Russia sends warships to Mediterranean - Interfax

[dipsydoodle]

Source: Reuters

(Reuters) - Russia is sending two warships to the eastern Mediterranean, Interfax news agency said on Thursday, as Western powers prepare for military action over last week's alleged chemical weapons attack in Syria.

Interfax news agency quoted a source in the armed forces' general staff as saying a missile cruiser and an anti-submarine ship would arrive in the coming days because of the "well-known situation" - a clear reference to the conflict in Syria.

The navy later denied the deployment was linked to events in Syria and said it was part of a long-planned rotation of its ships in the Mediterranean. It did not say what kind of vessels, or how many, were on their way to the region.

The initial Interfax report had made clear that the aim was to beef up the navy's presence and not to replace the ships in the Mediterranean. The reason for the discrepancy in the two reports was not immediately clear.

Read more: http://uk.reuters.com/article/2013/08/29/uk-syria-crisis-russia-navy-idUKBRE97S0AQ20130829

---

And meanwhile :

Britain sends six RAF jets to Cyprus in defensive role.

(Reuters) - Britain is sending six RAF Typhoon jets to Cyprus as a defensive measure amid growing tensions over Syria and talks of Western military intervention.

A spokesman for the Ministry of Defence said the air-to-air interceptor jets would be deployed to the British Akrotiri base in Cyprus on Thursday.

"This is purely a prudent and precautionary measure to ensure the protection of UK interests and the defence of our Sovereign Base Areas at a time of heightened tension in the wider region," the spokesman said.

>

Cyprus is just 200 km (120 miles) from the Syrian coast. Britain also has warships in the Mediterranean.

http://uk.reuters.com/article/2013/08/29/uk-syria-crisis-britain-jets-idUKBRE97S0CO20130829

[steve2470]

1. massive clusterfuck in the making nt

[newfie11]

2. Very true

A disaster in the making.

[Soylent Brice]

10. ^^^

[warrant46]

3. When can we start to shout ?

USA USA USA ?

Or

game on

[Sunlei]

4. did russia paint on the warship? "FOR SALE"

[go west young man]

18. Russia has actually built 7 new Corvette warships

since 2006. They are building lighter, faster warships that carry advanced weaponry so as to be able to hit and run and deploy to areas quicker while at the same time being more stealthy. And they have built a new nuclear sub recently. They still have the entire Soviet fleet which was mainly built in the 1980's. Most of those ships are fitted with advanced missile capability.

[Sunlei]

24. all the war profiteers must be lobbying their asses off to gov politicans to use those 'toys'

lobbying and causing troubles towards terrorists aswell to create war too.

[TBF]

5. Well now everyone has their boats there ...

I hope the Carlyle Group is happy.

[LuvNewcastle]

6. I really hope the British vote against this action.

If the U.S. is forced to go it alone, maybe the action will be stopped. The Russian presence there is just another kink in the plans, so I think it's obvious that it would be too risky and irresponsible for us to make a strike.

[pampango]

9. I agree but the French will probably join anyway.

The Guardian's Paris correspondent, Angelique Chrisafis, writes that the perception is that France is gearing up for military action:

The Elysee has not commented publicly on any delay in Westminster, which the French media put down to UK's troubled history with Tony Blair's decision making on Iraq. President Francois Hollande had told ambassadors on Tuesday that France would make its decision in “the coming days” leaving room for manoeuvre. However, this morning a French naval frigate left the southern French port of Toulon reportedly headed for waters off Syria to join US craft already there, its anti-aircraft capacity key in potentially protecting against any Syrian counter air-strikes. Although officially there was no confirmation of the frigate's destination, its move was seen by French media as a sign that Paris was stepping up its preparations for any action.

After a leading a defence council meeting yesterday, Hollande will see Ahmad Jarba today. Under France's presidential system, Hollande does not need a parliament vote before taking action. But he is still dependent on acting with a coalition of international allies and sensitive to divisions in his own political class. Hollande has the backing of his Socialist party and the Greens. The main opposition party, the right-wing UMP, is divided, with some MPs pro-intervention, others cautious. The hard-left Jean-Luc Melenchon has warned against intervention, the far-right Marine Le Pen said intervention would mean Hollande was “choosing the islamists”. The French parliament will debate the issue next Thursday but without a vote, and the decision-making power rests firmly with the Elysée.

Opinion polls in France have often shown the country divided and hesitant on military intervention, namely over Afghanistan, although France's recent and sudden intervention in Mali gained support in the polls. An Ifop poll today for Le Figaro found that 55% of French people would support a UN intervention in Syria, but only 41% would support French military engagement. Left-wing sympathisers were more in favour of both types of intervention than right-wing sympathisers. However, French public opinion could evolve. An Ifop poll in July found 60% of French people were against any intervention in Syria.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/aug/29/syria-crisis-iran-says-all-efforts-must-be-made-to-prevent-military-action-live

[penultimate]

21. It seemed to me that the French have been pushing pretty hard for action...

Didn't they lead do the same thing in Libya? How is their Mali thing going on these days?

[icymist]

15. There is always a Russian presence in Syria...

They have a small base in the port of Tartus.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_naval_facility_in_Tartus

[Lasher]

31. And I suspect some journalist is trying to turn a normal rotation into a buildup.

That would sell more newspapers, you see. But Russia already had warships in the area.

[icymist]

35. Yeah, I believe it's they're only Mediterranean port.

Plus Syria is one of their oil producers, I don't see them giving that up soon. As for the normal rotation... we'll have to see.

[SHRED]

7. $$$$$The MIC is licking it's chops$$$$$

[NealK]

8. Damn.

[caseymoz]

11. Power up fan; prepare to deploy shit.

[Rebellious Republican]

12. "a missile cruiser and an anti-submarine ship" now that is laughable.

Thats not anything to even raise an eye brow for me. Basically thats like pissing on a wildfire and everyone thinking it will put it out. Some folks get alarmed about some of the strangest things I guess.

[John2]

16. Did they ever

recall the dozen warships that they already sent to the area earlier this summer? If they are beefing up, it makes 14. They still have a navl base in Syria.

[John2]

17. Syria also has a small navy in the area.

They claimed they sunk an Israeli sub earlier, but I don't know how true that is. The claim is Israel didn't report all the events of their last attack on Syria. Some Syrian sources made the claim they intercepted Israel and they took casualties, including the downing of an Israeli jet, which Israel claimed crashed in the sea. The Syrians claimed they shot it down and they carried out the missile attacks in the Golan Heights. Netanyahu was very quiet about the results, but the Americans claimed Israel did carry the strike out and didn't get all the targets. So you have two sides making claims, and it is hard to tell which one is telling the truth when it comes to military strikes.
I just get the perception the Syrian military isn't afraid of a strike with their last successes against the rebels and these secret strikes. I also get the impression, they are not exposing all their military capabilities either. My belief is, if there is a War, more groups will expose their hands about their involvement. It isn't just the Assad regime, that will be fighting against the West. It is sort of a bait and trap game being played.

When you look at the strenght of just Hezbullah with over fifty thousand rockets and possibly a force of over 60,000 fighters in Lebanon alone, pointed right at Israel, then you have the Syrian Forces added to the Forces in Iran, alone with the militia groups in Iraq, the immediate threat will be on Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Israel. These are groups right in the region and on the Border. Iran has built up their naval forces and air force, to threaten the Persian Gulf. They have increased the range of their submarine forces.

You add in the Russian naval fleet in the Meditteraenean and you begin to see why Egypt is so important to the United States, Britain, France Israel and the Gulf States. This is the leaverage Egypt has over them, because they control entrance from the Persian Gulf and the quickest way into the Medditeraenean by Western Naval forces. With the U.S. engaged in the Middle East, it can also upset the balance of power in Asia with the North Koreans, China and Pakistan, becoming more active militarily. The U.S. has already been spending enormous money on their military adventures, which could bankrupt the country if this continues.

[Rebellious Republican]

19. Like I said, its laughable. Update as of 8-28-13

The Russians do not want to take on the US Navy, its a no win situation for them. I worked in the intelligence/spook Navy. I have a little personal knowledge to base my opinion on.



Russia To Withdraw Personnel From Syria Naval Base

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/08/28/russia-syria-base_n_3828972.html

[atreides1]

27. And if an accident occurs?

You still going to be laughing?

The one thing that I find completely abhorrent about anyone is arrogance, and you have it in spades!!!

[Rebellious Republican]

29. Its not arrogance, its called personal knowledge of the area!

What would you bring to the table in the way of personal knowledge or facts backed with links, other than your knee jerk, emotional response. You offered nothing but a personal attack. Come back when you want to have a civil discussion. I attacked no one here on a personal level. I offered my opinion, based in fact backed with links. Project much?


Projecting thoughts or emotions onto others allows the person to consider them and how dysfunctional they are, but without feeling the attendant discomfort of knowing that these thoughts and emotions are their own. We can thus criticize the other person, distancing ourselves from our own dysfunction.
One explanation is that the ego perceives dysfunction from 'somewhere' and then seeks to locate that somewhere. The super ego warns of punishment if that somewhere is internal, so the ego places it in a more acceptable external place - often in convenient other people.
Projection turns neurotic or moral anxiety into reality anxiety, which is easier to deal with.
Projection is a common attribute of paranoia, where people project dislike of themselves onto others such that they believe that most other people dislike them.
Projection helps justify unacceptable behavior, for example where a person claims that they are sticking up for themselves amongst a group of aggressive other people.
Empathy, where a person experiences the perceived emotions of others, may be considered as a 'reverse' form of projection, where a person projects other people onto themselves. Identification may also be a form of reverse projection.
Projection is one of Anna Freud's original defense mechanisms.
http://changingminds.org/explanations/behaviors/coping/projection.htm

[LiberalLoner]

13. Since the 1% want massive depopulation right now,

This is probably a fairly efficient way to pursue that goal.

[RC]

14. And they are arrogant enough to think they will not be caught up in being part of the depopulation.

[maryellen99]

20. This is what worries me

That this is going end up being a war between the US and Russia.

[Rebellious Republican]

22. Those ships are just escorts, see my post #19

The Russians are withdrawing from the area, its much ado about nothing. Just headlines to sell ads, thats all.

[dipsydoodle]

23. Isn't that just land based personnel ?

.

[Rebellious Republican]

25. Well, if you figure there is no land base or personnel, there is no resupply, no resupply, no fight.

While technology has changed over the years, one thing that is a constant in war. You still need to be able to resupply your troops or ships as the case may be. Logistics is everything, even in modern warfare.....

In military science, maintaining one's supply lines while disrupting those of the enemy is a crucial—some would say the most crucial—element of military strategy, since an armed force without resources and transportation is defenseless. The defeat of the British in the American War of Independence and the defeat of the Axis in the African theater of World War II are attributed to logistical failures.[citation needed] The historical leaders Hannibal Barca, Alexander the Great, and the Duke of Wellington are considered to have been logistical geniuses.
Militaries have a significant need for logistics solutions and so have developed advanced implementations. Integrated Logistics Support (ILS) is a discipline used in military industries to ensure an easily supportable system with a robust customer service (logistic) concept at the lowest cost and in line with (often high) reliability, availability, maintainability, and other requirements, as defined for the project.
In military logistics, logistics officers manage how and when to move resources to the places they are needed.
Supply chain management in military logistics often deals with a number of variables in predicting cost, deterioration, consumption, and future demand. The United States Armed Forces' categorical supply classification was developed in such a way that categories of supply with similar consumption variables are grouped together for planning purposes. For instance, peacetime consumption of ammunition and fuel will be considerably lower than wartime consumption of these items, whereas other classes of supply such as subsistence and clothing have a relatively consistent consumption rate regardless of war or peace.
Some classes of supply have a linear demand relationship: as more troops are added, more supply items are needed; or as more equipment is used, more fuel and ammunition are consumed. Other classes of supply must consider a third variable besides usage and quantity: time. As equipment ages, more and more repair parts are needed over time, even when usage and quantity stays consistent. By recording and analyzing these trends over time and applying them to future scenarios, the US Armed Forces can accurately supply troops with the items necessary at the precise moment they are needed.[3] History has shown that good logistical planning creates a lean and efficient fighting force. The lack thereof can lead to a clunky, slow, and ill-equipped force with too much or too little supply.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logistics

[Lasher]

36. I believe the objective is be the most important of the basic warfare principles

But nobody can deny that supply is important.

[darkangel218]

26. Is this the beggining of the end?

Re pm:I'm not going to correct anything, since we are literally begging for problems.

[Xolodno]

28. Whole lotta hoopla...

The Russian Navy is built for predominately for one purpose. Protect Russia. Their massive sub fleet and new corvettes are basically hit and run ships. What you want against an imperial aggressor who plans to land troops and machinery on a beach. Not a protracted naval battle.

Now they are building (or built by now?) an aircraft carrier. But they are not building them en masse. Which suggest they are indeed looking to project power, but in limited areas around the world (for example, the contested northern islands in Japan).

I'm going to guess the ships are there for one purpose, purely observational and to inform the Syrian government. Such as letting them know when the missiles have been launched, how many aircraft and what kind are on the way, etc. Which does make any attack less effective.

[Rebellious Republican]

32. List of aircraft carriers of Russia and the Soviet Union

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_aircraft_carriers_of_Russia_and_the_Soviet_Union

[Xolodno]

33. I knew they still had the one in operation. But...

...Was thinking of this:

http://en.rian.ru/military_news/20120726/174788498.html

Thought I read they were going to start this year or something but looks like they don't plan doing any Super Carriers until after 2020. Which makes sense, think their next generation of aircraft should be out by then as well.

[Rebellious Republican]

34. thanks for the link, it only makes sense

for them to do so. If they want to become a player on the world stage again. Which I believe they do. They need to be able to rapidly deploy fire power to places just like Syria.

[hack89]

37. They can't afford it

The Russian military is a shadow of its former self - it would take a massive expenditure of scarce funds before they could even match countries like Japan, France or Britain.

Toss in rampant corruption, inefficient and unwieldy bureaucracies, and an obsolete manufacturing base and it is not clear that Russia could become a military power again even if they wanted to be. Nuclear weapons are the only superpower card they hold - which means a lot of military spending is spend on the strategic forces.

[William769]

30. Maybe now they will lay off teh Gays.

Never mind, no they won't.