Posted on 04/09/2018 11:17:06 AM PDT by GoldenState_Rose
Russia's Foreign Ministry said on Monday that the Israeli army's use of force against Palestinians at protests inside the Gaza Strip was unacceptable.
Palestinian demonstrations, which began on March 30, have been dubbed "The Great March of Return" of refugees and their descendants to ancestral homes now in Israel.
In a statement, the Russian Foreign Ministry criticized what it described as Israel's "indiscriminate use of force against the civilian population."
Earlier on Monday, Russia's Defense Ministry accused Israel of carrying out airstrikes against a Syrian air base on Sunday following an alleged chemical weapons attack against civilians.
(Excerpt) Read more at themoscowtimes.com ...
Rumor has it the Kremlin was pre-planning to pin Syrian chemical attack on rebel forces by alerting media to "warnings" days earlier that rebels would be staging something like -- all while knowing Assad would be accused.
A sort of pre-emptive "sowing of disinformation."
Media is as much a battleground for Russia than ever especially after unintended stories leaked to the Russian public about how many "private" "non-military" young mercenaries have been sent over there and the mounting death toll including from direct U.S. fire.
Most US sources indicate that evidence on the ground points does indeed point to Assad/Assad-friendly forces being responsible for latest chemical massacre.
Planned their warning that rebels would be staging something like it.* Even though it is Assad.
(Typo.)
Concerning Syria, perhaps this didn’t come up in the meeting with Putin, Erdogan and Rouhani that happened last Wednesday. They forgot to send out the memo or expected the US to do nothing (as Obama would have done.) Those pesky Israelis beat them to the punch. So of course they had to rail against Israel for protecting their border with Gaza.
Looks like Bibi’s long detente with Putin is out the window now.
Thanks GoldenState_Rose. Bernie says the same thing, accuses Israel of causing the "protest".
Somebody ought to explain to Putin what going to war with Israel means:
a/ Even if Pres Trump doesn’t step in to assist Israel (unlikely)
b/ and even though Russia has a 20-1 edge in nuclear weapons
c/ Israel has an anti-missile defense system the Russians can only dream about.
d/ It only takes one to vaporize Moscow.
The RUskies are just peed off because Israel can get through their vaunted radar systems at will:-)
I still don’t get what was so all-fired important about using chemical weapons on an all but defeated area. The story of advanced disinformation planning by the Russians just so they could use the chem weapons doesn’t make sense if the weapons are both inflammatory and unnecessary.
Dear Russia:
After what you guys did to the people of Ukraine during the 1930s, your arming, financing and training of various Arab terrorist groups, and what you did more recently to the Chechens, it is my advice to you that you’d do far better in the field of public relations if, when it comes to issues of human rights, you guys just plain STFU.
Since I understand that you guys have been through a lot in the last 100 or so years, no charge for the advice.
Good. V evil stuff
Good. USA -Israel axis
Bad Russia Iran axis. (Assad is just a puppet on hella good real estate )
Hell. So is Lebanon. Right on the water
If the islamonutjobs could ever get the idea of tourism and girls on Mediterranean beaches in bikinis vs murder and enslavement
Well gee. The world would be a better place
Agreed. So much potential!
..................
It's worth pointing out the disinformation sowing/pinning chemical attacks on rebels is basic, common Russian practice stretching back long before this particular one to when Putin first got involved in the region.
The confusion itself...even on our part, is often the goal. Some commentators including Russian ones, claim that antics like this act as tests of our reactions...that the Kremlin wants to see how Trump would respond, given his pullout commitment.
The Kremlin ultimately know fear of nuclear conflict restrains us from taking anything too far.
In the meantime, they use our harsh response rhetoric to dredge up anti-Western sentiments among the Russian public -- by enforcing a "besieged fortress" mentality. This, in the Kremlin's view, unites Russians and keeps their focus off things like their stagnating economy.
Putin relies on a permanent crisis the West to underpin his legitimacy.
A similar explanation can apply to the Skirpal spy poisoning in the U.K. - which was timed just before Putin's election.
“...part of the psychological war of Russia and the West and its own compatriots."
According to Russian KGB expert and author of "The FSB Blows Up Russia" Ilya Milshteyn has this to say about the Skirpal spy poisoning. (But it applies to Syria antics too!)
The Kremlin’s latest murderous attack had both foreign and domestic goals. “It is not excluded,” he says, that Moscow wanted to test the personality of the British prime minister who had to be forced to pursue the Litvinenko case but now is prepared to be more forceful, something that in this case fits in with the Kremlin’s plans."
And then Milshteyn gets to the heart of the matter: “Life in a besieged fortress,” he says, “is filled with enthusiasm when the enemy it shooting at it. But a fortress which everyone has forgotten about … is a sad spectacle.” To ensure that attacks keep coming, the master of that fortress must continue to launch attacks of various kinds in order to get a reaction.
"Putin wants to orchestrate “a permanent Caribbean crisis” and he thinks that the West will ultimately fold “out of fear of a nuclear war and because for the reason just outlined above, this game doesn’t offer many prospects for Putin’s Russia.”
http://windowoneurasia2.blogspot.com/2018/03/unlike-in-litvinenko-case-putin-wanted.html?m=1
Or, in Orwell's words, "We have always been at war with East Asia", or Oceania, or whatever.
I understand what you are saying here. But, along with keeping up enthusiasm internally, Russia also has external strategic goals, of which a Mediterranean port is an important one. They were/are "this close" to having it through their Syrian puppet. ISIS has been heavily suppressed, which give the US an excuse for exiting; and the port would then become a fait accompli. Why not secure that?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.