Russia Positioning Tanks At Syria Airfield: U.S. Officials
Source: Reuters
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Russia has positioned about a half dozen tanks at an airfield at the center of a military buildup in Syria, two U.S. officials said on Monday, adding that the intentions of Moscow's latest deployment of heavy military equipment were unclear.
Moscow has come under increased international pressure in recent days to explain its moves in Syria, where the Kremlin has been supporting Syrian President Bashar al-Assad in a 4-1/2-year war.
The Pentagon declined to directly comment on the Reuters report, saying it could not discuss U.S. intelligence. But a spokesman said recent actions by Moscow suggested plans to establish a forward air operating base.
"We have seen movement of people and things that would indicate that they plan to use that base there, south of Latakia, as a forward air operating base," Pentagon spokesman Captain Jeff Davis told a news briefing.
Read more: http://news.yahoo.com/russia-positioning-tanks-syria-airfield-u-officials-144236303.html
Russian Flights Over Iraq and Iran Escalate Tension With U.S.
By ERIC SCHMITT and MICHAEL R. GORDONSEPT. 14, 2015
WASHINGTON Russia is using an air corridor over Iraq and Iran to fly military equipment and personnel to a new air hub in Syria, openly defying American efforts to block the shipments and significantly increasing tensions with Washington.
American officials disclosed Sunday that at least seven giant Russian Condor transport planes had taken off from a base in southern Russia during the past week to ferry equipment to Syria, all passing through Iranian and Iraqi airspace.
Their destination was an airfield south of Latakia, Syria, which could become the most significant new Russian military foothold in the Middle East in decades, American officials said.
The Obama administration initially hoped it had hampered the Russian effort to move military equipment and personnel into Syria when Bulgaria, a NATO member, announced it would close its airspace to the flights. But Russia quickly began channeling its flights over Iraq and Iran, which Russias foreign minister, Sergey V. Lavrov, said on Sunday would continue despite American objections.
MORE...
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/15/world/middleeast/russian-flights-over-iraq-and-iran-escalate-tension-with-us.html?_r=0
rladdi
(581 posts)Ukraine and no one does anything. Germany, France, UK and other nations are afraid of Putin. WHY? Putin is the real terrorist and continue to survive, no one tries to kill hm. WHY is PUtin still living? Wake up America, your government is the most weak ever.
underpants
(182,829 posts)Massive ground and air attack in Europe? Follow by spreading it into the Middle East ?
R. Daneel Olivaw
(12,606 posts)Comrade Grumpy
(13,184 posts)denvine
(802 posts)6chars
(3,967 posts)If good, the I guess let it happen. If bad, I would be surprised that the only response is a statement that "we have seen some movement toward establishing a base." Responses if it is bad would be non-military, diplomatic responses of varying strength. In the game of international projection of power, it does seem like a pretty easy way for Russia to get a strategically located airbase. If this remains the only response, I will assume TPTB have determined it is basically desirable for other reasons, e.g., secret agreements.
Comrade Grumpy
(13,184 posts)I think rolling back ISIS and stabilizing Syria through a negotiated settlement is the best option.
If the Russians help Assad defeat ISIS in Syria and then get his regime to agree to a negotiated peace, that would be a good thing for the region.
US policy seems to be little more than "Assad must go" without being willing to make him go. (And that's okay--it is not our place to decide who governs Syria.)
6chars
(3,967 posts)maindawg
(1,151 posts)And to get rid of ISIS.
yay putin !
Ned Flanders
(233 posts)I'm not an expert, just someone who has spent most of his life playing tactical and strategic-level war games. And if I were playing Russia, I'd be carving out a chunk of territory and establishing a nice base of operations in the middle east, all in the name of helping Syria.
Your turn, team blue.
Igel
(35,320 posts)I, for one, have never been a supporter of intervention in Syria. Seemed like a bad idea; most "revolutions" and instability end badly. It has to be pretty bad for the majority of outcomes to be better than the status quo.
I mean, really, that was even obvious to folk back in 1776.
At the same time, though, I'd have to point out that the ME is not the world. Russia has a habit of gaining strength by actively supporting allies and helping them in all manner of ways. The US has a habit, a really toxic habit, of immediately abandoning allies because of some moral taint or perceived problem. We turn on our allies routinely; Russian support turns their allies on. US support and denial of support to allies often doesn't serve strategic or tactical goals, but public opinion; Russian support to allies serves stratetic or tactical goals.
6chars
(3,967 posts)seriously. that's interesting. i have to chew on it. (the last paragraph)
ozone_man
(4,825 posts)What's this negotiated peace? The U.S. has been supporting these terrorist groups for 5 years now, and Saudia Arabia, Turkey.
I thinks its time to boot them out.
bluedigger
(17,086 posts)dzhuboi
(30 posts)Nothing, because we've nothing positive to contribute to the region! We wrecked it. And further action on our part is making things even worse! Stop bombing Syria, stop bombing Iraq, and get the fuck out of where we are definitely not welcome!