Russian involvement in Syrian crisis
- Thread starter LETHALFORCE
- Start date
gadeshi
Senior Member
- Joined
- Jun 19, 2013
- Messages
- 9,223
- Likes
- 6,636
And also an RBC "experts" who have just seen Su-25 on a photos
Отправлено с моего XT1080 через Tapatalk
Akim
Professional
- Joined
- Jun 14, 2012
- Messages
- 10,240
- Likes
- 8,601
Last edited:
pmaitra
Senior Member
- Joined
- Mar 10, 2009
- Messages
- 33,262
- Likes
- 19,595
gadeshi
Senior Member
- Joined
- Jun 19, 2013
- Messages
- 9,223
- Likes
- 6,636
You do not believe the real cockpit video?
So what do you believe? Pedivikia?
This decease can be treated by psychiatrist only.
Отправлено с моего XT1080 через Tapatalk
pmaitra
Senior Member
- Joined
- Mar 10, 2009
- Messages
- 33,262
- Likes
- 19,595
Saudi supplied comforter used by ISIS (screenshot from video below)
@SajeevJino, look what America's ally is doing in Syria. Was this reported by "democratic" and "free" media like Convoluted New Network (CNN) and New York Trash (NYT)? Only RT?
Syria: Syrian Army celebrates gains in Hama Governorate under Russian air cover
pmaitra
Senior Member
- Joined
- Mar 10, 2009
- Messages
- 33,262
- Likes
- 19,595
Tired of Russian Airstrikes, ISIS Fighters Are Cutting Their Beards and Fleeing to Turkey
Iran and Russia prepare to curb-stomp ISIS in Aleppo
Rudy Panko | Russia Insider
Russian “Beard cutters”
The Islamic State’s combat capabilities were always wildly exaggerated. Although clearly gifted at making head-chopping videos (where the actual head-chopping is edited out, because c’mon, ISIS understands it needs to stay PG-13 if it wants to reach audiences of all ages), ISIS has never faced any serious armed opposition. (They’ve been fighting the Syrian army, of course, but Assad has also been simultaneously battling with 10 other radical groups. And the U.S. dropping bombs on sand dunes doesn’t count.)
With Russia’s entry into the conflict, the months of carefree head-chopping has come to an abrupt end. Now faced with almost certain death, “radical Islamists” in Syria are having second-thoughts about martyrdom. Also, it’s time for a haircut!
Hundreds of ISIL fighters are fleeing Syria for Turkey, as Russia’s Defense Ministry previously said, and reports are popping up that they are leaving their beards behind.
According to reports, more than 100 (beardless?) ISIS fighters flee to Turkey each day — apparently disguised as “refugees.”
What’s the need for disguise, though? Turkey has been funneling weapons to ISIS since the start of this god-awful conflict. Dear ISIS fighters: March home and receive the hero’s welcome you deserve! NATO members always honor their warriors.
Iran and Russia prepare to curb-stomp ISIS in Aleppo
Rudy Panko | Russia Insider
Russian “Beard cutters”
The Islamic State’s combat capabilities were always wildly exaggerated. Although clearly gifted at making head-chopping videos (where the actual head-chopping is edited out, because c’mon, ISIS understands it needs to stay PG-13 if it wants to reach audiences of all ages), ISIS has never faced any serious armed opposition. (They’ve been fighting the Syrian army, of course, but Assad has also been simultaneously battling with 10 other radical groups. And the U.S. dropping bombs on sand dunes doesn’t count.)
With Russia’s entry into the conflict, the months of carefree head-chopping has come to an abrupt end. Now faced with almost certain death, “radical Islamists” in Syria are having second-thoughts about martyrdom. Also, it’s time for a haircut!
Hundreds of ISIL fighters are fleeing Syria for Turkey, as Russia’s Defense Ministry previously said, and reports are popping up that they are leaving their beards behind.
According to reports, more than 100 (beardless?) ISIS fighters flee to Turkey each day — apparently disguised as “refugees.”
What’s the need for disguise, though? Turkey has been funneling weapons to ISIS since the start of this god-awful conflict. Dear ISIS fighters: March home and receive the hero’s welcome you deserve! NATO members always honor their warriors.
pmaitra
Senior Member
- Joined
- Mar 10, 2009
- Messages
- 33,262
- Likes
- 19,595
Does America Actually Want World War 3?
The way Washington policy makers behave might lead one to think so
Michael Snyder | (The Economic Collapse) | Russia Insider
Escalation after escalation...
This article originally appeared at The Economic Collapse blog
Why has Barack Obama airdropped 50 tons of ammunition into areas that “moderate rebels” in Syria supposedly control? This is essentially the equivalent of poking the Russians directly in the eyes. Much of this ammunition will end up in the hands of those that the Russians are attempting to bomb into oblivion, and so to Russia it appears that we are attempting to make their job much harder. And of course the truth is that there aren’t really any “moderate rebels” in Syria at all. Nearly all of the groups that are fighting are made up primarily of radical jihadists and/or hired mercenaries.
Personally, I don’t see anyone over there that you could call “the good guys.” At the end of the day, the U.S. supports just about anyone that wants to get rid of the Assad regime, and the Russians are working very hard to keep Assad in power. Just like the civil war in Ukraine, the conflict in Syria is in great danger of being transformed into a proxy war between the United States and Russia, and many fear that these conflicts could eventually be setting the stage for World War III.
The ferocity of Russian airstrikes in Syria has surprised observers all over the planet, and over the past couple of days these airstrikes have been extended to include some new areas…
When I read reports like this, I am deeply troubled. The Obama administration claims that it has been bombing ISIS positions in Syria for over a year. So why in the world do these targets still exist?
Was the U.S. military incapable of finding these installations?
That doesn’t seem likely.
So why weren’t they destroyed long ago?
Did the Obama administration not want them destroyed for some reason?
What seems abundantly clear is that the Russians are doing what the Obama administration was either unwilling or unable to do. There is now mass panic among ISIS fighters, and thousands of them are fleeing the country…
The mainstream media in the United States is not talking much about this, are they?
But the U.S. media is reporting on this latest airdrop of ammunition to rebel groups in Syria. For example, the following comes from CNN…
If you were the Russians, how would you feel about this?
I know how I would feel.
And just as Joe Biden has previously admitted, the “moderate middle” in Syria simply does not exist. The following is an extended excerpt from a piece that was originally written by investigative journalist Nafeez Ahmed…
It has been well documented that many of these so-called “moderate rebel groups” in Syria have fought alongside ISIS and have sold weapons to them. So this false dichotomy that Barack Obama keeps trying to sell us on is just a giant fraud. The following comes from a recent Infowars report…
U.S. anti-tank weapons are playing a critical role in the Syrian conflict. As reported by the Washington Post, U.S.-made anti-tank missiles are being used by the rebels to destroy lots of Russian-made tanks that are being used by the Syrian army…
Like I said earlier, this is looking more and more like a proxy war between the United States and Russia.
Could that be what Obama actually wants?
Obama is poking China in the eyes lately too. CNN is reporting that U.S. warships may soon be sailing into territorial waters around the Spratly Islands. These are islands that the Chinese government claims ownership over, but the U.S. government disputes that claim, and Obama seems determined to flex his muscles in the area…
If Obama sends warships into that area, there is a very real chance that they could get shot at. According to Newsweek, the Chinese are saying that they will not permit U.S. ships to violate those territorial waters under any circumstances…
Over the past couple of years our relations with China have really gone downhill very rapidly, and if the trading relationship between the two largest economies on the planet breaks down, that would have massive implications for the entire global economy.
In addition to everything above, the civil war in Ukraine continues to rage on. The United States funded, equipped, trained and organized the forces that violently overthrew the democratically-elected government in Ukraine, and then once those thugs (which actually included some neo-Nazis) took power, the Obama administration immediately recognized them as the legitimate government of Ukraine.
The Russians were absolutely infuriated by this, and they have been providing soldiers, equipment and supplies to the rebel groups that are fighting back against this new government. Of course the Russians deny that they are doing this, but it is exceedingly obvious that they are.
The rebel groups that the Russians have been backing have been doing very well and have been steadily taking ground, and this is not how the power brokers in D.C. envisioned things playing out in Ukraine. So in a desperate attempt to shift the momentum of the conflict, a bill is going through Congress that would provide “lethal military aid” to the government in Kiev. Initially the bill would have provided 200 million dollars in lethal aid, but now it has been upped to 300 million dollars. There are some that believe that the final figure will be significantly higher.
Once this bill gets passed, it will be an extremely important event. For the Russians, it will mean crossing a red line that never should have been crossed. You see, the truth is that Ukraine is Russia’s most important neighbor. Just imagine how we would feel if the Russians helped overthrow Canada’s government and then start feeding weapons to the new pro-Russian government that they helped install. That is exactly how the Russians view our meddling in Ukraine.
Earlier this year, I wrote an article in which I discussed an opinion poll that showed that 81 percent of all Russians now view the United States negatively, and only 13 percent of Russians have a positive view of this nation. Not even during the height of the Cold War were the numbers that bad.
The stage is being set for World War III, but most Americans are completely and totally oblivious to all of this because they are so wrapped up in their own little worlds.
Most Americans still seem to assume that the Russians and the Chinese are our “friends” and that any type of conflict between major global powers is impossible.
Well, the truth is that conflict has already begun in Ukraine and Syria, and tensions are rising with each passing day.
It won’t happen next week or next month, but we are on the road to World War III.
The way Washington policy makers behave might lead one to think so
Michael Snyder | (The Economic Collapse) | Russia Insider
Escalation after escalation...
This article originally appeared at The Economic Collapse blog
Why has Barack Obama airdropped 50 tons of ammunition into areas that “moderate rebels” in Syria supposedly control? This is essentially the equivalent of poking the Russians directly in the eyes. Much of this ammunition will end up in the hands of those that the Russians are attempting to bomb into oblivion, and so to Russia it appears that we are attempting to make their job much harder. And of course the truth is that there aren’t really any “moderate rebels” in Syria at all. Nearly all of the groups that are fighting are made up primarily of radical jihadists and/or hired mercenaries.
Personally, I don’t see anyone over there that you could call “the good guys.” At the end of the day, the U.S. supports just about anyone that wants to get rid of the Assad regime, and the Russians are working very hard to keep Assad in power. Just like the civil war in Ukraine, the conflict in Syria is in great danger of being transformed into a proxy war between the United States and Russia, and many fear that these conflicts could eventually be setting the stage for World War III.
The ferocity of Russian airstrikes in Syria has surprised observers all over the planet, and over the past couple of days these airstrikes have been extended to include some new areas…
Russian Air Forces have extended the range of their airstrikes on Islamic State positions in Syria to four provinces, focusing primarily on demolishing fortified installations and eliminating supply bases and the terrorists’ infrastructure.
Over the last 24 hours Russian aircraft have attacked terrorist positions in the Hama, Idlib, Latakia and Raqqa provinces of Syria. In total, 64 sorties targeted 63 Islamic State installations, among them 53 fortified zones, 7 arms depots, 4 training camps and a command post.
Over the last 24 hours Russian aircraft have attacked terrorist positions in the Hama, Idlib, Latakia and Raqqa provinces of Syria. In total, 64 sorties targeted 63 Islamic State installations, among them 53 fortified zones, 7 arms depots, 4 training camps and a command post.
When I read reports like this, I am deeply troubled. The Obama administration claims that it has been bombing ISIS positions in Syria for over a year. So why in the world do these targets still exist?
Was the U.S. military incapable of finding these installations?
That doesn’t seem likely.
So why weren’t they destroyed long ago?
Did the Obama administration not want them destroyed for some reason?
What seems abundantly clear is that the Russians are doing what the Obama administration was either unwilling or unable to do. There is now mass panic among ISIS fighters, and thousands of them are fleeing the country…
An estimated 3,000 Islamic State fighters as well as militants from other extremist groups have fled Syria for Jordan fearing a renewed offensive by the Syrian army in addition to Russian airstrikes, a military official has told RIA news agency.
“At least 3,000 militants from Islamic State (IS, formerly ISIS/ISIL), al-Nusra and Jaish al-Yarmouk have fled to Jordan. They are afraid of the Syrian army having stepped up activities on all fronts and of Russian airstrikes,” the RIA source said.
“At least 3,000 militants from Islamic State (IS, formerly ISIS/ISIL), al-Nusra and Jaish al-Yarmouk have fled to Jordan. They are afraid of the Syrian army having stepped up activities on all fronts and of Russian airstrikes,” the RIA source said.
The mainstream media in the United States is not talking much about this, are they?
But the U.S. media is reporting on this latest airdrop of ammunition to rebel groups in Syria. For example, the following comes from CNN…
U.S. military cargo planes gave 50 tons of ammunition to rebel groups overnight in northern Syria, using an air drop of 112 pallets as the first step in the Obama Administration’s urgent effort to find new ways to support those groups.
Details of the air mission over Syria were confirmed by a U.S. official not authorized to speak publicly because the details have not yet been formally announced.
C-17s, accompanied by fighter escort aircraft, dropped small arms ammunition and other items like hand grenades in Hasakah province in northern Syria to a coalition of rebels groups vetted by the US, known as the Syrian Arab Coalition.
Details of the air mission over Syria were confirmed by a U.S. official not authorized to speak publicly because the details have not yet been formally announced.
C-17s, accompanied by fighter escort aircraft, dropped small arms ammunition and other items like hand grenades in Hasakah province in northern Syria to a coalition of rebels groups vetted by the US, known as the Syrian Arab Coalition.
If you were the Russians, how would you feel about this?
I know how I would feel.
And just as Joe Biden has previously admitted, the “moderate middle” in Syria simply does not exist. The following is an extended excerpt from a piece that was originally written by investigative journalist Nafeez Ahmed…
The first Russian airstrikes hit the rebel-held town of Talbisah north of Homs City, home to al-Qaeda’s official Syrian arm, Jabhat al-Nusra, and the pro-al-Qaeda Ahrar al-Sham, among other local rebel groups. Both al-Nusra and the Islamic State have claimed responsibility for vehicle-borne IEDs (VBIEDs) in Homs City, which is 12 kilometers south of Talbisah.
The Institute for the Study of War (ISW) reports that as part of “US and Turkish efforts to establish an ISIS ‘free zone’ in the northern Aleppo countryside,” al-Nusra “withdrew from the border and reportedly reinforced positions in this rebel-held pocket north of Homs city”.
In other words, the US and Turkey are actively sponsoring “moderate” Syrian rebels in the form of al-Qaeda, which Washington DC-based risk analysis firm Valen Globals forecasts will be “a bigger threat to global security” than IS in coming years.
Last October, Vice President Joe Biden conceded that there is “no moderate middle” among the Syrian opposition. Turkey and the Gulf powers armed and funded “anyone who would fight against Assad,” including “al-Nusra,” “al-Qaeda in Iraq (AQI),” and the “extremist elements of jihadis who were coming from other parts of the world.”
In other words, the CIA-backed rebels targeted by Russia are not moderates. They represent the same melting pot of al-Qaeda affiliated networks that spawned the Islamic State in the first place.
The Institute for the Study of War (ISW) reports that as part of “US and Turkish efforts to establish an ISIS ‘free zone’ in the northern Aleppo countryside,” al-Nusra “withdrew from the border and reportedly reinforced positions in this rebel-held pocket north of Homs city”.
In other words, the US and Turkey are actively sponsoring “moderate” Syrian rebels in the form of al-Qaeda, which Washington DC-based risk analysis firm Valen Globals forecasts will be “a bigger threat to global security” than IS in coming years.
Last October, Vice President Joe Biden conceded that there is “no moderate middle” among the Syrian opposition. Turkey and the Gulf powers armed and funded “anyone who would fight against Assad,” including “al-Nusra,” “al-Qaeda in Iraq (AQI),” and the “extremist elements of jihadis who were coming from other parts of the world.”
In other words, the CIA-backed rebels targeted by Russia are not moderates. They represent the same melting pot of al-Qaeda affiliated networks that spawned the Islamic State in the first place.
It has been well documented that many of these so-called “moderate rebel groups” in Syria have fought alongside ISIS and have sold weapons to them. So this false dichotomy that Barack Obama keeps trying to sell us on is just a giant fraud. The following comes from a recent Infowars report…
In September, 2014 a commander with the FSA admitted cooperating with ISIS and the al-Nusra Front.
“We are collaborating with the Islamic State and the Nusra Front by attacking the Syrian Army’s gatherings in … Qalamoun,”Bassel Idriss said. “Let’s face it: The Nusra Front is the biggest power present right now in Qalamoun and we as FSA would collaborate on any mission they launch as long as it coincides with our values.”
In July of 2014 a report in Stars and Stripes documented how the 1,000 strong Dawud Brigade, which had previously fought alongside the FSA against al-Assad, had defected in its entirety to join ISIS.
The same month factions within the FSA — including Ahl Al Athar and Ibin al-Qa’im — pledged services to the Islamic State.
Members of the Islamic State claim to cooperate with the FSA and buy weapons provided by the U.S.
“We are buying weapons from the FSA. We bought 200 anti-aircraft missiles and Koncourse anti tank weapons,” ISIS member Abu Atheer told al-Jazeera. “We have good relations with our brothers in the FSA. For us, the infidels are those who cooperate with the West to fight Islam.”
“We are collaborating with the Islamic State and the Nusra Front by attacking the Syrian Army’s gatherings in … Qalamoun,”Bassel Idriss said. “Let’s face it: The Nusra Front is the biggest power present right now in Qalamoun and we as FSA would collaborate on any mission they launch as long as it coincides with our values.”
In July of 2014 a report in Stars and Stripes documented how the 1,000 strong Dawud Brigade, which had previously fought alongside the FSA against al-Assad, had defected in its entirety to join ISIS.
The same month factions within the FSA — including Ahl Al Athar and Ibin al-Qa’im — pledged services to the Islamic State.
Members of the Islamic State claim to cooperate with the FSA and buy weapons provided by the U.S.
“We are buying weapons from the FSA. We bought 200 anti-aircraft missiles and Koncourse anti tank weapons,” ISIS member Abu Atheer told al-Jazeera. “We have good relations with our brothers in the FSA. For us, the infidels are those who cooperate with the West to fight Islam.”
U.S. anti-tank weapons are playing a critical role in the Syrian conflict. As reported by the Washington Post, U.S.-made anti-tank missiles are being used by the rebels to destroy lots of Russian-made tanks that are being used by the Syrian army…
So successful have they been in driving rebel gains in northwestern Syria that rebels call the missile the “Assad Tamer,” a play on the word Assad, which means lion. And in recent days they have been used with great success to slow the Russian-backed offensive aimed at recapturing ground from the rebels.
Since Wednesday, when Syrian troops launched their first offensive backed by the might of Russia’s military, dozens of videos have been posted on YouTube showing rebels firing the U.S.-made missiles at Russian-made tanks and armored vehicles belonging to the Syrian army. Appearing as twirling balls of light, they zigzag across the Syrian countryside until they find and blast their target in a ball of flame.
Since Wednesday, when Syrian troops launched their first offensive backed by the might of Russia’s military, dozens of videos have been posted on YouTube showing rebels firing the U.S.-made missiles at Russian-made tanks and armored vehicles belonging to the Syrian army. Appearing as twirling balls of light, they zigzag across the Syrian countryside until they find and blast their target in a ball of flame.
Like I said earlier, this is looking more and more like a proxy war between the United States and Russia.
Could that be what Obama actually wants?
Obama is poking China in the eyes lately too. CNN is reporting that U.S. warships may soon be sailing into territorial waters around the Spratly Islands. These are islands that the Chinese government claims ownership over, but the U.S. government disputes that claim, and Obama seems determined to flex his muscles in the area…
The United States (US) may soon deploy war ships near China’s artificial islands in the South China Sea.
It wants to send a message that it does not recognize China’s territorial claims over the area.
This is according to a Financial Times report quoting a senior U.S. official who said its ships will sail within 12-nautical-mile zones that China claims as its territory around the Spratly Islands within the next two weeks.
It wants to send a message that it does not recognize China’s territorial claims over the area.
This is according to a Financial Times report quoting a senior U.S. official who said its ships will sail within 12-nautical-mile zones that China claims as its territory around the Spratly Islands within the next two weeks.
If Obama sends warships into that area, there is a very real chance that they could get shot at. According to Newsweek, the Chinese are saying that they will not permit U.S. ships to violate those territorial waters under any circumstances…
“We will never allow any country to violate China’s territorial waters and airspace in the Spratly Islands, in the name of protecting freedom of navigation and overflight,” Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Hua Chunying said in response to a question about possible U.S. patrols. “We urge the related parties not to take any provocative actions, and genuinely take a responsible stance on regional peace and stability.”
Such exchanges appear to be moving China and the U.S. toward a much feared, yet long expected, military confrontation. Just as unsettling, both sides seem confident they can prevail.
Such exchanges appear to be moving China and the U.S. toward a much feared, yet long expected, military confrontation. Just as unsettling, both sides seem confident they can prevail.
Over the past couple of years our relations with China have really gone downhill very rapidly, and if the trading relationship between the two largest economies on the planet breaks down, that would have massive implications for the entire global economy.
In addition to everything above, the civil war in Ukraine continues to rage on. The United States funded, equipped, trained and organized the forces that violently overthrew the democratically-elected government in Ukraine, and then once those thugs (which actually included some neo-Nazis) took power, the Obama administration immediately recognized them as the legitimate government of Ukraine.
The Russians were absolutely infuriated by this, and they have been providing soldiers, equipment and supplies to the rebel groups that are fighting back against this new government. Of course the Russians deny that they are doing this, but it is exceedingly obvious that they are.
The rebel groups that the Russians have been backing have been doing very well and have been steadily taking ground, and this is not how the power brokers in D.C. envisioned things playing out in Ukraine. So in a desperate attempt to shift the momentum of the conflict, a bill is going through Congress that would provide “lethal military aid” to the government in Kiev. Initially the bill would have provided 200 million dollars in lethal aid, but now it has been upped to 300 million dollars. There are some that believe that the final figure will be significantly higher.
Once this bill gets passed, it will be an extremely important event. For the Russians, it will mean crossing a red line that never should have been crossed. You see, the truth is that Ukraine is Russia’s most important neighbor. Just imagine how we would feel if the Russians helped overthrow Canada’s government and then start feeding weapons to the new pro-Russian government that they helped install. That is exactly how the Russians view our meddling in Ukraine.
Earlier this year, I wrote an article in which I discussed an opinion poll that showed that 81 percent of all Russians now view the United States negatively, and only 13 percent of Russians have a positive view of this nation. Not even during the height of the Cold War were the numbers that bad.
The stage is being set for World War III, but most Americans are completely and totally oblivious to all of this because they are so wrapped up in their own little worlds.
Most Americans still seem to assume that the Russians and the Chinese are our “friends” and that any type of conflict between major global powers is impossible.
Well, the truth is that conflict has already begun in Ukraine and Syria, and tensions are rising with each passing day.
It won’t happen next week or next month, but we are on the road to World War III.
pmaitra
Senior Member
- Joined
- Mar 10, 2009
- Messages
- 33,262
- Likes
- 19,595
Сирия сегодня. Сирийская армия теснит террористов
This place was bombed by the Russians few days ago. Now, it is under Syrian control.
Сирия. Обрушение дома в Дамаске, район Джобар
Damaged in fighting, a multi-storied building collapses in Joubar district of Damascus.
Сирия Уничтожение автомобиля, управляемого террористом смертником ИГИЛ
Syrian Army destroys ISIS suicide vehicle
Сирия. Кадры разгрома боевиков ИГИЛ. 18+
Dead ISIS, or as some might argue, dead "moderates." For those that claim these were "moderates," just pretend they were killed "moderately." The point is, they are dead. Total 45 ISIS terrorists were killed and several injured during Syrian offensive at al-Mazarat, near Salama, Hama Province. Could be disturbing for some viewers. Personally, it did not bother me whatsoever.
This place was bombed by the Russians few days ago. Now, it is under Syrian control.
Сирия. Обрушение дома в Дамаске, район Джобар
Damaged in fighting, a multi-storied building collapses in Joubar district of Damascus.
Сирия Уничтожение автомобиля, управляемого террористом смертником ИГИЛ
Syrian Army destroys ISIS suicide vehicle
Сирия. Кадры разгрома боевиков ИГИЛ. 18+
Dead ISIS, or as some might argue, dead "moderates." For those that claim these were "moderates," just pretend they were killed "moderately." The point is, they are dead. Total 45 ISIS terrorists were killed and several injured during Syrian offensive at al-Mazarat, near Salama, Hama Province. Could be disturbing for some viewers. Personally, it did not bother me whatsoever.
jouni
Senior Member
- Joined
- Jul 29, 2014
- Messages
- 3,900
- Likes
- 1,138
http://www.themoscowtimes.com/opini...-tale-of-oil-and-aggression-op-ed/539237.html
Petrostate Politics: A Tale of Oil and Aggression (Op-Ed)
Commentators have already compared President Vladimir Putin's recent address before the UN General Assembly with his speech at a security conference in Munich in 2007. Some, such as Sergei Markov, claimed the speech was "tougher than Munich, outright anti-American," while others, such as Tatyana Stanovaya, argued that it was "the opposite of Munich," an effort to return to the time in 2001-03 when Russia was not a rival of the West, but an ally.
"Munich II" or the "anti-Munich," that is the question. The answer lies in a simple comparison of the two speeches. In Munich, Putin used the words "unipolar" or "unipolar world" five times, "NATO" seven times, "confrontation" twice, "provoked" once and "so-called" two times. In his speech before the UN General Assembly, in place of the term "unipolar," Putin spoke of "bloc mentality" and "the only center of dominance." At the same time, he mentioned "egoism" twice, "ambition" four times, "confrontation" twice, "manipulate" twice, "provoked" once, "so-called" once and "hypocritical and irresponsible" once.
In 2007 Putin addressed the West, saying: "There is no need to play God and solve all of these peoples' problems." And in 2015 he asked: "Do you at least realize now what you've done?" And concluded: "But I'm afraid that this question will remain unanswered, because they have never abandoned their policy, which is based on arrogance, exceptionalism and impunity."
This simple comparison clearly shows that Putin's UN address is in no way the opposite of his Munich speech or an appeal for peace. Although the call for cooperation made his UN speech somewhat less aggressive, his words were no less stern than in Munich. The Kremlin is trying to revive cooperation with the West — frozen over the conflict in Ukraine — without making any concessions on its own position. Putin continues his hard-hitting rhetoric, and it was in this spirit that the West perceived it. And the fact that Russia began its bombing campaign in Syria shortly afterward only reinforced the aggressive impression that Putin's UN speech produced.
I wrote earlier in The Washington Post that the aggression of the Russian authorities, as well as the aggressive behavior of the governments of other oil-dependent states is directly linked to oil prices.
Research indicates that petrostates become more aggressive and start conflicts when oil prices rise sharply. In a study of 153 countries over a period of 50 years, political scientist Cullen Hendricks showed that oil exporting states become significantly more aggressive as compared to their nearest neighbors whenever oil prices soar. Hendricks found that when oil prices exceed $77 per barrel (at the purchasing power of the dollar in 2008), petrostates become 30 percent more aggressive than non-exporters.
Political scientist Jeff Colgan, using a database of inter-state conflicts involving military force from among 170 countries between 1945 and 2001, found that countries whose net income from oil exports accounts for 10 percent or more of gross domestic product are the most belligerent in the world. They tend to use military force in interstate conflicts, and since World War II, were 50 percent more likely than ordinary states to become involved in military conflicts.
Venezuela's mobilization for war with Colombia and Iran's support for Hezbollah's planned attack against Israel as oil prices climbed toward their peak in 2008 fully accords with this rule, as does Iraq's invasion of Iran in 1980 and Libya's repeated attacks on Chad during the sharp increases in oil prices in 1970 and 1980. "Petrocratic" states become aggressive because high oil revenues increase their military potential, leading to an increase in adventurism in the international arena.
In this sense, Russia is an ordinary petrostate. When oil was $25 per barrel in the early 2000s, Putin sought cooperation with the West and spoke of Russia possibly joining NATO. Hendricks shows that such behavior is normal for petrocracies, and that they are even more peace-loving than ordinary states when oil prices fall below $33 per barrel.
When a barrel of Urals crude cost approximately $20 in 2002, Putin set Russia's integration with Europe and the creation of a single economic space spanning Russia and the EU as priorities in his speech to the Federal Assembly. However, when the price of oil hit $110 per barrel in 2014, Putin sent his military into Ukraine to punish it for trying to create the same type of unified economic zone with the same European allies. Putin delivered his unprecedentedly aggressive speech in Munich in February 2007 at a time when oil was at $54 and rising and Russia was "getting up off its knees."
However, the Hendricks model does not explain why the Russian leadership continues to behave aggressively and make Munich-like public pronouncements even when oil prices are falling or volatile — ranging between $40 and $50 per barrel in August-October 2015.
Despite the fact that the price of oil has dropped by half in the past 12 months, Moscow's ruling elite is confident it will rebound within one to three years. Speaking at the Sochi 2015 forum, newly appointed LUKoil vice president Leonid Fedun even predicted that the price would return to $100 per barrel as soon as 2016. Rosneft president Igor Sechin is similarly optimistic.
In this regard, economist Vladislav Inozemtsev delivered a lecture in which he quoted Ivan Starikov as calling these Moscow dreamers the sect of "High Price Witnesses."Because of their almost fanatical belief, Kremlin officials consistently postpone implementing long overdue and vital reforms, advising citizens to simply tighten their belts and wait out the current crisis.
In that same lecture, Inozemtsev said, "Leaders realize that this crisis will last longer, but they believe the solution is the same. In 2009, it took eight months before rebounding oil prices helped Russia emerge from the crisis. Now it will take approximately three years," he said. Thus, the actions of the Russian authorities find motivation not so much in the current price of oil, but in their expectation that the price will soon rise to previous levels.
However, Russian officials and businessmen might base their unusual and seemingly unfounded expectation of higher oil prices not so much on any quasi-cultish belief as on inside knowledge of the Kremlin's long-term plans in Syria. Economist Andrei Illarionov suggested that Russian military operations might fail to defeat Islamic terrorists but succeed in destabilizing the Middle East and driving up the price of oil.
Although confidence in a rebound in oil prices is hardly justified, it is in keeping with the statements and actions of the Russian authorities — that is, as much as anything can make sense for people "living in a different world," as German Chancellor Angela Merkel once characterized Putin. According to this logic, and following the Hendricks model, Putin will issue an "anti-Munich" speech only when oil prices stabilize over the long term at $30 per barrel.
Maria Snegovaya is a Ph.D. student in political science at Columbia University and a columnist at Vedomosti. This article was originally published in Vedomosti.
Petrostate Politics: A Tale of Oil and Aggression (Op-Ed)
- By Maria Snegovaya
- Oct. 15 2015 20:10
- Last edited 20:10
Commentators have already compared President Vladimir Putin's recent address before the UN General Assembly with his speech at a security conference in Munich in 2007. Some, such as Sergei Markov, claimed the speech was "tougher than Munich, outright anti-American," while others, such as Tatyana Stanovaya, argued that it was "the opposite of Munich," an effort to return to the time in 2001-03 when Russia was not a rival of the West, but an ally.
"Munich II" or the "anti-Munich," that is the question. The answer lies in a simple comparison of the two speeches. In Munich, Putin used the words "unipolar" or "unipolar world" five times, "NATO" seven times, "confrontation" twice, "provoked" once and "so-called" two times. In his speech before the UN General Assembly, in place of the term "unipolar," Putin spoke of "bloc mentality" and "the only center of dominance." At the same time, he mentioned "egoism" twice, "ambition" four times, "confrontation" twice, "manipulate" twice, "provoked" once, "so-called" once and "hypocritical and irresponsible" once.
In 2007 Putin addressed the West, saying: "There is no need to play God and solve all of these peoples' problems." And in 2015 he asked: "Do you at least realize now what you've done?" And concluded: "But I'm afraid that this question will remain unanswered, because they have never abandoned their policy, which is based on arrogance, exceptionalism and impunity."
This simple comparison clearly shows that Putin's UN address is in no way the opposite of his Munich speech or an appeal for peace. Although the call for cooperation made his UN speech somewhat less aggressive, his words were no less stern than in Munich. The Kremlin is trying to revive cooperation with the West — frozen over the conflict in Ukraine — without making any concessions on its own position. Putin continues his hard-hitting rhetoric, and it was in this spirit that the West perceived it. And the fact that Russia began its bombing campaign in Syria shortly afterward only reinforced the aggressive impression that Putin's UN speech produced.
I wrote earlier in The Washington Post that the aggression of the Russian authorities, as well as the aggressive behavior of the governments of other oil-dependent states is directly linked to oil prices.
Research indicates that petrostates become more aggressive and start conflicts when oil prices rise sharply. In a study of 153 countries over a period of 50 years, political scientist Cullen Hendricks showed that oil exporting states become significantly more aggressive as compared to their nearest neighbors whenever oil prices soar. Hendricks found that when oil prices exceed $77 per barrel (at the purchasing power of the dollar in 2008), petrostates become 30 percent more aggressive than non-exporters.
Political scientist Jeff Colgan, using a database of inter-state conflicts involving military force from among 170 countries between 1945 and 2001, found that countries whose net income from oil exports accounts for 10 percent or more of gross domestic product are the most belligerent in the world. They tend to use military force in interstate conflicts, and since World War II, were 50 percent more likely than ordinary states to become involved in military conflicts.
Venezuela's mobilization for war with Colombia and Iran's support for Hezbollah's planned attack against Israel as oil prices climbed toward their peak in 2008 fully accords with this rule, as does Iraq's invasion of Iran in 1980 and Libya's repeated attacks on Chad during the sharp increases in oil prices in 1970 and 1980. "Petrocratic" states become aggressive because high oil revenues increase their military potential, leading to an increase in adventurism in the international arena.
In this sense, Russia is an ordinary petrostate. When oil was $25 per barrel in the early 2000s, Putin sought cooperation with the West and spoke of Russia possibly joining NATO. Hendricks shows that such behavior is normal for petrocracies, and that they are even more peace-loving than ordinary states when oil prices fall below $33 per barrel.
When a barrel of Urals crude cost approximately $20 in 2002, Putin set Russia's integration with Europe and the creation of a single economic space spanning Russia and the EU as priorities in his speech to the Federal Assembly. However, when the price of oil hit $110 per barrel in 2014, Putin sent his military into Ukraine to punish it for trying to create the same type of unified economic zone with the same European allies. Putin delivered his unprecedentedly aggressive speech in Munich in February 2007 at a time when oil was at $54 and rising and Russia was "getting up off its knees."
However, the Hendricks model does not explain why the Russian leadership continues to behave aggressively and make Munich-like public pronouncements even when oil prices are falling or volatile — ranging between $40 and $50 per barrel in August-October 2015.
Despite the fact that the price of oil has dropped by half in the past 12 months, Moscow's ruling elite is confident it will rebound within one to three years. Speaking at the Sochi 2015 forum, newly appointed LUKoil vice president Leonid Fedun even predicted that the price would return to $100 per barrel as soon as 2016. Rosneft president Igor Sechin is similarly optimistic.
In this regard, economist Vladislav Inozemtsev delivered a lecture in which he quoted Ivan Starikov as calling these Moscow dreamers the sect of "High Price Witnesses."Because of their almost fanatical belief, Kremlin officials consistently postpone implementing long overdue and vital reforms, advising citizens to simply tighten their belts and wait out the current crisis.
In that same lecture, Inozemtsev said, "Leaders realize that this crisis will last longer, but they believe the solution is the same. In 2009, it took eight months before rebounding oil prices helped Russia emerge from the crisis. Now it will take approximately three years," he said. Thus, the actions of the Russian authorities find motivation not so much in the current price of oil, but in their expectation that the price will soon rise to previous levels.
However, Russian officials and businessmen might base their unusual and seemingly unfounded expectation of higher oil prices not so much on any quasi-cultish belief as on inside knowledge of the Kremlin's long-term plans in Syria. Economist Andrei Illarionov suggested that Russian military operations might fail to defeat Islamic terrorists but succeed in destabilizing the Middle East and driving up the price of oil.
Although confidence in a rebound in oil prices is hardly justified, it is in keeping with the statements and actions of the Russian authorities — that is, as much as anything can make sense for people "living in a different world," as German Chancellor Angela Merkel once characterized Putin. According to this logic, and following the Hendricks model, Putin will issue an "anti-Munich" speech only when oil prices stabilize over the long term at $30 per barrel.
Maria Snegovaya is a Ph.D. student in political science at Columbia University and a columnist at Vedomosti. This article was originally published in Vedomosti.
gadeshi
Senior Member
- Joined
- Jun 19, 2013
- Messages
- 9,223
- Likes
- 6,636
Stop posting the bullshit from Moscow Times and Vedomosti here. It's "journalists" doesn't even know how many people live in Russiahttp://www.themoscowtimes.com/opini...-tale-of-oil-and-aggression-op-ed/539237.html
Petrostate Politics: A Tale of Oil and Aggression (Op-Ed)
- By Maria Snegovaya
- Oct. 15 2015 20:10
- Last edited 20:10
Commentators have already compared President Vladimir Putin's recent address before the UN General Assembly with his speech at a security conference in Munich in 2007. Some, such as Sergei Markov, claimed the speech was "tougher than Munich, outright anti-American," while others, such as Tatyana Stanovaya, argued that it was "the opposite of Munich," an effort to return to the time in 2001-03 when Russia was not a rival of the West, but an ally.
"Munich II" or the "anti-Munich," that is the question. The answer lies in a simple comparison of the two speeches. In Munich, Putin used the words "unipolar" or "unipolar world" five times, "NATO" seven times, "confrontation" twice, "provoked" once and "so-called" two times. In his speech before the UN General Assembly, in place of the term "unipolar," Putin spoke of "bloc mentality" and "the only center of dominance." At the same time, he mentioned "egoism" twice, "ambition" four times, "confrontation" twice, "manipulate" twice, "provoked" once, "so-called" once and "hypocritical and irresponsible" once.
In 2007 Putin addressed the West, saying: "There is no need to play God and solve all of these peoples' problems." And in 2015 he asked: "Do you at least realize now what you've done?" And concluded: "But I'm afraid that this question will remain unanswered, because they have never abandoned their policy, which is based on arrogance, exceptionalism and impunity."
This simple comparison clearly shows that Putin's UN address is in no way the opposite of his Munich speech or an appeal for peace. Although the call for cooperation made his UN speech somewhat less aggressive, his words were no less stern than in Munich. The Kremlin is trying to revive cooperation with the West — frozen over the conflict in Ukraine — without making any concessions on its own position. Putin continues his hard-hitting rhetoric, and it was in this spirit that the West perceived it. And the fact that Russia began its bombing campaign in Syria shortly afterward only reinforced the aggressive impression that Putin's UN speech produced.
I wrote earlier in The Washington Post that the aggression of the Russian authorities, as well as the aggressive behavior of the governments of other oil-dependent states is directly linked to oil prices.
Research indicates that petrostates become more aggressive and start conflicts when oil prices rise sharply. In a study of 153 countries over a period of 50 years, political scientist Cullen Hendricks showed that oil exporting states become significantly more aggressive as compared to their nearest neighbors whenever oil prices soar. Hendricks found that when oil prices exceed $77 per barrel (at the purchasing power of the dollar in 2008), petrostates become 30 percent more aggressive than non-exporters.
Political scientist Jeff Colgan, using a database of inter-state conflicts involving military force from among 170 countries between 1945 and 2001, found that countries whose net income from oil exports accounts for 10 percent or more of gross domestic product are the most belligerent in the world. They tend to use military force in interstate conflicts, and since World War II, were 50 percent more likely than ordinary states to become involved in military conflicts.
Venezuela's mobilization for war with Colombia and Iran's support for Hezbollah's planned attack against Israel as oil prices climbed toward their peak in 2008 fully accords with this rule, as does Iraq's invasion of Iran in 1980 and Libya's repeated attacks on Chad during the sharp increases in oil prices in 1970 and 1980. "Petrocratic" states become aggressive because high oil revenues increase their military potential, leading to an increase in adventurism in the international arena.
In this sense, Russia is an ordinary petrostate. When oil was $25 per barrel in the early 2000s, Putin sought cooperation with the West and spoke of Russia possibly joining NATO. Hendricks shows that such behavior is normal for petrocracies, and that they are even more peace-loving than ordinary states when oil prices fall below $33 per barrel.
When a barrel of Urals crude cost approximately $20 in 2002, Putin set Russia's integration with Europe and the creation of a single economic space spanning Russia and the EU as priorities in his speech to the Federal Assembly. However, when the price of oil hit $110 per barrel in 2014, Putin sent his military into Ukraine to punish it for trying to create the same type of unified economic zone with the same European allies. Putin delivered his unprecedentedly aggressive speech in Munich in February 2007 at a time when oil was at $54 and rising and Russia was "getting up off its knees."
However, the Hendricks model does not explain why the Russian leadership continues to behave aggressively and make Munich-like public pronouncements even when oil prices are falling or volatile — ranging between $40 and $50 per barrel in August-October 2015.
Despite the fact that the price of oil has dropped by half in the past 12 months, Moscow's ruling elite is confident it will rebound within one to three years. Speaking at the Sochi 2015 forum, newly appointed LUKoil vice president Leonid Fedun even predicted that the price would return to $100 per barrel as soon as 2016. Rosneft president Igor Sechin is similarly optimistic.
In this regard, economist Vladislav Inozemtsev delivered a lecture in which he quoted Ivan Starikov as calling these Moscow dreamers the sect of "High Price Witnesses."Because of their almost fanatical belief, Kremlin officials consistently postpone implementing long overdue and vital reforms, advising citizens to simply tighten their belts and wait out the current crisis.
In that same lecture, Inozemtsev said, "Leaders realize that this crisis will last longer, but they believe the solution is the same. In 2009, it took eight months before rebounding oil prices helped Russia emerge from the crisis. Now it will take approximately three years," he said. Thus, the actions of the Russian authorities find motivation not so much in the current price of oil, but in their expectation that the price will soon rise to previous levels.
However, Russian officials and businessmen might base their unusual and seemingly unfounded expectation of higher oil prices not so much on any quasi-cultish belief as on inside knowledge of the Kremlin's long-term plans in Syria. Economist Andrei Illarionov suggested that Russian military operations might fail to defeat Islamic terrorists but succeed in destabilizing the Middle East and driving up the price of oil.
Although confidence in a rebound in oil prices is hardly justified, it is in keeping with the statements and actions of the Russian authorities — that is, as much as anything can make sense for people "living in a different world," as German Chancellor Angela Merkel once characterized Putin. According to this logic, and following the Hendricks model, Putin will issue an "anti-Munich" speech only when oil prices stabilize over the long term at $30 per barrel.
Maria Snegovaya is a Ph.D. student in political science at Columbia University and a columnist at Vedomosti. This article was originally published in Vedomosti.
Posting Moscow Times is even more showing yourself as an idiot than posting Pedivikia
Отправлено с моего XT1080 через Tapatalk
Cadian
Regular Member
- Joined
- May 5, 2014
- Messages
- 824
- Likes
- 795
Local Ukro-patriots, who have printed it, do not know the rules of Russian language.Continues to believe in the "serious" evidence. For the Ukrainian side of the war more than 1,000 foreigners.. There are also about 100 instructors (United States, Israel, Britain, Georgia)
Donetsk (Ukraine) Announcement for recruitment of mercenaries to Syria.
3 grammar mistakes:
1) Получешь - should be получИшь;
2) Учасник - should be учасТник;
3) Нелегальний - should be НелегальнЫй (it's written in Ukrainian manner).
1 funny thing:
Ukro-punishers are called "our orthodox brothers". Lol.
gadeshi
Senior Member
- Joined
- Jun 19, 2013
- Messages
- 9,223
- Likes
- 6,636
Orthodox is Pravoslavniy (pravoverniy), the erudite like you should know it
Отправлено с моего XT1080 через Tapatalk
Cadian
Regular Member
- Joined
- May 5, 2014
- Messages
- 824
- Likes
- 795
Of course I know it, I actually meant it. I am a member of Russian Orthodox Church and I know what prayer is read every day on the Liturgy in every single Russian Orthodox temple across the world (including canonical Ukrainian Orthodox Church).Orthodox is Pravoslavniy (pravoverniy), the erudite like you should know it
Отправлено с моего XT1080 через Tapatalk
Господи Иисусе Христе Боже наш, призри милостивным Твоим оком на скорбь и многоболезненный вопль чад Твоих, в земле украинстей сущих.
Избави люди Твоя от междоусобныя брани, утоли кровопролития, отврати належащия беды. Лишенныя крова введи в домы, алчущия напитай, плачущия утеши, разделенныя совокупи.
Не остави стадо Свое, от сродник своих во озлоблении сущих, умалитися, но скорое примирение яко щедр даруй. Ожесточенных сердца умягчи и к Твоему познанию обрати. Мир Церкви Твоей и верным чадам ея подаждь, да единем сердцем и едиными усты прославим Тя, Господа и Спасителя нашего во веки веков. Аминь.
O Lord Jesus Christ our God, look down with Thy merciful eye on the sorrow and great pain of lamentation of Thy children in the Ukrainian land.
Deliver Thy people from civil strife, make to cease the bloodshed, turn away impending misfortunes. Bring the homeless home, feed those that thirst, console those that weep, join together those that are divided.
Let not Thy flock that are embittered towards their kin be diminished, but grant them swift reconciliation, for Thou art compassionate. Soften the hearts of those that have grown violent and bring them to know Thee. Give peace to Thy Church and her faithful children, that with one heart and one mouth we may glorify Thee, our Lord and Saviour, unto the ages of ages. Amen.
(Patriarch Kirill of Moscow and All Russia has called on parishes of the Moscow Patriarchate to include this special prayer for peace in Ukraine to be included in the Divine Liturgy)
And the guys who come to Donbass to kill "separatists", "terrorists" or "traitors" are surely not following these motives. They are brothers in none for us.
jouni
Senior Member
- Joined
- Jul 29, 2014
- Messages
- 3,900
- Likes
- 1,138
I respect your religion and your spiritual searching, but it is a little bit thick to bring the church here. Russian orthodox church supported Putin´s well prepared crusade against "nazis" in Ukraine just like German church supported Hitler´s Reich or Finnish church supported our crusade in Russian Karelia at ´41. All hypocrites.
Russian Orthodox church is playing a dangerous game here....they have already lost 40 million Ukrainians and no sugarcoating is gonna reverse that.
