Russia Worried About Strikes on Syria? Not Really

As US destroyers in the eastern Mediterranean are aiming their cruise missiles at Syrian state targets, what can Moscow – which has been vocally opposed to Western military intervention – do and how much does it stand to lose? Surprisingly little on both counts, foreign policy experts say.  Read More…



This entry was posted in Crime, Politics, War and tagged , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

2 Responses to Russia Worried About Strikes on Syria? Not Really

  1. autor says:

    Thank you for sharing the link. As difficult as it is to have an accurate opinion on these wars, I tend to disagree with some of the statements made by you in your article.

    Comparing Syria to Iraq and concluding that poor oil reserves in Syria prove a humanitarian character of any Western intervention is wrong. You cannot isolate Syria and look at it as a completely separate picture. In the large scheme of the current geopolitical game, Syria is strategically important for and attack on oil rich Iran and, of course, for the security of criminal Israel’s expansion in the region. Syria is also needed to run pipelines to Europe – perhaps the main reason for sponsoring foreign mercenaries, terrorist and criminals destabilizing the country. Finally, controlling Syria will further NATO’s goal of creeping into Russia’s backyard and surrounding Russia’s borders with NATO military bases.

    Syria has officially been on the American “to do” list since the publication by PNAC of the “Rebuilding America’s Defenses: Strategy, Forces and Resources For a New Century – A Report of the Project for the New American Century” in September 2000 – long before the so called “civil war” in Syria began. If anything, the terrorist and foreign run rebellion is a step in implementing this project.

    Your numbers of Iraqi casualties are way underestimated. Also, the so called “terrorists” (the kinds of Al-Zarkawi) inciting bloody “religious” conflicts and committing atrocities against civilians were needed to create a pretext and need for continuing occupation (for “humanitarian” reasons). Most of these groups were probably on the CIA and Mossad’s payroll.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s