Putin says Russia will assist Syria if attacked
Source: CBS Market Watch
WASHINGTON (MarketWatch) -- At a press conference at the Group of 20 conference, Russian President Vladimir Putin said his country would "assist" Syria if attacked, according to press reports from there. President Barack Obama said he's considering military action against Syria for the country's alleged use of chemical weapons. It's not precisely clear the form of assistance, as Russia already provides Syria with military equipment and can veto any action from the United Nations Security Council.
Read more: http://www.marketwatch.com/story/putin-says-russia-will-assist-syria-if-attacked-2013-09-06
One-paragraph squib with no further details yet. I guess Putin is drawing his own red line.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Fantastic Anarchist
(7,309 posts)Doesn't bode well because Putin has a giant ego. Too bad that Obama and Putin are painting themselves into their respective corners.
Where's Arch Duke Ferdinand? Keep an eye him!
HardTimes99
(2,049 posts)politics yesterday posted an observation that Putin successfully campaigned on rehabilitating Russia from its 'shame' and that, as such, he would be even more loathe to 'stand down'. To those of us who have studied World War I and the Cuban Missile Crisis, this is some seriously scary shit!
Fantastic Anarchist
(7,309 posts)Putin desires Russia to be a superpower again. Come hell or highwater, he will make it happen.
And the US poking fingers in his eye will just make him more determined. Some people back down, and others go nuts. Putin will do the latter - subtly, brazenly, directly, or indirectly, he will go nuts.
L0oniX
(31,493 posts)arewenotdemo
(2,364 posts)is out of office there may not be a single Russian ally...sorry, client state, left in the Middle East.
Response to Fantastic Anarchist (Reply #1)
Name removed Message auto-removed
blm
(113,061 posts)We already KNOW Putin has no interest in assisting Syrians attacked by chemical weapons, don't we? ; )
karynnj
(59,503 posts); )
karynnj
(59,503 posts)
Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)ASSURANCES, I TELL YOU!
RadiationTherapy
(5,818 posts)awesome.
Fantastic Anarchist
(7,309 posts)And so, everyone's fucked.
L0oniX
(31,493 posts)Fantastic Anarchist
(7,309 posts)No looking back now! 
karynnj
(59,503 posts)to all countries demanding Syria relinquish their chemical weapons. Oddly, maybe PUTIN should do this - getting credit both for taking CW off the table and preventing a war. Obama can count it as a win as he made a stand on CW, and they were removed.
This is the only win/win I can think of - and the world wins as well.
HardTimes99
(2,049 posts)positied that, in an age of nuclear-enforced MAD, the only kinds of wars that could be fought were ones on the periphery, like Vietnam (or, more recently, Iraq and Afghanistan). I sure as hell hope Ellsberg is correct in his analysis. What blows my mind is that, save for us wonks here on DU, everyone seems to be going about their lives blissfully unaware of the geopolitical seismic forces building up. Makes me think I'm the one who's crazy. I hope I am and that the masses' blissful ignorance is the correct response.
L0oniX
(31,493 posts)RadiationTherapy
(5,818 posts)
Rosa Luxemburg
(28,627 posts)all Obama needs to do now is pick up the phone and call Assad.
L0oniX
(31,493 posts)HardTimes99
(2,049 posts)enough time has passed to weigh soberly the evidence and assess the charges . . . no room is left for 'saving face.'
I hope the looming House "No" vote will allow Obama to back away gracefully from a policy disaster in the making. He can say (saving face), "I tried to do the right thing, but the Congress wouldn't let me." Congress can say (saving face), "We wanted to believe the President and do the right thing, but our constituents woldn't let us." And we constiuents can wipe our brows and go 'Whew! Dodged a bullet there.'
Fantastic Anarchist
(7,309 posts)... that going to Congress was just a mere formality.
karynnj
(59,503 posts)They know this is a tough vote and the country is war weary. If they did not come out as strong as they could with the reasons that they have used, there is no way it would pass.
Obama would have to make an excellent speech explaining why he is not going forward and what he is doing. I looked and found a UK site that aggregates polls. It looks like there was no negative impact on the Conservatives popularity (or lack of it) from losing the vote. Here, I suspect that few Republicans like Obama - and some Democrats (much of DU) do not now approve of him. If he back downed, his popularity might actually slightly rise.
l
Fantastic Anarchist
(7,309 posts)karynnj
(59,503 posts)It just seems that there SHOULD be a way to both get rid of the CW in Syria, thus avoiding any need for an attack.
arewenotdemo
(2,364 posts)"It looks like Putin's basically a hotel greeter at a five-star establishment and Obama is coming out of the limo as the important invited guest he's not particularly thrilled to see."
http://worldnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/09/05/20342654-the-big-chill-a-dominant-obama-meets-a-cool-putin-at-g20?lite
David__77
(23,396 posts)...
HardTimes99
(2,049 posts)China to show its arrival on the stage as a global power and do some wonderful diplomatic work in defusing this crisis. I hope the Chinese will seize the opportunity.
David__77
(23,396 posts)It's funny, because China has exactly the same position as Russia on the issues, but all the Western sound and fury is directed at Russia, as if that is the only obstacle to consensus at the UN. Not true.
China can be happy that all this nonsense ties up the US and prevents any sort of "pivot toward Asia" by the US. As Deng Xiaoping said, the watchword of Chinese foreign relations should be "hide your capability and bide your time." They have no interest in power projection until they have become a moderately developed country, which won't be before 2050 at the earliest.
HardTimes99
(2,049 posts)at one another's throats to stand down. I would dearly love to see China play the role of peacemaker to defuse this crisis before it gets out of hand. But you seem to have a much more nuanced grasp on Chinese self-interest than I, so I will have to defer somewhat sadly to your assessment.
David__77
(23,396 posts)If it had any influence, it would use it to attempt to prevent violence and to achieve consensus. That's mainly because they genuinely want to maintain peaceful conditions internationally because those are most conducive to continued economic growth. That's why, for instance, they won't invade Taiwan or go to war with Japan or Vietnam over some islands. But they prefer to play that sort of role in the shadows if possible. They don't want Western think tankers, policy makers and talking heads having the word "China" in the forefront of their thoughts.
Fantastic Anarchist
(7,309 posts)
yurbud
(39,405 posts)and their stick is entirely economic.
awoke_in_2003
(34,582 posts)they can't project power militarily. You need a real navy to project beyond your shores.
yurbud
(39,405 posts)in every other way, we and the rest of the world would lose.
HardTimes99
(2,049 posts)newer gloss on that old Tet '68 statement by the anonymous American officer).
RedFury
(85 posts)...but there's no "winning" a nuclear World War in any sense. As Einstein said, we'd be fighting the fourth one with sticks and stones. Which, come to think of it, wouldn't be so bad -- though I'd certainly miss HDTV and the Internet...that is to say if I was one of the few "cockroaches" left alive.
Celefin
(532 posts)of US and Russian destroyers almost side by side in the Mediterranean firing missiles at Assad's forces and the rebels respectively, simultaneously, while pointedly pretending the other guys are invisible and actually not there at all. At the same time, French and Russian pilots are giving each other the thumbs up while flying formation on bombing runs on entrenched army and rebel units, comparing their hit/miss ratio on a league table on facebook.
Maybe I need to sleep more.
RitchieRich
(292 posts)and ironically post it on facebook
Celefin
(532 posts)Cartoons are one of the best ways to deal with the current madness... 
happyslug
(14,779 posts)Russian planes has to fly over the Black sea, or the Caucasus Mountains, then over Turkey (Maybe Iran, but if the Russian fly via Iran, they have to fly over Iraq to get to Syria) to hit anything in Syria.
Turkey has indicated it will NOT permit its bases to be used by NATO and if that is the case then the nearest Air Base in Cyprus. Greece, the nation closest to Cyprus and Cyprus have both indicated support for Assad and opposition to using the Cyprus bases to attack Syria. Cyprus under the treaty for those bases can not stop the use of those bases by NATO, but they have enough 105 mm Pack howitzers to prevent NATO from using those bases, till the Howitzers are taken out (which can be done within days, but will tie up planes for the first couple of days of any attack on Syria. The possibility of a delay may prevent the Cyprus bases from being used).
Thus, the nearest safe base is in Sicily. While a F-15 can fly from Sicily to Syria without refueling, it is at the maximum range of the F-15 (i.e. in flight refueling will have to be done to make sure the F-15 can make the flight). F-16s and F-18s have shorter range and thus MUST use in flight refueling if Sicily is the base.
Egypt has said it will refuse passage through the Suez Canal of any warship aimed at Syria, but the US has the Carrier the USS Nimitz sailing up the Red Sea to the Suez Canal (Strong evidence that this statement by Egypt is intended to Egyptian domestic population only, the US already has approval for the Carrier to go through the Suez Canal). Along with the French Carrier already in the Mediterranean, that should be enough air strength.
Thus Russia will have a hard time getting planes to hit targets in Syria, but NATO will also have a hard time, not as hard as Russia, but still difficult. The main reason for this is oil and who get what oil from whom.
Turkey's, Greece's and Cyprus's oil come from Iran (Cyprus's via Greece, Cyprus has no refinery so it imports already refined goods, mostly from Greece). This seems to be the main reason none will permit NATO to use air bases in their country.
The top three NET oil exporters are:
1. Saudi Arabia....................8684
2. Russia..............................7201
3. United Arab Emiriates......2590
http://www.eia.gov/countries/index.cfm?topL=exp
Please note the US is the 11 largest EXPORTER of oil but is a NET IMPORTER of oil, I bring this up for the top three EXPORTERS (NOT NET EXPORTERS), has Iran replacing United Arab Emirates as #3, Iran imports a lot of refined oil from Kuwait and other nations in the Persian Gulf), Thus the above three are more imported then the "Top three exporters"
List of Exporters of Oil:
http://www.eia.gov/countries/index.cfm?topL=exp
LIST OF NET EXPORTERS:
Country.............................Exports
1 Saudi Arabia......................8,684
2 Russia...............................7,201
3 United Arab Emirates........2,590
4 Kuwait..............................2,410
5 Nigeria..............................2,254
6 Iraq..................................2,235
7 Iran..................................1,829
8 Angola............................. 1,778
9 Venezuela........................1,712
10 Norway...........................1,646
11 Canada...........................1,578
12 Algeria.............................1,547
13 Qatar...............................1,389
14 Kazakhstan.....................1,355
15 Libya................................1,313
Notice it takes the next three net exporters. United Arab Emirates, Kuwait and Nigeria to barely exceed the net exports of Russia. Iraq has a comfortable margin over Iran, but Angola barely beats out Venezuela. Thus if Russia, Iran and Venezuela do a Oil Embargo, that is more then 10% of the world exports just disappears. i.e about 11,800 out of just about 90,000 barrels expected to be produced in 2013.
10% does not sound like much but itis believe to be no excess capacity any where in the world. From the 1970s to about 2005, Saudi Arabia was believe NOT to be producing to full capacity. Saudi Arabia held back production so it could control the price of oil world wide. From 2000 onward, it appears Saudi Arabia used up it excess capacity in a futile attempt to keep prices down. The House of Saud was very good at putting the best face on the situation (i.e. after the price went up, claimed that new price was the price they had really wanted, after months of dumping oil to keep the price of oil from raising).
Russia, by itself EXPORTS 8% of world wide oil. Saudi Arabia's net export is 9.4% of world wide oil production. United Arab Emirates exports just 2.9% of world wide oil production, Iran 2% of world wide oil production.
World wide oil production:
http://www.eia.gov/cfapps/ipdbproject/IEDIndex3.cfm?tid=5&pid=53&aid=1
Now, the above sound small, but the US produces 12% of world wide oil production and uses almost 20% of world wide oil production (we import the 8% we do not product domestically).
Now Shale oil production is expected to boom till about 2017 (When the US may even become an net oil exporter, if current trends in domestic oil CONSUMPTION continue to decline AND Tight oil production increase till its expected peak in 2017, then it is expected to drop so that by 2020 domestic production will equal domestic production of 2012).
I bring this up to show how Dependent the world is on RUSSIAN OIL. The world is almost as dependent on Russian Oil as it is on Saudi Arabian Oil. That makes oil the most powerful weapon Russian has. If I was Putin I would not even move ships off the coast of Syria except to observe. Once the US attacks Syria, just stop all oil exports, No exceptions till a country shows it is no way supporting the US attack (i.e. Germany gets no oil till it shuts down the US bases in Germany).
China is a net oil importer, but its main source of oil is Iran, second is Russia. Russian can continue to export to China is exchange for support for the Embargo. Thus Russia can still received foreign currency via China (just as Iran has been doing over the last five to ten years).
This is NOT the 1970s, when Europe was dependent on Persian Gulf Oil and the US was just importing just 10% of its oil (and mostly from Mexico). In the 1970 China was a net oil EXPORTER, now China is the #2 consumer of oil in the world (Just behind the US who is #1). China has HUGE US Dollars to out bid anyone for oil, maybe even the US. Thus a lot of exporters will ship to China for it will pay the highest price. Mexico and North Sea Production are clearly in decline (England has become a net oil IMPORTER, as it was in the 1970s). Canada oil production has and will increase, but it is no where near Mexico's oil production in the 1970s and 1980s. Venezuela.s oil production has shifted from the Low Sulfur (Sweet) oil to heavy high sulfur (Sour) Crude. Most of the refineries that can handle such Heavy Sour Oil are in Texas. Saudi Arabia says it can still expand oil production, but over the last few years its production of Light Sweet Oil has held steady and its increases has all been in Heavy Sour Crude.
My point OIL is Russia's most potent weapon, Since 2000 world wide oil production has had a hard time matching up with price. Oil prices peaked in 2008, but such prices were only partially driven by speculators. The speculators made bets that oil will go up given the shortage of production and the stead increase in demand. When prices peaked and fell, the Speculators then jumped on that downward slide and drove the price down but no where near what it had been in 2001.
The reason prices then stop falling and started to increase, was the price of oil had dropped below the marginal cost of production of what are called "Marginal producers". A marginal producer is someone who production is needed to meet demand at a set price. Do to high cost of production such marginal producers will only produce oil when the price of oil exceeds their cost of production. When ever the price of oil drops below they cost of production, they stop pumping oil (or in the case of Shale/Tight oil, they stop drilling new wells). These marginal producers stay on the sideline till the price of oil goes back up. As the price goes up and the price of oil exceeds the cost of these marginal producers to pump oilm they resume oil production.
The Shale oil/Tight oil market in the US is an example of such marginal producers. As long as the price of oil was below $50 a barrel, such tight wells were NOT profitable (cost more to drill and pump the oil, then what the producers could sell the oil for). When the price of oil jumped to over $100, these wells became profitable to be drilled and pumped. This additional oil provided more and more oil to the general public, till the demand for oil was satisfied, then the price stabilized.
In theory this should be a stable price, in practice it is not. To many marginal producers drill at times of high oil prices, but end up pumping during times of low oil prices. They lose money, but drilling the well was the big cost, so they continue to produce, for when you can not maximize your gain, you minimize your lost and in such cases pumping the well till it is dry minimize the loss (but given no real profit comes from the well, no additional wells are drilled till the price of oil goes back up).
Thus you have times where there is to much oil and prices drop, then periods of to little oil and prices climb. Thus the prices up and down since 2008.
The two big exporters of oil thus can cause huge fluctuations in price by just stopping production. Neither one can replace the other, and none of the other oil producers can replace either of them. The next 3-4 producers are no where near the top two and any one of them can affect price, but only for a limited time period, probably less time then the oil in the Strategic oil reserve. Saudi Arabia and Russia, would be much harder to replace. forcing the world to look elsewhere for its oil reserves. Thus oil is the most important weapon in the hands of Russia and Saudi Arabia. Saudi Arabia is an America Ally, thus Russian is the true wild card when it comes to oil supplies and use of the Oil Weapon against the US,
jakeXT
(10,575 posts)“Will we help Syria? We will. And we are already helping, we send arms, we cooperate in the economics sphere, we hope to expand our cooperation in the humanitarian sphere, which includes sending humanitarian aid to support those people – the civilians – who have found themselves in a very dire situation in this country,” Putin said.
..
Putin, on the contrary, stressed that setting precedents of military action outside a UN Security Council resolution would mean the world’s smaller countries can no longer feel safe against the interests of the more powerful ones.
“Small countries in the modern world feel increasingly vulnerable and insecure. One starts getting the impression that a more powerful country can at any time and at its own discretion use force against them,” Putin said, citing the earlier statement made by the South African President.
Such practice would also make it much harder to convince North Korea to give up its nuclear program, Putin pointed out.
http://rt.com/news/putin-g20-syria-meeting-511/
Aquavit
(488 posts)I'm so glad we've taken "arresting those who are responsible for the attack, and giving them their day in court" off the table. That's just so...1940s...
Mindlessly escalating the violence, killing even more civilians, and getting multiple countries involved and at odds with each other is CLEARLY the best solution to all of this. Fire, ready, aim!
