Russia warns the US of serious consequences

[seeder]

As much as I hate to say it.... I think war with the US and Russia is inevitable...at some point. tensions have always existed....and all it needs is the right provocation....well, could this be that provocation?
 

Quote

 

Russia warns of serious consequences from U.S. strike in Syria

Russia warned on Friday that U.S. cruise missile strikes on a Syrian air base could have "extremely serious" consequences, as President Donald Trump's first major foray into a foreign conflict opened up a rift between Moscow and Washington.

They catapulted Washington into confrontation with Russia, which has advisers on the ground aiding its close ally Assad.

"We strongly condemn the illegitimate actions by the U.S. The consequences of this for regional and international stability could be extremely serious,” Russia's deputy U.N. envoy, Vladimir Safronkov, told a meeting of the U.N. Security Council on Friday.

Russian Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev charged that the U.S. strikes were one step away from clashing with Russia's military.

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-mideast-crisis-syria-idUSKBN1782S0

 

 

[+and-then]

If Putin had wanted a showdown, he had the time to use his S400's to shoot down some Tomahawks and humiliate Trump.  He didn't.  What does that tell you, if anything?  Putin knows that his military would be destroyed by a full confrontation with the U.S. and his only recourse would be nukes.  He's playing a long game, I think.  He's probably just really p***ed that his free ride is over.  

[Claire.]

Just now, and then said:

If Putin had wanted a showdown, he had the time to use his S400's to shoot down some Tomahawks and humiliate Trump.  He didn't.  What does that tell you, if anything?  Putin knows that his military would be destroyed by a full confrontation with the U.S. and his only recourse would be nukes.  He's playing a long game, I think.  He's probably just really p***ed that his free ride is over.  

Agreed. It's just the usual US-Russia game of chicken.

[.ZZ.]

3 minutes ago, Claire. said:

Agreed. It's just the usual US-Russia game of chicken.

I wouldn't expect Putin to say anything other than that at this point.

[seeder]

4 minutes ago, and then said:

If Putin had wanted a showdown, he had the time to use his S400's to shoot down some Tomahawks and humiliate Trump.  He didn't.  What does that tell you, if anything?  Putin knows that his military would be destroyed by a full confrontation with the U.S. and his only recourse would be nukes.  He's playing a long game, I think.  He's probably just really p***ed that his free ride is over.  

 

Even China condemned the attacks.... they are of course a Russia ally....

so you can say.... two SUPERPOWERS..... are against the US bombing....

I need to go read a few sources so I can come back with links.... stuff I already read over the last couple of days but never bookmarked, then I can post them

[Claire.]

2 minutes ago, .ZZ. said:

I wouldn't expect Putin to say anything other than that at this point.

Putin knows how the game is played and did the expected by condemning the missile attack and flexing a bit of muscle.

He's well aware that anything more than that would be a game changer.

[stevewinn]

Its all rather strange - The US told Allies, and Russia in advance of their plans to hit the airbase, Russia as its latest air defence system in Syria, Russia would have detected the income cruise missiles and chose not to shoot them down. If Russia wanted to grab the headlines and send a message to the US or the world they'd have prevented the attack and shot the cruise missiles down over the Mediterranean. 

So America tells Russia of the attack, Russia moves any of their personnel out of the area, Russia chooses not to shoot the missiles down. Its all token gestures by both sides.

The (USA) Trump had to bee seen to do something, Russia had to be seen to criticise the US. normal service continues. America and Russia wont go to war over Syria. there's nothing in it for either side. - But that doesn't stop the media going crazy.

scrap that, Andthen & Claire beat me to it.

Edited April 8, 2017 by stevewinn

[Lilly]

25 minutes ago, and then said:

If Putin had wanted a showdown, he had the time to use his S400's to shoot down some Tomahawks and humiliate Trump.  He didn't.  What does that tell you, if anything?  Putin knows that his military would be destroyed by a full confrontation with the U.S. and his only recourse would be nukes.  He's playing a long game, I think.  He's probably just really p***ed that his free ride is over.  

My thoughts exactly. I think the strike was more along the line of telling Putin to control Assad (nix the chemical weapons) or we will. As to what the Russian long game is for Syria, perhaps Assad could be left in power were Putin to demonstrate he could control him sufficiently?

[seeder]

heres an opinion piece by a UK journalist, some may not agree, but at least read it. NOTE TO MODS: while the article seems long, I have only used selected quotes from a much longer article so kindly dont trim it! Thanks

 

Quote

 

KATIE HOPKINS: I'd like to support bombing Assad but is Trump thinking with his head, his heart ... or another part of his anatomy?

President Donald Trump said they hit the Shayrat base that launched Tuesday's gas attack in Syria.

Now their ambassador says this was 'a measured step' and 'the US is prepared to do more'.

More? More what? More bombing? More attacks on a sovereign nation? To incurring more of Putin's wrath? More brinkmanship? To what end?

To show that you have a red line?

I am struggling to understand how a President who repeatedly campaigned to stay out of Syria is now right in the heart of it, launching missiles into the country - with Russia watching on.

Putin has called it a deliberate act of aggression on a sovereign nation. In case we needed reminding, Putin has red lines too. He has terminated the joint air safety agreement to prevent incidents in the skies over Syria.

Some question his involvement. Assad is winning the war against the rebels and Islamic State. Trump had previously said he was not in favour of a regime change. So Assad has absolutely NO reason launch a chemical attack to justify the Western intervention it has attracted.

The former British Ambassador to Syria Peter Ford who says he believes it is 'highly unlikely' that Russia or the Assad regime was behind the attack in Idlib.

Assad is unique in the Arab world. Unlike most leaders of Muslim-majority countries, Assad is not a religious Muslim
Under Assad Syria was a secular nation in which different religions lived side by side. Even Obama recognised that Assad protected Syrian Christians, enabling them to live in peace. Women could drive and had a vote.

Compare this to Mosul, Iraq's second largest city, where ISIS has set about subjugating and terrorising its one million inhabitants in a manner not seen since the Nazi occupation of Europe.

Opponents have been subjected to torture and mass executions, and minority sects, such as Christians, persecuted. Civilians trying to flee are slaughtered. And suicide bombers are just another weapon in their arsenal.

Given this, is deposing the legal president of an independent state, without a viable replacement on hand, really so very wise?

Assad is the legal president of an independent nation with a clear aim and confidence to deliver it. You may think him a monster, but history teaches us you remove one monster and another horror will come in its place.

It amazes me our world leaders want to betray the only man and the only country who has stood fast against the tide of mediaeval religious fanaticism. Assad wants to rid his country of Islamic extremism.

Assad is a secular leader fighting against ISIS.

Under threat from the death cult of ISIS, capable of radicalising European nationals on home soil, I wonder why the hell we would bomb his airbases or stand in his way.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4391756/KATIE-HOPKINS-d-like-support-bombing-Assad.html#ixzz4dgFGA2jZ

 

 

 

 

Edited April 8, 2017 by seeder

[seeder]

45 minutes ago, and then said:

I

 

As youre on this thread, I will appreciate it if you dont call me a Russian sympathizer....again....or a US hater....again

If you look at the world map, we see the US to the left..... Russia to the right, and the UK smack dab in the middle.... THATS my concern

Edited April 8, 2017 by seeder

[LV-426]

1 hour ago, stevewinn said:

Its all rather strange - The US told Allies, and Russia in advance of their plans to hit the airbase, Russia as its latest air defence system in Syria, Russia would have detected the income cruise missiles and chose not to shoot them down. If Russia wanted to grab the headlines and send a message to the US or the world they'd have prevented the attack and shot the cruise missiles down over the Mediterranean. 

So America tells Russia of the attack, Russia moves any of their personnel out of the area, Russia chooses not to shoot the missiles down. Its all token gestures by both sides.

The (USA) Trump had to bee seen to do something, Russia had to be seen to criticise the US. normal service continues. America and Russia wont go to war over Syria. there's nothing in it for either side. - But that doesn't stop the media going crazy.

scrap that, Andthen & Claire beat me to it.

Without wanting to sound like a conspiracy theorist, it seems par for the course these days. Outside of the odd more apparent nutcase, such as Kim Jong Un, the entire political world operates through smoke and mirrors.

I was considering this earlier in the discussion on who is actually behind the chemical attack, and the conclusion I came to is... "does it matter?"

The powers that be will use the attack to further their own hidden agendas, and we'll ohh and ahh like the audience in a carefully constructed whodunit plot, as we try to work out who the culprit is. Ultimately, we'll probably never have an answer.

Isn't it slightly telling though that neither Trump nor Putin come out of this situation looking particularly bad? Trump shows strength against the old enemy at a time when the world has been focused on Russian ties. Putin gets the opportunity to reavow his opposition to the old enemy, yet at the same time adopt a position of measured diplomacy in his response.

Meanwhile, we'll keep guessing "whodunit" until the next event draws our attention away...

Man... I can't decide whether age is bringing me wisdom or cynicism

Edited April 8, 2017 by LV-426

[A rather obscure Bassoon]

1 hour ago, and then said:

If Putin had wanted a showdown, he had the time to use his S400's to shoot down some Tomahawks and humiliate Trump.  He didn't.  What does that tell you, if anything?  Putin knows that his military would be destroyed by a full confrontation with the U.S. and his only recourse would be nukes.  He's playing a long game, I think.  He's probably just really p***ed that his free ride is over.  

Agreed, Putin had a free hand whilst Obama was in the Whitehouse and he knows his free meal ticket has come to an end

[MWoo7]

yeah no free lunch dude re:""""Putin had a free hand whilst Obama was in the Whitehouse and he knows his free meal ticket has come to an end" posted by psychic spy:: A rather obscure Bassoon

Edited April 8, 2017 by MWoo7

[Space Commander Travis]

A good article on the gullibility and opportunism of America's President ... https://consortiumnews.com/2017/04/08/luring-trump-into-mideast-wars/ 

[oldrover]

Lot of sense talked on this thread. 

[MWoo7]

hey comedy relief guy that's my job\

 

UUUUUUUUUUUPDATE::::::::::::::: now that was funny !

2 minutes ago, Manfred von Dreidecker said:

By who? The all-of-a-sudden Trump supporters?  

Edited April 8, 2017 by MWoo7

[Space Commander Travis]

6 minutes ago, A rather obscure Bassoon said:

Agreed, Putin had a free hand whilst Obama was in the Whitehouse and he knows his free meal ticket has come to an end

Oh what, President Trump (who I suppose you're another of the all-of-a-sudden supporters?) would have deterred him from his Vile Outrage in Crimea by attacking him with missiles? Do you think that would have had a good result for humanity? 

2 minutes ago, oldrover said:

Lot of sense talked on this thread. 

By who? The all-of-a-sudden Trump supporters?  

[oldrover]

1 hour ago, seeder said:

 

As youre on this thread, I will appreciate it if you dont call me a Russian sympathizer....again....or a US hater....again

If you look at the world map, we see the US to the left..... Russia to the right, and the UK smack dab in the middle.... THATS my concern

Seeder it's like this, the nuclear deterrent is like two opponents, armed only with Zippos,  squaring up to each other while standing with all their loved ones, all their possessions, and everything they hold dear, in a swimming pool knee deep in petrol. No one is going to do it. Especially not now as the balance of military power has swung so heavily in favour of the U.S. Don't get me wrong I'm like you I'm standing just to your left on that map, so I've no axe to grind or cause to support in Russian American relations. I just think it's a one horse race these days.  

[oldrover]

3 minutes ago, Manfred von Dreidecker said:

Oh what, President Trump (who I suppose you're another of the all-of-a-sudden supporters?) would have deterred him from his Vile Outrage in Crimea by attacking him with missiles? Do you think that would have had a good result for humanity? 

By who? The all-of-a-sudden Trump supporters?  

What? I don't know or care who supports Trump. But it's obvious that nothing will happen over this, Putin's remarks are hollow, but inevitable, and this whole issue will be forgotten within a pretty short space of time. This is not a threat to international stability, it's a media storm in a teacup. 

[seeder]

14 minutes ago, A rather obscure Bassoon said:

Agreed, Putin had a free hand whilst Obama was in the Whitehouse

 

In what way?

And pls list all the reasons Assad should go?   Just to make it interesting

Remember when you do, all things will be fact checked for accuracy

[Space Commander Travis]

1 hour ago, Lilly said:

My thoughts exactly. I think the strike was more along the line of telling Putin to control Assad (nix the chemical weapons) or we will.

How do you know that Syria's Tyrant was behind it, Lilly? Because "he must have been, because he's evil", as the foreign affairs experts on this thread have explained? have you entertained the merest hint of a possibility that the terrorists might have engineered it to obtain precisely the result we've seen? Remember them? They were the Most dangerous enemy we have Ever Faced not too long ago, remember? And America's President has now started fighting on their behalf. Doesn't that make you wonder a little? 

[A rather obscure Bassoon]

3 minutes ago, seeder said:

 

In what way?

And pls list all the reasons Assad should go?   Just to make it interesting

Remember when you do, all things will be fact checked for accuracy

Did I say Assad should go, I'm just stating that Putin could do what he liked whilst Obama was POTUS.

[seeder]

deleted

 

 

Edited April 8, 2017 by seeder

[seeder]

2 minutes ago, A rather obscure Bassoon said:

Did I say Assad should go, I'm just stating that Putin could do what he liked whilst Obama was POTUS.

 

I doubt that.... Obama just didnt want the biggest conflict EVER on his hands so was....careful and applied more thought

Trump has just become the 'useful idiot'

some of us saw that one coming

[Space Commander Travis]

5 minutes ago, A rather obscure Bassoon said:

Did I say Assad should go, I'm just stating that Putin could do what he liked whilst Obama was POTUS.

And Trump would have deterred him? What business would it have been of his? "His vile invasion of Crimea", you might say? Of which the people had asked him, practically begged, to be allowed to rejoin Russia for years? (And among whom his popularity rating is over 80%)? Assisting Syria's Vile Dictator? Just like the way America has supported Saudi Arabia for years?

Edited April 8, 2017 by Manfred von Dreidecker