Russia isn't Bluffing, Hillary Won't Help- Military Source

Politics

Russia Will Not Back Down, and Hillary is the Potus Front Runner

This will not end well

An Israeli Colonel's Observations

I personally attended the AIPAC conference in March of 2016. One of the breakaway meetings was hosted by an Israeli Colonel. No press was allowed, but the content was public. I attended and asked a naive question about the US involvement in Syria against ISIS. What follows is a transcript of my notes as the Colonel was kind enough to answer.

"It is the US, not Russia that is waffling on who it backs in the region"- answer to "Why is Russia not stepping up"
Russia will not back down on Syria, Putin will not walk away from Assad as his ally
Syria offers Russia the ONLY real water access on the mediteranean side and therefore the Atlantic
They will not give up this port, It is a line in the sand for their defenses
the USA is underestimating how important this port is to them
the Warsaw pact was created out of fear, not aggression.
Russia will likely seek to expand its Atlantic footprint to hedge themselves.- prophetic, Cuba
Isreal is not "watching" just because it is muslim on muslim war. It understands Russia's need to not be land locked just as we do. So we are staying out of it.
Israel recognizes the situation the US is in and does not envy it

The Players ( we think)

Saudi allies are Sunni Wahhabi extremists in practice- we need their oil, they need our arms
Shia Iran an enemy with Russian backing
Syrai is Shia with Iran backing
ISIS is Sunni and out to kill all including Saudi's who do not recognize the new Caliphate
Assad is a murderer and the devil we know- remember when we toppled the last evil dictator in Iraq?
the USA likely is responsible for the ISIS creation to destabilize Shia regimes- the enemy of our enemy ends up being our enemy too!

USA: We got this!

Enter Hillary Clinton to Save Us

Recently, Wikileaks released more emails with Hillary Clinton's Imprint on them. Here are 2 from Clinton's 2013 Goldman Sachs Paid Conference:

On Bombing Iran- Sure, Why not?

On Her Saudi Sponsors: They'll get Nukes- why not, they paid her for them already

Bombing Iran, which is backed by Russia. Arming or permitting a nuclear Saudi Arabia. Adding complexity upon complexity to solve problems we do not understand. That is how politicians "solve" things. In finance, in diplomacy, and in law. Remove nothing, add to the complexity.

Opinion:The sectarian war has unveiled our own duplicitious dealings in the middle east. We think the US is buying time for a face saving exit. If not then we are doomed by egotistical crusaders. If not now, soon. Because Hillary Clinton has made it clear she will protect her Saudi sponsors. We hope the US is bringing this to a head now because it knows what a Clinton Presidency can bring.

vbl

The US Edges Closer to War with Russia: What You Aren't Being Told

by Darius Shahtahmasebi and theAntiMedia.org.| As hawkish as presidential frontrunner Hillary Clinton may be, the fact the Obama administration is pressing for direct war in Syria before she even has a chance to be elected raises serious questions about the urgency underpinning the U.S. establishment’s push to unseat Syrian president Bashar al-Assad from power.

How To Piss Off Putin

From WAPO: Last Wednesday, at a Deputies Committee meeting at the White House, officials from the State Department, the CIA and the Joint Chiefs of Staff discussed limited military strikes against the regime as a means of forcing Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad to pay a cost for his violations of the cease-fire, disrupt his ability to continue committing war crimes against civilians in Aleppo, and raise the pressure on the regime to come back to the negotiating table in a serious way.

A Tale of Two Aleppos

Just this week, Russia deployed its S-300 surface-to-air missiles to Syria’s western coast in a move to preemptively counter any threat from U.S.-coalition airstrikes. The move came shortly after a number of reports surfaced in the corporate media claiming the Obama administration was mulling over attacking Syrian troops directly.

The U.S. coalition targeted Syrian troops as recently as September of this year in an attack which, according to Assad himself, lasted for over an hour. At least 80 soldiers were killed while another 100 or so were injured. An ISIS advance followed almost immediately.

No apologies or compensation were offered, and the U.S. barely seemed to flinch at the idea of 80 soldiers (who were battling ISIS militants) losing their lives as a result of their air strikes. The implication of this recent attack is that the U.S. will have no problem launching a similar offensive in the near future.

Hey John Kerry: Do you Want S300 Surface to Air Missles? Because this is how you get S300 SAMs

However, Russia has presented an issue for the sane members of the military-industrial complex because it has become increasingly clear the U.S. cannot intervene in Syria without dealing with Russia first. To date, the American government may have been playing a game of chicken with Russia to see what it might take for them to abandon the Syrian regime. However, if anything, Russia’s involvement in the Syrian conflict has only increased in recent years, and that doesn’t appear to be changing anytime soon.

In tandem with the deployment of the S-300 missiles, Russian General Igor Konashenkov made it clear in a statement that “any missile or airstrikes on the territory controlled by the Syrian government will create a clear threat to Russian servicemen” and could be shot down by the S-300 defense system.

Given that the U.S. coalition is the only air force that poses a threat to the Syrian regime (the various terror networks in Syria don’t have an air force – at least not officially), the statement is clearly intended as a warning to their American counterparts.

Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov, a mastermind of diplomacy, softened the tone of Konashenkov’s words by stating the missile systems were purely defensive and posed no threats to anyone. Most notable, however, was the fact Lavrov said this in a press conference with French Foreign Minister Jean-Marc Ayrault (France is a staunch advocate of removing Assad, meaning Lavrov was essentially meeting with one of his biggest opponents in Syria).

Russia’s threats, whether sugar-coated or not, are more than an attempt to talk tough on the international stage. The Russian government is evidently taking this potential war seriously; it began emergency response exercises on Tuesday that included the participation of both government officials and citizens, according to the Russian government (it’s worth noting the details of this exercise were arguably exaggerated by Western media).

The United States, on the other hand, continues to play a dangerous game in pushing this war further than it needs to. The United States-led coalition has no legal basis to be operating militarily in Syria, whether through their own domestic legislative institutions or through the United Nations. Russian assistance was requested formally by the Assad regime, which currently holds the seat at the U.N. This gives the Russian campaign an air of legitimacy whether or not it is immoral.

Yet the United States continues to give itself a special privilege (which only Israel can rival) by insisting the U.S. military has the right to defend itself against Russian anti-missile defense systems within Syrian territory. Yet, they argue, the Syrian regime does not have the right to defend itself against multiple ground and air invasions within their own country.

Though Western media continues to focus on Russia’s potential role in hacking U.S. elections and its faults in the Syrian conflict, the road to war our leaders are taking will affect us all severely — meaning we cannot afford to have the media cover it irresponsibly.