Syrian Crisis...2013

SampanViking

The Capitalist
Staff member
Super Moderator
VIP Professional
Registered Member
Uefg6JN.jpg

Tags: Allies fleet versus Russian fleet; Mediterranean sea; September 2013; Syria; opposing fleets;

That is an very interesting map, but gives information somewhat at odds with that previously posted on this website.
Can anybody confirm the source and vouch of its integrity?
 

bd popeye

The Last Jedi
VIP Professional
Viking..as far as the USN forces are concerned I know USS Mahan was sent home. Mahan had been deployed since December 28th 2012. the rest concerning the USN seems to be correct.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


Norfolk, Va. – There are some changes for the Norfolk-based Navy ships off the coast of Syria.

One of those six Norfolk-based ships in the Mediterranean Sea is now headed back home.

Today the USS Mahan started its journey back to Hampton Roads. The ship had been deployed for eight months and was set to be back in Norfolk this week.

Four other destroyers, each capable of launching dozens of tomahawk cruise missiles, remain in the Mediterranean. They are the destroyers Barry, Ramage, Gravely and Stout. The USS San Antonio, an Amphibious Transport Ship, is also there
 

Jeff Head

General
Registered Member
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!



foreign-ministry.si.jpg


Huffington Post said:
MOSCOW -- The Russian foreign minister says Moscow will push Syria to place its chemical weapons under international control.

Sergey Lavrov said Monday that if such a move would help avert a possible U.S. strike on Syria, Russia will start work "immediately" to persuade Syria to relinquish control over its chemical arsenals.

Lavrov told reporters that Russia would urge Syria to concentrate its chemical weapons in certain areas under international oversight and then dismantle them.

Russian and Syrian foreign ministers on Monday strongly pushed for the return of United Nations inspectors to Syria to continue their probe into the use of chemical weapons and again warned Washington against launching an attack.

The statement comes as President Barack Obama, who blames President Bashar Assad for killing hundreds of his own people in a chemical attack last month, is pressing for a limited strike against the Syrian government. It has denied launching the attack, insisting along with its ally Russia that the attack was launched by the rebels to drag the U.S. into war.

Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov said after Monday's talks with his Syrian counterpart Walid al-Moallem that U.N. chemical weapons experts should complete their probe and present their findings to the U.N. Security Council.

Later reports
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
indicate that the Russian foreign Minister has now informed Syria of this request.

RT News said:
Russia has offered Syria to put its chemical weapons under international control, Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov said.

“We have passed our offer to Al-Muallem [Syrian Foreign Minister] and hope to receive [a] fast and positive answer,” Sergey Lavrov said.
 

Engineer

Major
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

It isn't going to make a difference in my opinion. The US government has been itching to strike Syria for quite some time. Even if Syria's chemical weapons were under international control during the previous chemical weapons attack, the US government would still blame Assad regardless.
 

Jeff Head

General
Registered Member
It isn't going to make a difference in my opinion. The US government has been itching to strike Syria for quite some time.
Actually, IMHO, this is an astute diplomatic move by the Russians.

The stated purpose of the U.S. military strikes is to degrade and inhibit Assad's ability to use his chemical weapons against his own people in the future. If Syria were to give up its weapons to international control and allow UN inspectors in to verify it, then the reason for the strike would be diffused and the credit for using diplomacy to avoid war would go largely to Russia.

At the same time, Obama could sieze the opportunity to step back from a very embarassing situation for him where he cannot get a coalition together and where a HUGE majority of the people in the US disagree with his plans...but still allow him to say that he "forced" Syria into compliance and to back away from its chemcial weapons.

I hope this works out.
 

plawolf

Lieutenant General
I agree, Syria is best served by giving up its chemical weapons stocks since those weapons will not do much if the US attacks, and serves no deterrance purposes, so is already a far bigger liability than asset to Assad.
 

thunderchief

Senior Member
Not if the goal of US is a regime change and chemical weapon is an excuse.

Considering recent history , any country that gave up its WMDs was attacked (Iraq , Libya ) . Those who didn't were not ( North Korea , Iran even Syria so far ) . You make your own conclusions :p
 

SampanViking

The Capitalist
Staff member
Super Moderator
VIP Professional
Registered Member
Considering recent history , any country that gave up its WMDs was attacked (Iraq , Libya ) . Those who didn't were not ( North Korea , Iran even Syria so far ) . You make your own conclusions :p

But Syria would be under the protection of major powers and not alone or isolated.
This would also be the perfect pretext for Russia (possibly even China) to disembark all the Marines it has bobbing about of the Coast to help secure the weapons stockpiles.
All of which means that next time there was a provocation, Russia could easily rebut any accusations and point a very credible finger at the culprits.

Altogether a very clever move that makes it ever more difficult to paint Assad as a cartoon baddie and which makes the justification of military action (to defend life) all the more ridiculous.
 
Top