Page 4 of 6 FirstFirst ... 23456 LastLast
Results 31 to 40 of 58

Thread: Russia concern at Israeli 'air strike' on Syria

  1. #31
    Student
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Last Seen
    Today @ 09:56 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    255

    Re: Russia concern at Israeli 'air strike' on Syria

    this is what I was afraid of:

    Syria, Iran threaten retaliation against Israel - World - CBC News

    Syria is threatening to retaliate for an Israeli airstrike and its ally Iran says there will be repercussions for the Jewish state over the attack.
    On Thursday Syria sent a letter to UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon stressing the country's "right to defend itself, its territory and sovereignty" and holding Israel and its supporters accountable

  2. #32
    Sage

    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    New York
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:40 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    11,691

    Re: Russia concern at Israeli 'air strike' on Syria

    Quote Originally Posted by youknowwho View Post
    I agree. I'm not going to analyse international politics in terms of right and wrong because it always plays itself out with balance of power. in this case, if Russia is still behind syrian government to this extent, what would the future look like for the region?
    At this time, I suspect Russia is in a posture of "managed retreat" on Syria. It still would prefer that the Assad regime survives, but it wants to position itself as a post-conflict player in Syria regardless of the outcome. It won't run big risks on behalf of the Assad government. It will speak out for what it perceives as violations of Syrian sovereignty, as it hopes to have influence in post-conflict Syria even if its preferred government falls (not a certainty). It will also use its veto in the Security Council to block any resolutions that might introduce foreign military intervention (not a bad idea, IMO, given the messy situation of that country's civil war). In short, Russia is not going to use its power against Israel. It will criticize Israel perhaps take some action short of introducing a Security Council resolution (which would be vetoed by the U.S.), but that's really the extent of it. All said, Russia will not intervene to the extent that the balance of power in the region is altered. Such an attempt to shift the balance of power could actually create an even less stable situation in the region and Russia's interests would not necessarily benefit from that outcome.

    Iran probably won't retaliate directly, though it might try to do so indirectly through its proxies e.g., Hezbollah, in a variety of possible ways (probably by supplying more advanced missiles). With Iran remaining defiant with regard to its nuclear activities, Iran can ill-afford to become directly involved in the Israel-Syria affair. Such a move might invite greater international pressure and possibly bring about or hasten Israeli military attacks on its nuclear facilities.
    Last edited by donsutherland1; 01-31-13 at 06:33 PM.

  3. #33
    Sage

    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    New York
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:40 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    11,691

    Re: Russia concern at Israeli 'air strike' on Syria

    Quote Originally Posted by youknowwho View Post
    IMO, the threat amounts to bluster. President Assad would retaliate if he believed there was a good chance that it would reunify Syria. However, the divisions between Assad and those seeking his overthrow are too deep to be overcome. Retaliation would precipitate an Israeli military response against Assad's military assets that could only further weaken his forces at a time when they already have their hands full in the ongoing civil war.

  4. #34
    Student
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Last Seen
    Today @ 09:56 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    255

    Re: Russia concern at Israeli 'air strike' on Syria

    Quote Originally Posted by donsutherland1 View Post
    At this time, I suspect Russia is in a posture of "managed retreat" on Syria. It still would prefer that the Assad regime survives, but it wants to position itself as a post-conflict player in Syria regardless of the outcome. It won't run big risks on behalf of the Assad government. It will speak out for what it perceives as violations of Syrian sovereignty, as it hopes to have influence in post-conflict Syria even if its preferred government falls (not a certainty). It will also use is veto in the Security Council to block any resolutions that might introduce foreign military intervention (not a bad idea, IMO, given the messy situation of that country's civil war). In short, Russia is not going to use its power against Israel. It will criticize Israel perhaps take some action short of introducing a Security Council resolution (which would be vetoed by the U.S.), but that's really the extent of it. All said, Russia will not intervene to the extent that the balance of power in the region is altered. Such an attempt to shift the balance of power could actually create an even less stable situation in the region and Russia's interests would not necessarily benefit from that outcome.
    I agree with you that it is very unlikely that Russia is going to confront Israel directly, but it can also be said that historically Russia always helped the enemies of United States and Israel behind the scenes (one example is supplying weapons to saddam during US-Iraq war) and has refrained to do so until now because of the expected international repercussions I assume. from now on, Russia can change the balance of power discretely simply by supplying weapons or personnel to Syria without expecting a blow back because of Israel's aggressive act.


    Iran probably won't retaliate directly, though it might try to do so indirectly through its proxies e.g., Hezbollah, in a variety of possible ways (probably by supplying more advanced missiles). With Iran remaining defiant with regard to its nuclear activities, Iran can ill-afford to become directly involved in the Israel-Syria affair. Such a move might invite greater international pressure and possibly bring about or hasten Israeli military attacks on its nuclear facilities.
    Iran never retaliates directly, because the official foreign policy of Iran is not to surface his support of terrorist organizations like Hezbollah. but I already read some articles in Iranian media which are close to government that they mentioned a retaliation would happen sooner or later. granted that this can be just talk, but even the possibility of such thing further escalates the dangers of an already complicated situation.

  5. #35
    Student
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Last Seen
    Today @ 09:56 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    255

    Re: Russia concern at Israeli 'air strike' on Syria

    Quote Originally Posted by donsutherland1 View Post
    IMO, the threat amounts to bluster. President Assad would retaliate if he believed there was a good chance that it would reunify Syria. However, the divisions between Assad and those seeking his overthrow are too deep to be overcome. Retaliation would precipitate an Israeli military response against Assad's military assets that could only further weaken his forces at a time when they already have their hands full in the ongoing civil war.
    I guess we could both agree that Assad's army is so stretched that he is not in a position to attack Israel or retaliate against anyone, but he can bet on the Arabs hatred for the Israel and divert the attention of the states supporting the opposition (Saudi Arabia and Qatar) from himself to Israeli threat. there is still so much pan-arabism and nationalism remaining inside Arabs to be enough to divert them from the civil war a little bit; so Assad may look for such an opportunity.

  6. #36
    Sage

    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    New York
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:40 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    11,691

    Re: Russia concern at Israeli 'air strike' on Syria

    Quote Originally Posted by youknowwho View Post
    I agree with you that it is very unlikely that Russia is going to confront Israel directly, but it can also be said that historically Russia always helped the enemies of United States and Israel behind the scenes (one example is supplying weapons to saddam during US-Iraq war) and has refrained to do so until now because of the expected international repercussions I assume. from now on, Russia can change the balance of power discretely simply by supplying weapons or personnel to Syria without expecting a blow back because of Israel's aggressive act.
    My guess is that one area where Russia might retaliate is to become even less cooperative in the use of its territory for providing supplies to U.S./international forces in Afghanistan. Whether the Karzai government survives or falls is of much less interest to Russia than to the U.S. There are limits to how far Russia would go in terms of blocking international efforts associated with addressing Iran's nuclear activities, as both Russia and the U.S. don't want to see Iran develop a nuclear weapons capability. Indeed, if Russia were able to completely thwart international efforts, that would increase prospects of a use of military force, which would create a more volatile situation in the Mideast.

    Iran never retaliates directly, because the official foreign policy of Iran is not to surface his support of terrorist organizations like Hezbollah. but I already read some articles in Iranian media which are close to government that they mentioned a retaliation would happen sooner or later. granted that this can be just talk, but even the possibility of such thing further escalates the dangers of an already complicated situation.
    I expect an indirect response. Iran almost certainly doesn't want to be perceived as incapable of responding in support of its allies.

  7. #37
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Canada, Costa Rica
    Last Seen
    05-16-16 @ 09:45 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    31,645

  8. #38
    Sage
    apdst's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Bagdad, La.
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:06 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    76,379

    Re: Russia concern at Israeli 'air strike' on Syria

    Quote Originally Posted by youknowwho View Post
    the attack happened inside Syria, so at best, it was speculated that it is going to Lebanon. there's absolutely no proof whatsoever of that.
    Yeah! Right! There's no way those SAM's were going to Lebanon.

    http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomac...emium-1.500338
    Quote Originally Posted by Top Cat View Post
    At least Bill saved his transgressions for grown women. Not suggesting what he did was OK. But he didn't chase 14 year olds.

  9. #39
    global liberation

    ecofarm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Miami
    Last Seen
    Today @ 09:13 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    66,359

    Re: Russia concern at Israeli 'air strike' on Syria

    Quote Originally Posted by youknowwho View Post
    (one example is supplying weapons to saddam during US-Iraq war)
    Citation?

    without expecting a blow back because of Israel's aggressive act
    Blowback... ok, now I see where you're coming from. The old "terrorist states can do whatever they want and there is no blowback but democracies deserve blowback". It's a stupid term used to blame others.

    Iran never retaliates directly, because the official foreign policy of Iran is not to surface his support of terrorist organizations like Hezbollah.
    What? Iran openly supplies Hez and Hamas. Hamas recently thanked Iran and Iran responded ~"Hey, np, buddies".

    I don't understand how you can possible pretend that Iran's policy is to deny supplying terrorists, it's absurd.
    Last edited by ecofarm; 02-01-13 at 01:12 PM.

  10. #40
    Student
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Last Seen
    Today @ 09:56 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    255

    Re: Russia concern at Israeli 'air strike' on Syria

    Quote Originally Posted by ecofarm View Post
    Citation?
    The United States charged the Russians with supposed deliveries of weapons to Iraq. The spokesman of the American President, Ari Fleischer, rejected denials of Moscow and assured that Washington has "evidence" of these deliveries, which could give the Iraqis invaluable assets against the Anglo-American forces. Devices listed are binoculars for night vision, GPS units, and anti-tank missiles. Ari Fleischer said the American government asked the Russians to immediately put an end to its assistance.
    Timeline of the 2003 invasion of Iraq - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    Blowback... ok, now I see where you're coming from. The old "terrorist states can do whatever they want and there is no blowback but democracies deserve blowback". It's a stupid term used to blame others.
    every action has a reaction, no matter who does it. when osama bin laden attacked US, US attacked afghanistan and taliban was thrown out of power and osama bin laden was killed eventually. one can say that's a blow back too. as I mentioned earlier, speaking of international politics like somehow morals have anything to do with them is too naive. it's never about morals. there is no good and bad.

    What? Iran openly supplies Hez and Hamas. Hamas recently thanked Iran and Iran responded ~"Hey, np, buddies".
    I don't understand how you can possible pretend that Iran's policy is to deny supplying terrorists, it's absurd.
    citation?
    also, they would get everybody on their ass if they had admitted that.

Page 4 of 6 FirstFirst ... 23456 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •