Cyprus-Forum.com

[Londonrake]

Sorry for been skeptic about this particular statement, i didn't mean to sound personal against you, considering the vast number of other unsupported claims in this topic. It's just that it's an important statement imo.

The fact is the Russians referred specifically to escalation of the war in Syria which is not the same thing as precipitating WW3.
The main point here is that the West did not dare attack the Russian forces in Syria because that would in fact precipitate WW3. The Russians made that clear in numerous of other statements.

Going through through your first post (the one which was characterized as bragging) it's clear you expected Kremlin to hit the launch sites as it said it would do. While by not doing as promised proves they were cowards, or weak, or incompetent or whatever.

Well I am actually glad were "cowards, or weak, or incompetent or whatever." and held their fire waiting for the one hour show to end.
I am not sure they would be equally "cowards, or weak, or incompetent or whatever." if they show would last longer though.

Btw don't you agree that was just a show?

No problem with scepticism.

I find it difficult to imagine though how an escalation of the war in Syria could be anything other than a precursor to an ever widening conflict. Or how - let's say - sinking a ship (as was clearly implied in the threat) could similarly not snowball out of control. IMHO it was a bluff and has been exposed as such, with the "consequences" threatened being confined to the diplomatic sphere. Both sides I'm sure can be only too aware of the possibilities for disastrous miscalculation and will - hopefully - act accordingly. Thus the absence of any direct confrontation last week.

The impression I've gotten following this thread is that there was no holding of fire. Also, it's seemed to me most of the bragging that's surfaced has been about Syrian air defences V coalition missiles. Some of it in a pretty "Naah, nah, na, naah nah" vein.

Was it a Show? It seems - from some of the things being banded about - that a number of chemical warfare infrastructure targets that don't exist were hit, in response to a chemical weapon attack that didn't take place. Everybody seems to have come out of it with something or other to brag about though and I suspect that will be the end of it.

Not directly related to the OP but I read an interesting - and IMHO balanced article today - which I link to here. Trump gets a bad press generally of course but isn't quite the Syria hawk I'd envisaged:

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/ ... p-to-syria

.

[Pyrpolizer]

I find it difficult to imagine though how an escalation of the war in Syria could be anything other than a precursor to an ever widening conflict. Or how - let's say - sinking a ship (as was clearly implied in the threat) could similarly not snowball out of control. IMHO it was a bluff and has been exposed as such, with the "consequences" threatened being confined to the diplomatic sphere. Both sides I'm sure can be only too aware of the possibilities for disastrous miscalculation and will - hopefully - act accordingly. Thus the absence of any direct confrontation last week.

I don't blame you finding it difficult to imagine anything else when the media concentrated on purpose on the false interpretation of Russia's ambassador in Lebanon, of what the Chief of the Russian Armed Forces had actually said.
You should ask yourself why the media chose this Ambassador's interpretation and no one else's or why they did not publish the original statement of the Chief of the Russian Forces .

More information about it here:
https://sputniknews.com/russia/20180420 ... interview/

Sputnik: One way or another, this staged provocation ended up in massive missile airstrikes, and, it must be noted, a very effective counter-response to the attack. Well, this is the first such episode in the history of humanity. How detailed was the first notice of the planned missile attack and how early did Russia get it? Did we have an opportunity to draw "red lines" around some areas? Literally, "red lines" on the map? How decisive would we have been, if the missiles hadn't flown to the areas we were informed about? Were we ready to shoot down the planes and sink enemy ships?

Lavrov: Before the plans for the strike of the Western trio started to take shape, Chief of the General Staff of the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation Valery Vasilyevich Gerasimov clearly stated that if any military action taken by the so-called coalition harmed Russian army forces, it would be met by a tough and clear response. And we would not only see the rockets, but also their carrier as legitimate targets. It was said clearly and explicitly.

And, by the way, I'm stunned how some of our Western colleagues and some of mine, too, and some of our mass media turned their attention to our ambassador to Lebanon Zasypkin, who repeated what the Chief of the General Staff said. They tried to put words into his mouth, that if just one missile flew over Syrian territory from the coalition forces, we would sink ships and so on and so forth. The Chief of the General Staff Valery Gerasimov had only warned that this would happen if Russian forces were harmed. After this, contact was made at the top level in the army, at the level of the generals, between our representatives and the heads of of the US-led coalition. They were informed of where our "red lines" were, including the "red lines" located "on the territory," geographically. And, in any case, the results show that these "red lines" were not crossed.

[Robin Hood]

Pyrpolizer:

More information about it here:
https://sputniknews.com/russia/20180420 ... interview/

The whole interview was interesting as it coverd more than just the FUKUS attack on Syria. In all a much better and more professional interview than Lavrof got from Steven Sakhur on BBC Hardtalk.

EXCLUSIVE: Putin, Trump Will Never Allow US-Russia Armed Conflict, Lavrov Says

RUSSIA 09:11 20.04.2018(updated 14:07 20.04.2018)

Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov gave his thoughts on the recent alleged chemical weapons attack in Syria, the US strikes against this Arab country, the Skripal case, the upcoming Donald Trump-Kim Jong-un talks and Russia-US ties in an interview with Director General of Rossiya Segodnya International Information Agency Dmitry Kiselev.

[Londonrake]

I don't blame you finding it difficult to imagine anything else when the media concentrated on purpose on the false interpretation of Russia's ambassador in Lebanon, of what the Chief of the Russian Armed Forces had actually said.
You should ask yourself why the media chose this Ambassador's interpretation and no one else's or why they did not publish the original statement of the Chief of the Russian Forces

My apologies for the delay.

The 2 articles I posted were simply top of a search request. There were quite a few others.

All of them I believe faithfully reporting the Russian Ambassador to Lebanon's speech.

I submit that, if the most important Russian diplomat in a ME country, adjacent to Russia's major war effort, says such a thing then it will of course be taken seriously, by all concerned.

Perhaps they should have a quiet word with him? Although, given what the UK's Russian Ambassador has been coming up with lately - today's effort wasn't anywhere as funny as his last - when even he couldn't help laughing - I suspect it's a matter of policy.

Since Blair the "spin" has really been a matter or routine. You issue threat A, then when the bluff is called say that A wasn't actually correctly reporting the real Monty - B. Plausible deniability.

There is also the matter of origins of course. It's a frequent "debate" and usually tedious sterile conversation. Despite the fact that western media comes in for routine lambasting hereabouts it does tend to be very diverse. If you have been to the likes of the US or even as far afield at Aus you will appreciate that the media there is absolute anarchy. Disparaging reports of Trump/May/Macron, etc, are a daily diet. However, RT and Sputnik are of course State media. THEY ARE STATE CONTROLLED. You will never find a hint of criticism of Putin, not because he is beyond it but simply because they are his mouthpiece. Also, it would be extremely unhealthy.

[Robin Hood]

I don't blame you finding it difficult to imagine anything else when the media concentrated on purpose on the false interpretation of Russia's ambassador in Lebanon, of what the Chief of the Russian Armed Forces had actually said.
You should ask yourself why the media chose this Ambassador's interpretation and no one else's or why they did not publish the original statement of the Chief of the Russian Forces

My apologies for the delay.

The 2 articles I posted were simply top of a search request. There were quite a few others.

All of them I believe faithfully reporting the Russian Ambassador to Lebanon's speech.

I submit that, if the most important Russian diplomat in a ME country, adjacent to Russia's major war effort, says such a thing then it will of course be taken seriously, by all concerned.

Perhaps they should have a quiet word with him? Although, given what the UK's Russian Ambassador has been coming up with lately - today's effort wasn't anywhere as funny as his last - when even he couldn't help laughing - I suspect it's a matter of policy.

Since Blair the "spin" has really been a matter or routine. You issue threat A, then when the bluff is called say that A wasn't actually correctly reporting the real Monty - B. Plausible deniability.

There is also the matter of origins of course. It's a frequent "debate" and usually tedious sterile conversation. Despite the fact that western media comes in for routine lambasting hereabouts it does tend to be very diverse. If you have been to the likes of the US or even as far afield at Aus you will appreciate that the media there is absolute anarchy. Disparaging reports of Trump/May/Macron, etc, are a daily diet. However, RT and Sputnik are of course State media. THEY ARE STATE CONTROLLED. You will never find a hint of criticism of Putin, not because he is beyond it but simply because they are his mouthpiece. Also, it would be extremely unhealthy.

RT in particular tends to cover World news events not domestic. As I said to Paphitis .... you believe what you want to believe! The Russian language sites I believe do carry programmes that criticise Putin, although he seems pretty popular among most of the Russian population.

I find it rather strange that in the two demonic regimes of Russia and Syria, when it comes to voting the people seem to prefer Assad/Putin in power than the US backed opposition. Mind you, I suppose marching them to the Polling Stations at the point of a bayonet and giving them the ballot paper duly ticked in the right place helps to ensure a large majority?

Anyway .... neither of you ever watch RT or read anything by Sputnik because you know it is all just lies and propaganda .....and as for all those rampant fascist and dreadful independent conspiracy theory news sites they are even worse! Only the MSM can be trusted to give you the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, so how could your views of events regarding these two countries ever be anything other than 100% correct!

[Pyrpolizer]

I don't blame you finding it difficult to imagine anything else when the media concentrated on purpose on the false interpretation of Russia's ambassador in Lebanon, of what the Chief of the Russian Armed Forces had actually said.
You should ask yourself why the media chose this Ambassador's interpretation and no one else's or why they did not publish the original statement of the Chief of the Russian Forces

My apologies for the delay.

The 2 articles I posted were simply top of a search request. There were quite a few others.

All of them I believe faithfully reporting the Russian Ambassador to Lebanon's speech.

I submit that, if the most important Russian diplomat in a ME country, adjacent to Russia's major war effort, says such a thing then it will of course be taken seriously, by all concerned.

Perhaps they should have a quiet word with him? Although, given what the UK's Russian Ambassador has been coming up with lately - today's effort wasn't anywhere as funny as his last - when even he couldn't help laughing - I suspect it's a matter of policy.

Since Blair the "spin" has really been a matter or routine. You issue threat A, then when the bluff is called say that A wasn't actually correctly reporting the real Monty - B. Plausible deniability.

There is also the matter of origins of course. It's a frequent "debate" and usually tedious sterile conversation. Despite the fact that western media comes in for routine lambasting hereabouts it does tend to be very diverse. If you have been to the likes of the US or even as far afield at Aus you will appreciate that the media there is absolute anarchy. Disparaging reports of Trump/May/Macron, etc, are a daily diet. However, RT and Sputnik are of course State media. THEY ARE STATE CONTROLLED. You will never find a hint of criticism of Putin, not because he is beyond it but simply because they are his mouthpiece. Also, it would be extremely unhealthy.

If you notice from as early as 10 of April this ambassador clarified
http://www.jpost.com/Middle-East/Russia ... ria-549461

Russian Ambassador Alexander Zasypkin, in comments broadcast on Tuesday evening, said he was referring to a statement by Russian President Vladimir Putin and the Russian armed forces chief of staff.
Which as you know contradict with his own interpretation.

If the western media think his statements are more important than Putin's or the Russian armed forces chief of staff then so be it.
If they think a clarification made as early as 5 days before the attack was because the bluff has been exposed, (5 days BEFORE it could be possible to be exposed by FACTS) , then again so be it.

I am almost certain that they did have a quiet word with him.

[Paphitis]

There are so many aircraft that use TERCOM. The F111 was one and the Tornado is another.

Could you please give me the links to that info? I want to check the role of the pilot

The role of the pilot is to sit back and enjoy the roller coaster ride.

Well not quite. His role is to monitor the integrity of the Aircrafts Engines, Instruments and Sensors. But if something went wrong and someone had the ability to JAM the TERCOM, chances are there is not enough time to react. The aircraft would spear into the ground at 0.000001 second.

[Paphitis]

But I don't "brag". The Russians made it quite clear. Any intervention by the West in Syria would be met by deadly force and could well precipitate WW3. It was BS and has been exposed as such. I mean - did you think that would happen?

Link?
The statement that it could lead to WWIII was referring to the case the West would attack the Russians in Syria, yes I heard that. Do you think it wouldn't happen??
In any case please provide the link for the other part.

There seem to be quite a number of unsupported claims within this thread. However:

"Russia’s ambassador to Lebanon said any U.S. missiles fired at Syria would be shot down and the launch sites targeted, a step that could trigger a major escalation in the Syrian war"

"The Russian military said on March 13 that it would respond to any U.S. strike on Syria, targeting any missiles and launchers involved in such an attack."

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-mide ... SKBN1HI0PU

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/worl ... 98941.html

That seems fairly unequivocal to me. Any strike on Syria will result in missiles and launch platforms being attacked.

It's something both sides have a vested interest in keeping quiet but reports have been leaking out for some time now which suggest that quite a few Russians and Americans have been killed in Syria.

Sorry for been skeptic about this particular statement, i didn't mean to sound personal against you, considering the vast number of other unsupported claims in this topic. It's just that it's an important statement imo.

The fact is the Russians referred specifically to escalation of the war in Syria which is not the same thing as precipitating WW3.
The main point here is that the West did not dare attack the Russian forces in Syria because that would in fact precipitate WW3. The Russians made that clear in numerous of other statements.

Going through through your first post (the one which was characterized as bragging) it's clear you expected Kremlin to hit the launch sites as it said it would do. While by not doing as promised proves they were cowards, or weak, or incompetent or whatever.

Well I am actually glad were "cowards, or weak, or incompetent or whatever." and held their fire waiting for the one hour show to end.
I am not sure they would be equally "cowards, or weak, or incompetent or whatever." if they show would last longer though.

Btw don't you agree that was just a show?

Are you not glad the Americans have held their fire because it is a very 2 way street.

If the Americans didn't, there is only an increased chance it would precipitate in WW3. There is never any guarantee that the Russians will start WW3. What the Russians are more likely to do is request urgent Security Council sessions and have urgent meetings with the Americans about the situation.

The Russians will not start WW3 just because a few S400 missiles were targeted.

But the Russian threats were quite explicit. They were just a big bluff, as the WW3 rhetoric would prove likely to be a major bluff too.

The Americans will not do it because Syria isn't important enough to raise the risk for WW3. Are you not thankful?

[Robin Hood]

But I don't "brag". The Russians made it quite clear. Any intervention by the West in Syria would be met by deadly force and could well precipitate WW3. It was BS and has been exposed as such. I mean - did you think that would happen?

Link?
The statement that it could lead to WWIII was referring to the case the West would attack the Russians in Syria, yes I heard that. Do you think it wouldn't happen??
In any case please provide the link for the other part.

There seem to be quite a number of unsupported claims within this thread. However:

"Russia’s ambassador to Lebanon said any U.S. missiles fired at Syria would be shot down and the launch sites targeted, a step that could trigger a major escalation in the Syrian war"

"The Russian military said on March 13 that it would respond to any U.S. strike on Syria, targeting any missiles and launchers involved in such an attack."

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-mide ... SKBN1HI0PU

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/worl ... 98941.html

That seems fairly unequivocal to me. Any strike on Syria will result in missiles and launch platforms being attacked.

It's something both sides have a vested interest in keeping quiet but reports have been leaking out for some time now which suggest that quite a few Russians and Americans have been killed in Syria.

Sorry for been skeptic about this particular statement, i didn't mean to sound personal against you, considering the vast number of other unsupported claims in this topic. It's just that it's an important statement imo.

The fact is the Russians referred specifically to escalation of the war in Syria which is not the same thing as precipitating WW3.
The main point here is that the West did not dare attack the Russian forces in Syria because that would in fact precipitate WW3. The Russians made that clear in numerous of other statements.

Going through through your first post (the one which was characterized as bragging) it's clear you expected Kremlin to hit the launch sites as it said it would do. While by not doing as promised proves they were cowards, or weak, or incompetent or whatever.

Well I am actually glad were "cowards, or weak, or incompetent or whatever." and held their fire waiting for the one hour show to end.
I am not sure they would be equally "cowards, or weak, or incompetent or whatever." if they show would last longer though.

Btw don't you agree that was just a show?

Paphitis:

Are you not glad the Americans have held their fire because it is a very 2 way street.

Pardon? They fired 103 (105?) missiles at a sovereign state in contravention of the The UN Charter and International law. They seem to have lost 70% of them but it could have been worse had the Russians not drawn the red line for the FUKUS attack.

If the Americans didn't, there is only an increased chance it would precipitate in WW3. There is never any guarantee that the Russians will start WW3. What the Russians are more likely to do is request urgent Security Council sessions and have urgent meetings with the Americans about the situation.

Back the Bear into the corner and threaten his extinction and you could find out that reality is very different. Putin told you why ... but you must have missed it?

The Russians will not start WW3 just because a few S400 missiles were targeted.

They will if the S-400's you target are in Russia!

But the Russian threats were quite explicit. They were just a big bluff, as the WW3 rhetoric would prove likely to be a major bluff too.

NO bluff by Russia .... they called the US's arrogance and allowed FUKUS to show their power but on their terms ........ well 30 missiles got there apparently.

The Americans will not do it because Syria isn't important enough to raise the risk for WW3. Are you not thankful?

I am more thankful that the Russians are not as arrogant and bent on a War as the US and its poodles.

[Pyrpolizer]

There are so many aircraft that use TERCOM. The F111 was one and the Tornado is another.

Could you please give me the links to that info? I want to check the role of the pilot

The role of the pilot is to sit back and enjoy the roller coaster ride.

Well not quite. His role is to monitor the integrity of the Aircrafts Engines, Instruments and Sensors. But if something went wrong and someone had the ability to JAM the TERCOM, chances are there is not enough time to react. The aircraft would spear into the ground at 0.000001 second.

So where's the link I asked?