No New S-300 Air-Defense System To Syria Says Russia — But Maybe Old Ones

An anonymous reader writes "Yesterday, Russia's Foreign Minister declared that Moscow would not sell any new surface-to-air missiles to Syria, although there is a catch. He said old contracts are being honored. Could old contracts just be code for an already signed, but undisclosed deal for the S-300? Lavarov certainly left the door open: '...when questioned in particular about the S-300, his reply was not clear if the "earlier contracts" were for the S-300 or something else.' With Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu going to the Black Sea town of Sochi early next week for talks with President Vladimir Putin, it seems they may have something to talk about."

Re:Talking...

[TapeCutter]

Usually the Israelis are pretty defiant but they have been unusually spooked

Unusual? How quickly we forget the cold war. Nations are standing back and watching Syria because in my youth Syria was to the east what Israel was to the west, nobody wants to be seen to be militarily supporting one side or the other since that risks dragging everyone into a much broader conflict. Both sides of the old "east/west"political divide want to contain the fighting within the borders of Syria much more than they want to their "dog" to win. This is why Israeli strikes on Syria and arms supplies to either side in Syria spook everyone.

UN voting patterns on subjects concerning Syria and Israel still more or less follows the patterns established during the cold war. Saddam was politically simple by comparison, he was our loose cannon and the old "red team" of nations didn't mind us taking him out, Gadaffi was dead the minute the revolt erupted, he had no powerful friends left, much less an influential voting block in the UN watching his back.

We are intervening

[deanklear]

http://www.globalresearch.ca/ny-times-scrubs-mention-of-cia-arming-syrian-rebels/5302360 [globalresearch.ca]

Despite public claims on behalf of the White House that no weapons are being sent to the rebels, reports that the CIA has been doing precisely that have been circulating for months, including a recent story about CIA spies smuggling 14 stinger missiles into Syria so rebels could defend themselves with ground to air technology.

The New York Times admitted in a June 21 report that the CIA was "steering" arms to Syrian rebels from the Turkish border, but claimed the weapons were paid for by Turkey, Saudi Arabia and Qatar.

The New York Times' decision to alter the wording of the article is another example of how NATO-aligned media outlets are concerned about overemphasizing western support for the rebels given their involvement in terrorist attacks and other acts of brutality.

I'd recommend against adding racism to your obvious ignorance, however. Even though that feeling is dependent on the possibility that you have a sense of human dignity, which is certainly slim.

Re:Not your problem

[SplashMyBandit]

The problem with arming the Syrian rebels is that it was already tried and US and Qatari-bought weapons quickly passed through the secular SLA to the Al Qaeda units called "Al Nusra". The rebels should not be supplied with arms. Note: It is likely that the Obama Administration did not provide military assistance to the Ambassador and SEALs in in Benghazi, which got them killed after 8 hours of assaults, in order to hide the gun running that did get to Al Qaeda; either that or it was a botched attempt to swap the pro-Islamist Ambassador Stevens for the Blind Sheik [as the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt had been working on] - we won't know until the current investigations get past the stone walls put up by the White House and State Department. Supplying the terrorist hosting Iranian-proxy Assad is also a bad move too.

Re:Not your problem

[Issarlk]

Indeed, we don't hear much about terrorist attacks on Australia for example. Karma really does exist, maybe the USA will understand at some point in the future.

Re:Not your problem

[SplashMyBandit]

I think you have the wrong end of the stick. The point of the S-300 surface-to-air missiles is to enable Hezbollah to act with much greater impunity from air attack when they launch the 50000 surface-to-surface *ballistic missiles* they have.

At the moment Hezbollah are deterred from launching the missiles at Israeli population centers because they know they would get a pounding from the Israeli Air Force as they did in 2006 (which is why Hezbollah have not attacked since).

With the top-of-the-range S-300 Hezbollah can both launch missile attacks and commit terrorism with less risk of the IDF responding (eg. for terrorist/jihadi attacks consider the the Hezbollah bombing of civilians in Burgas, Bulgaria; and all the other attacks they have carried out around the world, eg. Georgia, India, Cyprus [foiled], Thailand [where the attackers were caught, so there is no question what was going in], several times in Buenos Aires Argentina; and Europe has been warned it can be attacked anywhere at any time by Hezbollah).

However, even surface-to-air missiles can be dangerous in a surface-to-surface role. The US Navy has its fire-control electronics so that it can use its SAMs in an anti-ship role (eg. for causing sailor casualties and destroy delicate electronics). It would be wasteful of an S-300, but still possible to do some harm.