal of money. Gaddafi was proposing to use a bunch of gold to help establish a pan-African currency which would attempt to crowd out the dollar and franc in African trade, increasing African independence (and interdependence), and strengthening the African Union. He also wanted to push big African infrastructure projects such as internet fibre. He was also looking at moving away from use of the dollar in oil transactions.
Even aside from the refugee issue, Africa might look quite different today if Gaddafi had held on. And if it was Russia that had helped it happen, they might have significantly more influence there.
No, really, failing to stop Gaddafi’s overthrow was a significant loss I’d say for Russia and, for that matter, for China.
And the African Union protested vociferously against the brutal Western aggression in Libya, and were ignored, totally and with undisguised racist contempt, by the West and its presstitute vermin.
Once again proving that China is just there to do business, and turns a blind eye to all local politics not effecting its wallet.
IMHO there was a quid-pro-quo, anglo-nazi-zion-West would get Libya, anglo-nazi-zion-East would get Syria.
The west gets all sloppy about ‘human-rights’ when they’re engineering a coup on their dollar, but when OIL is involved its all Business.
Like I said elsewhere here, Libyan Oil is the highest quality oil on earth, and since the 1970’s USA had been trying to steal that oil. Most USA oil is full of sulfur and just destroys advanced aircraft, the Libyan oil is so pure and clean, and doesn’t harm modern jet engines.
MSM is owned by CIA, and CIA was created by Rockefeller (OIL OSS-CIA/UN) it doesn’t get any better than this, CIA say’s jump, the MSM jumps on Libya.
Please don’t put too much faith in Greece. They will take the West any day over Russia. Greece is two faced and everything she does is to ensure that it doesn’t lose the occupied land that she stole from Macedonia and the Macedonians people.
It’s not about two faced or not. Greece like all other nato country have not freedom of choice. This applies to all Balkan countries and Turkey. BTW, so is any country that belongs to EU. If you check the maps, you will notice that it’s all about nato. Besides the us sanction racket is a big stick, which scares most countries. It takes one very determined country to resist that racket. Even China has difficulties with it.
What a shame that the ‘Libyan experience’ amounts to the highest country in Africa on the UN Human Development Index being reduced to a jihadist infested Hell on Earth.What a shame that drownings of refugees went from virtually nil under Gaddafi, to untold hundreds. What a shame that a human slave market run by jihadists operates in Libya. What a shame that 50,000 Libyans were murdered by the NATO terror-bombing campaign (they were being ‘protected’, according to Western Moral Values, to death)Libya’s gold stolen, black Libyans murdered by death-squads, the African Union’s protests ignored with utter racist contempt etc, etc. And what a pity that the West, and Evil, Evil, Evil vermin like Clinton, still gloat over this abomination.
Amen to that brother!
Brother Blue the Iconoclast
”As always, Bulgaria, in a difficult moment, showed its rotten core.”
Haha, accurate assessment indeed! Or as the Bulgarians put it themselves in the wake of the fiasco with South Stream in 2014:
The EU told Bulgaria to turn down the Russian south stream pipeline, then afterwards the people started to realize what they had lost. Did they learn anything. No. Nothing. They watch as Turkey benefits from Russian pipelines.
It has been easy for the US to dig the eastern Europeans into deep stupid, with perhaps Hungary as the exception.
Serbia excluded. She still stands, just barely, but she stands. Not in Nato, no Russian sanctions. Ofcourse, she payed, and is paying the price for that.
Ooooops!
In my previous comment – Bulgary, not Hungary.
OOOOps!
Sounds like “Be prepared” is a good mantra and was followed by Shoigu et al.
Thanks for this interesting account of the logistical challenges, which had not occurred to me.
This is the kind of “chess player” thinking (thinking many moves ahead) that I fear our “leaders” are incapable of. Only reacting with flailing about, bluster and bullying.
Katherine
The people of Syria are deeply grateful for the assistance of Russia, Iran and Hezbollah.
They know their enemies: the US and their EU vassals, Saudis, Qatar, UAE, and Turkey (which could be shifting to the Eastern Allies).
I’m not sure how Qaddafi “siiting in both chairs” was the cause of his downfall. Seems a bit of historical revisionism to blame the victim, in this instance, for the Medvedev/Russian ‘Atlanticist’/Globalist betrayal.
Was the situation for Assad any different? The Russians joined a US sponsered ban on weapons exports to Syria, in 2006, if memory serves. It was only after Syrians rallied to their government that Russia reversed course in late 2015, against Putin’s stated preference to stay out. Meanwhile Iran cynically used the first years of the war on Syria to attempt to recreate it as a confessional state.
One can reasonably speculate it was concern for Israel which delayed the initial Russian move to support Syria. Later on Russia may have actually moved into Syria on behalf of Israel, to forestall Iranian efforts to create and dominate a Shia crescent. Seeing Russian/Turk co-patrols in northern Syria is something I’m still having trouble digesting. If you’ve stopped noticing the myriad of contradictions you are swallowing too much pablum.
There is no need for speculation concerning which state’s needs predominate from the Russian point of view today between Syria and Israel. Israel is clearly the winner, but the clock is winding down. Israel will not let the opportunity to remove Palestinians simply slip away. Least of all virulently racist Russians represented by Liberman. This is their first priority (removal of Arabs) and why I predict Netanyahu will remain in power. The nexus of Putin/Netanyahu/Liberman wants the Palestinians out ahead of expansion. Oded Yinon is still far away. This is my belief. Something is coming and from the Israeli p.o.v. it must come before the war in Syria has ended and the opportunity is lost.
What I see is Globalists Gone Wild in all theatres, making things up as they go and rewriting history whenever the need arises. The situation of multiple Globalist sponsered uprisings, from Lebanon to Iraq and now Iran, appear likely to insitigate exactly the war we are told Russia doesn’t want. To me it appears Globalists in Russia very much want such a conflict to deepen and continue along the present path, so long as Russia can safely remain peaceful within it’s own borders and garner benefits for it’s local elite. If this is so then Russia is in for one helluva surprise when Central Asia eventually explodes.
The alternative explanation, and it’s a reasonable one, is that Russia already knows the Real War is coming and is doing what it can to strengthen itself ahead of the conflict. I do not see how the interests of the Big Three (Oceania, Eurasia, Eastasia) can be reconciled without such a war. Yes they are cooperating but they are also at war. As for Europe, they are about to be overrun by mainly Semetic speaking people’s from the M.E. It seems as if European elites want to wipe their continent off the face of the earth.
Please take my speculations with a grain of salt. It is always useful to remind those at the Ministry of Truth that real Truth doesn’t require constant rewriting. Qaddafi was a satrap of the Deep State. Western oil companies developed Libyan resources and paid their taxes directly to Qaddafi, for decades. If Russia decided against him it was because he got too big for his britches and there was something to be gained, or so Medvedev and company thought. Unquestionably they did so under pressure from their Globalist ‘partners.’
Is Russia still under the same pressure today? The answer is most definitely Yes.
Russia has learned the lessons of the USSR where many tails wagged the dog. Russia was the powerhouse that propelled the USSR empire which lifted millions out of poverty and ignorance. Just imagine how many Arab engineers and doctors studied in USSR Russia. That was a leap into civilisation by many Arab, Asian and European countries. And how was it all repaid? By, I.e., Bulgaria refusing transit over its air space. Let alone that if it weren’t for Russia there would have not been any Bulgaria to speak of. Qaddafi too made a mortal mistake by trusting his newly found friends from France and Britain. Sarkozy owed him billions for his presidential candidacy financed by Qaddafi. Qaddafi turned towards the West depositing tens of billions into their banks and he paid it with his life. So will happen to everyone who sits on two or more chairs.
Modern Russia is much more pragmatic like it or not. Russia will help only those willing to help themselves first. And unashamedly it will also pursue its own interest as well. Nothing wrong with that INMHO.
Dear Marko,
speaking about Soviet bad old times, Russia was the powerhouse that lifted millions out of poverty and ignorance mainly WITHIN Russia. Yes, they have delivered a lot of education, material help and supplied enormous amounts of weaponry to Arab and Asian Countries a sometimes to some European ones, but they have done it for purposes of 1) evangelize the savages with their Leninist religion 2) create the Empire of their political control.
Imperial behavior in terms of expanding the controlled territory was a main mistake of USSR, which eventually lead to it’s fall of which is in my opinion Putin aware and don’t want to repeat it.
Many huge improvements in living standard in those countries over the course of 20th century could not and should not be attributed solely to Russia, but simply to industrialization, with current generation inherited a lot of not always positive consequences.
Bulgarians were abused by USSR within COMECON, maybe not materially but they were denied to act free on their own, so for them there is no need to feel compulsory and constant gratitude towards Russia. Let alone the economical profit of being in EU and have good relations with its old states gives a lot more profit, than Russia could offer. It limits free will too sometimes, but any relation of smaller country to a big power brings such limitations. Little eastern European countries are much more pragmatic now and unashamedly they will also pursue they own interests (which are always split unfortunately thanks to their position). Nothing wrong with that IMHO :-)
Have to respond because your comment demonstrates a certain lack of knowledge and an agenda. The ‘savage Lenin religion’ is precisely what lifted many people out of poverty (speaking from experience; you cld also look at Egypt under G.A. Nasser) and also helped many third-world countries throw off colonialism. The ’empire’ you mention was created for defensive purposes (do you remember that Bulgaria, Romania, Hungary, and Slovakia were ruled by nazi governments during the war period; and Poland is not even worth mentioning – they spent the 1930s making sure that no defensive pact would be signed with USSR (except Pl. signed a treaty with Hitler in 1934)). So you may want to learn a bit of history.
The industrialization you mention – how do you think it happened? A fairy came and built factories and infrastructure? The socialist block developed with the help of cheap Soviet gas and oil (these were sold way below world prices – again, speaking from experience – although russkies could have sold it to the west and make lots more $$ for themselves). There was also an economic policy… although people who have good knowledge of Comecon will tell you that it interfered less in internal econ matters than the EU does today.
And how exactly were Bulgarians abused? It was a poor country before socialism and is a very poor country in capitalism. “They were denied to act free?” Do you want to suggest that they now act free? Who told them to banish S Stream? It was a bad decision for the country… but fit the masters.
The little eastern countries may be more pragmatic, but are now even more constrained than under the USSR.
Even Vaclav Klaus is bemoaning this fact of life now…
Better not waste the comment space with such “misdirections.”
I’m from former Czechoslovakia GoraKoshka. So I’m not suffering from lack of knowledge about the subject, quite contrary I’ve got a first hand experience. As for history of the region, I’m aware of that. Industrialization wasn’t like a fairy came and built the factories, in my country there were factories already, in Poland too. Development of the new industrial base should have been done independently, or thank to cooperation with someone else. That’s a plain fact. Malaysia and South Korea didn’t developed so rapidly due to help from USSR and yet they did.
Bulgarians were not politically independent and if you think this is not abusing, then I don’t know what is. It doesn’t matter who is abusing them now and how, If you think the way to get rid from present abusing is to turn to former abuser for protection… Who would do that? I didn’t say that we should turn our backs to Russia, but nothing is black or white in this region, especially if you look at the history. So statements about Bulgarians rotten core when not showing support for Russian operations are plainly dull. And yes, I’m aware about the role of Russia during formation of Bulgarian state.
But this is not just the elites of eastern Europeans are only corrupted by West and therefore unfriendly to Russia. It is not that simple, Russia did not always represent the “good guy” in history and so it doesn’t always now. Decisions of the leaders for such countries should be balanced, and this is hard to achieve, when the pressure is strong from both sides. If you think we are now even more constrained, than under USSR I wonder if such statement is an expression of strong emotions towards “rotten west”, or is it logical analysis based on some selected facts, or if it just suits somebody better to live behind the fence than walk free.
And if you think that Vaclav Klaus would choose to come back to COMECON for a single second, than you don’t know the guy…
It is a good thing to continue – so far anyway – to remain neutral, cool calm and collected in the face of evil and not to endlessly complain, rant and foam at the mouth in the face of the monster – “He who must be obeyed” to paraphrase Rumple of the Bailey – as happens so often, because, after all, we still have much to face.
However, my point : beware the goals of Russian 20c history agendarists, GoraKoshka and others….
You left off in mid_sentence just what are those Russian “goals” your speaking of,perhaps world domination like the west is trying to achieve with its endless rage and lust with its color revolutions,not to mention the death toll the suffering,the destruction of other countries wealth, but not succeeding very well in their empire building.So just who is the devil in the mix the Russians or the Americans and their poodles in the E.U..!!!
Well said, Gora. The prime reason that the Right hate communism and socialism is precisely because they raise people from abject poverty, which is where the Right prefers their Eternal Enemies, other people, to exist. The US Empire in Latin America has brought hundreds of millions generation after generation of exploitation, poverty, misery and terror, not to forget the genocides, whereas the USSR heavily subsidised the standard of living of those in its so-called ‘Empire’.
“should not be attributed solely to Russia, but simply to industrialization,”
Not so simple.
Industrialization does not occur “spontaneously,” any more than “spontaneous combustion.”
Investment and work are needed.
I am not an expert on Russia’s relationship to its satellites.
However, I do know that the American South was kept in a state of underdevelopment—of land, economy, and people—by the slave/plantation system and the stupidity of Southerners.
The Indian subcontinent was “de-industrialized” by the British in the 17th and 18th centuries.
Greedy nations are always looking to get the assets of others on the most favorable terms. Hence, Hitler wanted the manufacturing power of Cz. France wanted Germany’s coal assets of Alsace-Lorraine (after WW1).
It seems to be the goal of imperial powers to keep the colonials down and cream off all the “added value” of manufactures for themselves.
This is also what Morales found.
So, if Bulgaria and other satellites industrialized under the USSR cloak, that is probably mainly due to investments made by the USSR.
Katherine
Katherine, you are right, it is not so simple. I’m not that strong in English to be sure that my sentence “should be not attributed solely to Russia” is not in fact denial of Russian role. But it wasn’t meant as denial of Soviet role, just pointing out there were alternatives, Marshall plan, for instance (I know that it wasn’t for everybody and the political map of Europe was drawn in Yalta before the WWII ended). The main problem was that political control. I don’t like generally speculating on “what if” but for instance Czechoslovakia have had huge portfolio of foreign customers worldwide before falling under Soviet control and after that helped to industrialize other less developed satellites which wasn’t always profitable, as open market should be…and in some cases it was even more profitable but protecting environment brought less pressure to competition and development. I’m saying this with full awareness of our own decision to became socialistic country and I understand many reasons behind the decision. As I’ve wrote there is nothing black and white in the region.
As for Bulgaria, their economy was centered about agriculture in 30’s, about agriculture and tourist industry in late 80’s and so is now. Couldn’t tell you the amount of Soviet investments, but generally I can tell that Soviets gave a lot of support for what they assumed as a key sectors in key points of interest. It wasn’t combined with deadly loans, as IMF or other western imperial tools provide, but it wasn’t free of charge either. There was always some kind of political deal. So Soviets didn’t cream off all added value, they were evangelists of their new world order. But they loved the power a lot. And their system didn’t always brought the same value as competition could have offered. The final outcome was imminent.
Actually they said Lincoln was going to establish(or even mandate) an equal education system in the south once the war was over, but once Booth goes on his bender the momentum to do so, vanished, and to this day southern education has still suffered the ramifications of that.
Dear Friend, the European Union limits freedom of all participating countries. The Commission determines trade agreements, internal rules and regulations, policies on such things as ‘free movement’ of people and goods, some aspects of higher education, financial affairs are largely controlled by its Central Bank, and many legal aspects by the European Court. Tighter regulations are planned for future integration. Furthermore, once in it is difficult to get out. Sovereignty disappears, along with freedom.
Anonymous,
yes, you are right, not to mention the fact, European Commission is not even democratic in principle. What was originally designed as a free trade tool to support industry and business became heavily politicized, even affecting educational and family policies.It seems to me, that we little bit departed from original topic, let me express why i think it’s so:
– although the article is suggesting it Bulgarians are not obliged to support Russians anytime, anywhere. Historical records are not one sided.
-although the article is suggesting it, Bulgarian refusal may not be the direct result form corruption and pressure from EU/NATO. It might be a compromise decision of a kind
-while the author is trying to suggest, the Russians can offer some kind of alternative to EU structures, it doesn’t make any economical and security sense at the moment, never mind the fact, that it is far beyond Russian current possibilities. There are problems emerging for solving of which a closer cooperation between EU Russia and China will be required, but it wouldn’t go without mutual respect. We are far from it, at current moment.
-problems of the EU can not be solved from outside but from inside only. As the USA hegemony is disappearing, EU is facing inevitability of emancipation or destruction.
Mulga although it may seem that I’m opposing socialism, in fact if I have any political orientation at all, it is closest to social-democratic. What was unique about Soviet empire, that it in fact wasn’t political system, but religious. The religion was atheistic, but otherwise retained all signs of theocratic society, with rituals, heavy symbolism, saints, strict hierarchy and total control. I remember very well from my childhood the banners and flags everywhere, the obsession with army and Party, the uniforms the all -curious all -knowing state asking about your free time, about your education, about your work, your love… It wasn’t “power to the people”, though those who designed it truly believed it was so. Maybe in the South America or somewhere else the Soviet bloc can serve as an example of successful resistance to capitalism, but not in former Soviet bloc (including former USSR).
“the European Union limits freedom of all participating countries. The Commission determines trade agreements, internal rules and regulations, policies on such things as ‘free movement’ of people and goods, some aspects of higher education, financial affairs are largely controlled by its Central Bank, and many legal aspects by the European Court.”
That is not true, it is utterly wrong” The heads of state discus the relevant issue, reach an agreement, and then delegate the Commission a mandate to reach the goal as stipulated. That is how it works. Financial affairs are solely regulated by what amount of debt each government has.
Google it yourself, its all on EU homepage, but stop spreading drivel..
Bulgarians can ‘act free’ now, can they? If they have the money they can, otherwise they are just as powerless as any other serf in the neo-liberal capitalist Gulag.
. Finally an explanation that makes even dim-witted Me start to understand how come Russia seemed so sluggish in starting to send material in support of Syrie.
.
. I should however like to add one possible consideration: That the Iranian radar systems were originally of US-of-North-A (and Swiss — Fledermaus) make and could possibly have hard-cored US mechanisms built in that might have been directed towards downing Soviet/Russian airborne objects, Faux or not?
Well like Chavez used to say “So far from God, so close to the Devil”
I think in Quadaffi’s case, nothing could have been done, so close to France, who just bombed the hell out of his infrastructure early on.
Strategically Russia needed Syria, ports, oil, if nothing else to limit option to Russian pipelines. Win-Win for both.
What possible could Libya have offered Russia? Just like Cuba years early. I’m not sure if Mother Russia, even has a strategic interest in the African Continent, isn’t that a Chinese concession?
IMHO the rhetorical question is “Why didn’t Quadaffi befriend China??” now that’s power that was right there in Africa, that would have loved to have a Northern Port.
Occam’s Razor say’s the most logical conclusion is Quadaffi was just in power too long, and he got lazy.
…
Let’s also remember some Vietnam basics, like Vietnam, Libya had OIL, and not just any OIL, the lowest sulfur oil on earth, a oil that is required for advanced modern jet aircraft. Thus it was strategic for anglo-nazi-zionism to steal that Libyan Oil. Had they NOT stole it when they did, it would have most likely fell into the hands of the Chinese, who would be using to make super-sonic aircraft.
removed The real reasons why America attacked Libya.
Ultimately, the reason was because Libya was proposing the introduction of the Gold Dinar as a pan-continental currency for Africa.
The Americans saw this proposal as a “threat” to their precious Dollar Imperialist system, which allows America to suck the financial blood of the world as a result of the US Dollar being the world’s only reserve currency.
(Incidentally, in 2000, Saddam Hussein decided to denominate Iraqi oil sales in EUROs rather than US Dollars, thus potentially supporting the Euro as an alternative to the American Dollar reserve currency. The result of this financial move? America’s 2003 aggression against Iraq.)
In many ways, America’s global empire, wealth, and entire parasitic US Way of Life itself are based on its Dollar vampire system. As such, the USA will instinctively wage wars of aggression to maintain this malignant system.
All other pretext or reasons are deceptions–especially the greatest lies of all, America’s 243-year Orwellian national ideology of “Freedom, Democracy, and Human Rights.”
If you want to understand what America really is about–and has always been about–recall Hillary Clinton’s gleeful response to the America-backed lynching and sodomizing of Muammar al-Gaddafi: “We Came, We Saw, He Died.”
America is a vampire nation–but one that cloaks itself behind Goebbelsian lies about Freedom and Democracy.
Libya Invasion Was About Gaddafi’s Golden Plan
https://www.streetwisereports.com/article/2011/05/06/libya-invasion-was-about-gaddafis-golden-plan.html
Russia and Iran… sure. But arguably Syria’s most reliable and consistent supporter has been Pyongyang. While Russia has been at times hesitant to provide support in favour of courting Israel and Turkey, and Iran appears to be pursuing its own agenda to a large extent, Korea doesn’t appear to have any agenda beyond helping Syria (and perhaps selling arms in the process). Building hospitals and sending special forces to Syria, and upgrading its Soviet era tech to remain viable, Korea has arguably been Syria’s leading partner since 1989. This article elaborates on some of this.
https://militarywatchmagazine.com/article/north-korean-special-forces-in-syria-a-look-at-pyongyang-s-assistance-to-damascus-counterinsurgency-operations