Did Putin just establish a red line? - TTG

“Mr. Putin is aware of every detail of the situation in Syria and the strength and the equipment provided to the Syrian rebels. He explained that Russia has used intercontinental cruise missiles to show to all players with proxies fighting on the ground in Syria its determination to target any regional country providing extremists with anti-air missiles (MANPADs) that can damage or shoot down any Russian jet. Any country that supports terrorists exposing Russian jets at risk would be a legitimate target to Russia. War is one of the tools that serve the political track and that the struggle between Iran and Saudi Arabia and between the United States and Russia conflict are based on competing interests and influence in the region. Russia is revising its strategy and Foreign policy to orbit around promoting its external national security. Moscow’s role in the World is today equal to what it was Washington’s role in its height and not what it has become today. The United States’ foreign policy and involvement is in a significant decline “, said the source. (Elijah J. Magnier)

***************************************

If you’re feeling froggy, go ahead and jump… mudak. 

I wouldn’t be hanging around any weapons transshipment point in Turkey or anywhere else when somebody tries to call Putin’s bluff. Accidents do happen.

Elijah J. Magnier is the Arabic “Al Rai” Chief International Correspondent. He describes himself as a senior political risk analyst with over 32 years experience covering Europe and the Middle East. In addition to writing for “Al Rai,” he blogs at elijahjm.wordpress and tweets prolifically as @EjmAlrai.

 TTG

Comments

[Kim Sky]

Dear Patrick,

I apologize, I found no other way of contacting you. I am dumbfounded at the lack of response to the John Brennan Hack. I wish to address that, and thus am writing on your most recent thread, if you wish to delete it, I will understand.

According to an recent interview with Robert Bear, he stated something to the effect that Brennan is orchestrating the destruction of the CIA.

Then we get the 'weed smoking teenagers' hack of Brennan's email account. Then a progressive release of that data by Wikileaks https://wikileaks.org/cia-emails/

I'm guessing that this shake-up is not going to occur with a lot of grace.

1. NY Times, March 2015 reveals Clinton’s use of a private server for her email as secretary of state.

2. According to www.lawfareblog.com - there do not appear to be any Clinton-type issues about Brennan’s using private email for government business. ??? Though of course, they do mention EMBARRASSMENT.

3. Not only lot's of interviews published with stoned hacker, but an actual a phone call with Brennan about seizing his account. The authorities cannot track down the hackers?

4. Interview today...
http://www.democracynow.org/2015/10/23/ignoring_us_destabilization_of_libya_gop

AMY GOODMAN: Mel Goodman, you’re a former CIA and State Department analyst. Let’s talk about the role of the CIA, for example, in Libya. The CIA and the State Department, are they merging? And does that endanger diplomacy, when people in other countries think it’s the same thing?

MELVIN GOODMAN: Well, the problem, I think, is even greater than that. The merger that’s taking place, particularly under this director, John Brennan, is the merger between the CIA and the Pentagon. I left the CIA in the 1980s because of the politicization of intelligence under Bill Casey and Bob Gates. But what John Brennan has done is created the CIA as a paramilitary institution that is really doing the bidding of the Pentagon. He said in his confirmation hearings he was going to give up drone warfare, that that properly belonged in the Pentagon—if we should be doing it at all, which is another question. But not only has he not done that, we’ve expanded the use of the drones. Now he’s merging intelligence analysts and operatives, which will further politicize intelligence.

Conclusion: As if international events are not destabilizing enough.

[Matthew]

Serious question: Do we have any strategy beyond "I'm counting on Russia backing down"?

Aside: Kerry apparently is arranging another "regional" Syria meeting for next Friday. Does the diplomatic urgency signal how close the Saudi and Turkish proxies are to breaking?

[Valissa]

The annual meeting of the Valdai Club was held yesterday, and various info about that can be found at their website. http://valdaiclub.com/

There is a more complete translation (so far) of Putin's speech and some of the post-speech Q&A with attendees here... http://en.kremlin.ru/events/president/news/50548

Here's an excerpt (loved the snark about the "moderates"):
------------
A terrorist organisation, the so-called Islamic State, took huge territories under control. Just think about it: if they occupied Damascus or Baghdad, the terrorist gangs could achieve the status of a practically official power, they would create a stronghold for global expansion. Is anyone considering this? It is time the entire international community realised what we are dealing with – it is, in fact, an enemy of civilisation and world culture that is bringing with it an ideology of hatred and barbarity, trampling upon morals and world religious values, including those of Islam, thereby compromising it.

We do not need wordplay here; we should not break down the terrorists into moderate and immoderate ones. It would be good to know the difference. Probably, in the opinion of certain experts, it is that the so-called moderate militants behead people in limited numbers or in some delicate fashion. In actual fact, we now see a real mix of terrorist groups. True, at times militants from the Islamic State, Jabhat al-Nusra and other Al-Qaeda heirs and splinters fight each other, but they fight for money, for feeding grounds, this is what they are fighting for. They are not fighting for ideological reasons, while their essence and methods remain the same: terror, murder, turning people into a timid, frightened, obedient mass.

… It is impossible to combat terrorism in general if some terrorists are used as a battering ram to overthrow the regimes that are not to one’s liking. You cannot get rid of those terrorists, it is only an illusion to think you can get rid of them later, take power away from them or reach some agreement with them. The situation in Libya is the best example here.
-------------

I recommend that even if one doesn't read the whole speech above, that you look for his dialogue with Jack Matlock. Here's the first part of that:
-------------
Vladimir Putin: ... In this respect, since this is a discussion club, I would like to ask Mr Ambassador what he thinks of the USA’s unilateral withdrawal from the ABM Treaty.

Jack Matlock: I was personally opposed to that withdrawal and I take your point. I would say that I don’t think that any subsequent plans for the sort of deployments were or could be a threat to Russian systems. But in general, I am not a supporter of ABM systems. I would point out that I think the main source of that is not to threaten Russia but to secure employment in the United States. A lot comes from the military-industrial complex and the number of people it employs.

Vladimir Putin: Mr Ambassador, I find your arguments unconvincing. I have the greatest respect for your experience and diplomatic skills, of which you have given us a flawless demonstration, avoiding a direct answer. Well, you did answer my question, but not without some embellishments.

One should not create jobs when the result of this activity threatens all of humanity. And if developing new missile defence systems is about creating jobs, why create them in this particular area? Why not create jobs in biology, pharmaceuticals, or in high-tech sectors not related to arms production?
--------------

M K Bhadrakumar was in attendance at Valdai and has an interesting post here… Russia, Iran hold common views on Syria http://blogs.rediff.com/mkbhadrakumar/2015/10/23/russia-iran-hold-common-views-on-syria/

This related MKB post (linked in the above) is also worth reading...
Putin makes his move on Syria http://www.rediff.com/news/column/putin-makes-his-move-on-syria-/20151022.htm

[The Twisted Genius]

Matthew,

Perhaps Kerry will discuss Jordan's recent agreement to coordinate military operations in Syria with Russia.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/10/23/us-mideast-crisis-syria-russia-jordan-idUSKCN0SH1ER20151023

[Fred]

Kim,

"... about Brennan’s using private email for government business."

There is zero evidence of this being "used for government business" to date. It is a personal AOL account. He could probably tell which decade(s) ago he opened an account with them for personal (home) use. That their security, or more precisely his personal password, is not that hard to crack by someone with some technical savvy and a lots of time should not be a surprise. Said teenager avoiding a federal prison sentence might be a little harder.

[b]

@TTG

Elijah Magnier is an excellent journalist with excellent sources. Note that he quotes some Syrian functionary here. That functionary is a bit exuberant.

But the general idea is certainly right. Those cruise missiles, sent from a sea that the U.S. Navy can not control, can reach everything in the Middle East. They are probably the reason why the U.S. withdrew its carrier from the Persian Gulf. There is no way a carrier could escape a salvo of such missiles.

Jordan is out. The Saudis and Turks probably got the message Putin sent. I am not yet convinced that Qatari Wahhabis understood what was meant. They have a tiny country. They better beware.

[Willy B]

According to everything I've read, the decision to pull the carrier was made weeks before, and the decision was actually for the carrier to leave on schedule without a replacement, which may or may not come before the end of the year. It's certainly the case that those cruise missiles were a powerful message.

[James Doleman]

May I ask opinions on a)Is this accurate and b) Is it unusual?

http://thesaker.is/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/Selection_049.png

[walrus]

As has been observed elsewhere regarding Putins cohesive and well thought out Syrian strategy: "Russia is playing chess" - meaning he is working within a legal framework of international law and taking great care to apply humanitarian principles. My concern now is that President Obamas only remaining (to himself) option may be to upset the chessboard.

Narcissists get bored rather quickly with things that don't provide them "entertainment". Syria is now such a situation for President Obama. He doesn't give a rats **** for it or its people. Hopefully he will thus leave the Syrian question for Secretary Kerry to sort out and we end up with some (boring to Obama) negotiated settlement and a common Western front against all jihadists if Putins comments are anything to go by.

The outcome of such a process, in my opinion, would be a win for world peace, slight admonishment for the Obama Administration and the "exceptional indispensable" American foreign policy school in the form of a demonstration of the limits of its power and the re-emergence of Russia as a primary force for a peaceful planet.

However what if President Obama gets "energised" takes a direct interest in Syrian events and, miffed, metaphorically upsets the chessboard and tramples on it? By this I mean taking unilateral American action in violation of international law that leads towards a potential confrontation with Russia? I think Putin is aware of this possibility and is taking care not to rub President Obamas nose in the mess he has created. What concerns me is the possibility that Turkey, Israel and the Gulf States do not believe the prospect of a secular democratic Syria as being in their interests.

[jonst]

Fred, are you telling me that he does have people that could hardened personal accounts? Anything can be hard to to crack...if you want to spend the time and money to make it hard to crack. (not impossible to crack, but hard). So why--assuming I am to find this story credible, has the hardening not taken place.

[Valissa]

James, not unusual and probably accurate. STRATFOR regularly produces a US Naval Update similar in style. The map Saker's site provides looks pretty much the same in terms of aircraft carrier location/status. The STRATFOR map also includes locations for Big Deck Amphibious Warfare Ships, but it is behind a paywall https://www.stratfor.com/analysis/us-naval-update-map-oct-22-2015

[scott s.]

b:

Cannot agree with your assessment. We're not talking about DF-21Ds here. Russian cruise missiles would need terminal guidance to target moving targets at sea. Cruise missiles can employ terrain masking to evade land-based AAD, but once they go feet wet they are vulnerable to detection. USN Aegis system has been built and modernized for 30 years just to counter the Soviet (or other) ASCM threat. That the missile is launched from outside the range of counter battery doesn't provide an advantage that didn't already exist with eg. sub-launched cruise missiles.

[DeWitt]

Your credibility on this is zero, Fred. Here's the Wikileaks link to verify that Brennan's AOL account did contain some sensitive information and government business correspondence; to date, we see documents and correspondence around: Af-Pak Executive summary, Intel Position papers, The Conundrum of Iran, and Torture correspondence with Senator Kit Bond, outlining a strategy to legalize torture.

https://wikileaks.org/cia-emails/

Let's let the Committee decide if your characterization is correct, and more importantly, whether or not we should expect more from someone in Brennan's position, or give him a partisan pass as you are wont to do

[J Villain]

And Iraqs preference for Russia.

http://www.almasdarnews.com/article/iraqi-mobilization-forces-urge-abadi-to-seek-russian-strikes/

[Barish]

There may be the prospect of Mr Obama_not_doing the "flip" on the chessboard:

http://www.sott.net/article/304581-Party-pooper-Obama-vetoes-NDAA-over-Gitmo-and-budget-workarounds

"Among the appropriations in the final version of the bill was a $600 million allotment to train and equip the "moderate" rebels in Syria, and $300 million in military aid to the US-backed government in Ukraine, including "Lethal assistance such as anti-armor weapon systems, mortars, crew-served weapons and ammunition, grenade launchers and ammunition, and small arms and ammunition."

The NDAA has been vetoed four times in the past 53 years, but always over discrete provisions - sections of the bill that could be amended or removed, so that the revised bill could be approved by the White House in short order. Obama's objection to the Overseas Contingency Operations (OCO) fund is fundamental to the 2016 bill, and there is no easy way to remove it even if the GOP lawmakers wanted to."

Also sourced on RT, admittedly, so there's the question whether this is accurate. Anyone got any further sources not considered "biased"?

If this is indeed the case, maybe Mr Obama had a spell of reason for once.

PS: Am I the only one cringing at how officials take their chatter to channels like "twitter"? I've heard the term "twitter diplomacy" being thrown around, and dearly hope this type of thing won't last.

[J Villain]

Yes, the carrier was supposed to be going for maintenance. I'm not sure how it ended up by India. But I have been reading "US abandoning Israel" news stories for months because of the temporary pull out of the carrier.

[ked]

I think your read of the Prez' narcissism in the field of international affairs & knocking over chessboards is mistaken. He just isn't that kinda dude - he doesn't like going outside the given model. He prefers to improve it (in his own estimation) or to game it (to neutralizes opposition). He's really a moderate, though perhaps an out-of-place one.

More than anything, he wants to go out with a shot at a positive legacy. What you describe would risk quite the opposite, and he's skilled in making that kind of analysis. Granted, he's got lot's of questionable advisers, but given how most of his sins have been of omission rather than commission, I expect he will keep them in check.

[johnf]

Obama may or may not be a narcissist but I think Putin understands Obama's position - that he is surrounded by neo-cons and R2Pers in Washington and only has a limited area in which he can move - and Obama understands that Putin understands it.

They do work together in a strange, crab-like manner.

Obama (and the American people), after the Ghouta gas attacks, were faced by almost unstoppable demands to bomb Assad but did not want it. Putin stepped in and saved Obama's bacon by the chemical deal.

The neo-cons ignited the Ukraine crisis. Putin and Merkel worked out a deal and Obama, while loudly protesting it, has allowed it to stand.

Russia helped greatly by bringing Iran to the table and keeping them there in the nuclear deal.

I think that Putin and Obama, during the UN New York meetings, had enough face time to work out a rough deal on Syria which, with a lot of loud public rhetoric, has stuck in private.

They understand each other. Putin acts and Obama does not react (except verbally). Both sides get what they want.

Of course, this is all quite likely to change after the elections. Maybe by then enough deals will have been done, though.

[OIFVet]

Turkey may have got the message but it appears that it does not quite believe it. Erdogan and Davitoglu threatened another refugee wave today, and named their price: a no-fly zone. They are delusional, and dangerously so. Merkel, for her part, kissed Sultan Erdogan's ring and that probably gave him an exaggerated idea about just how far he can reach. So unless the US and the euro lemmings talk some sense into him Turkey will continue to be a big part of the problem.

[Kunuri]

Things happen accidently on purpose too.

[Kunuri]

"What concerns me is the possibility that Turkey, Israel and the Gulf States do not believe the prospect of a secular democratic Syria as being in their interests."

You can take it to the bank that Turkey does not believe in, or want s secular democratic Syria. This was the reason for Erdogan to turn 180 degrees over Assad, as they were vacationing together in Bodrum before the break out of the war, Southeast Turkey. Erdogan demanded that Assad let loose, and give legitimacy to all shades of Moslem Brothers foundations within Syria, effectively demanding an end any secular structure Syria may have. Even free elections with MB participating would have meant the same thing, as the population was reeling from many years of drought an impoverishment. They would have come to power ala Egypt on the last train to democracy. Can anyone explain RTE's obsession with Assad to me in any other way? And his support for anyone who is trying to off Assad? When all logic fails, the acts of petty dictators can only be explained by schoolyard psychology.

[confusedponderer]

walrus,
re: "Russia is playing chess" Well, they are in the US and the Gulfies playing guys who will stare and yell at them: HUH? PAWN? EN PASSANT? CHECKMATE? THAT'S NO RULE IN CHECKERS OR BACKGAMMON, DUDE!

[Fred]

jonst,

all I've seen is that this was his AOL account. Are you saying there's a report that he used that to conduct government business? If so he's a damned fool.

[confusedponderer]

That is a beautiful sentence.

[Matthew]

CP: We like to think in terms of single variables, not multivariable problems. IMHO, the "lead from behind" model assumes everything else remains static except for the one variable we want to focus on, i.e., Russia risks getting caught in a quagmire.

Maybe we're blinded by relentless conditioning about American Exceptionalism, but I sense the government doesn't appreciate Putin doesn't have to out perform us, he just has to be a reasonable alternative to us. Look at the Iraqis beginning to bite.