It’s becoming clear that the Zhou administration is increasingly desperate to find some way out of its self made crisis in the Middle East, which has taken on global dimensions.
Brietbart is reporting that the US has kicked things up a notch by sinking some Houthi vessels during an attack. This mess can reach critical mass in a heartbeat!
These people are so out of control! They don’t like a Constitutional prohibition, just ignore it. Don’t like a ruling the SCOTUS makes, just ignore it. And where are the Republicans? Nowhere to be found.
How can we possibly fix this when not one damn person in DC seems to care about the Constitution or the law in general, on either side.
Russia is now openly shooting down Israeli missiles over Syria.
Sputnik:
"Russian anti-aircraft missile systems Pantsir-S have shot down ten guided bombs and three cruise missiles launched by the Israeli air force towards Syria, the Russian Defense Ministry's Center for Reconciliation of Opposing Sides in Syria said on Friday."
I've seen past articles that maintain that use of some of these Russian systems is controlled by the Russians--systems/weaponry are provided with rules/strings attached. Probably not so different from the situation in Ukraine, where many AD systems are actually manned and their use controlled by NATO personnel, although Ukrainians no doubt participate. So the correction may reflect public positions, i.e., deniability, that Russia wishes to maintain, more or less the same as with attacks into Russia by NATO. For example, the response to the attack may have been intended to send a message short of Sputnik's initial "Russia is now involved" article.
That I would agree with, yes. Lavrov said that Israel's aim to destroy Hamas was the same as RFs aim to "denazify" Ukraine. He ought to have gone on to say that the means towards that end differed widely, but did not do so.
As to why... On the one hand, to do so would have been unnecessary. Putin already said that the strategy, if it can be called that, is wrong. More importantly though Russia has time on its side, wants to try and preserve some measure of goodwill with the populations who will be it's citizens, and recognises their common cultural/ethnic heritage. Israel... well I hardly need to conclude the sentence.
The hue and cry over Sergei Lavrov's words was massively performative, let's put it that way.
If the Russians had enough anti air, ecm, anti missile no jets required it could easily be done. Russia has shown their capability in Ukraine.
My guess is Putin is to keep it as leverage, and is focused on Ukraine. Plus why interfere when Israel with U.S. support and Iranian proxies are fighting. Russia gains nothing by getting into that fight at this time.
U.S. forces are under constant attack by Iranian proxies including Yemen, Syria, and Iraq. And the U.S. is declining in popularity in the Arab World.
From what I read Russia still does not have as much of the needed hardware as they would like, so the coverage is uneven in Ukraine. It’sstill a huge improvement from the start of the conflict.
You hit the nail right on the head with your characterization of our diplomats as “hapless”. They are flailing around with no apparent strategy and certainly no overarching understanding of just how big a calamity they have created with the net result being that virtually every move they make solves nothing but in fact opens a new flashpoint or exacerbates an existing one.
The seeming inaction of the countries you name has various causes:
Turkiye: Erdogan likes to pose and throw around belligerent rhetoric while biding his time and letting others do the heavy lifting. It's shrewd but so well established a routine that no one takes it seriously.
Saudi: waiting to see if their Houthi problem is solved for them by NATO... Or to be more accurate UK/US
Egypt: non-player character, as with SA keen to see that Red Sea/Suez shipping becomes viable again Very Soon.
Lebanon aka Hizbullah: fairly actively involved already but keeping their powder dry for the most part.
Iran: they know they need to conserve strength if Israel succeeds in getting US/UK to fight for them.
When in doubt, push pawn.
I think you're probably correct about the Beirut port attack, some kind of proof-of-concept by Israel, and that they will consider more of the same is horribly plausible.
Re Saudi: I'm not so sure KSA wants their Houthi problem solved by US/UK, since that could lead to KSA being forced out of BRICS and back into vassalship. Commitment to BRICS appears to be long term. Solving the Red Sea blockade doesn't equate to KSA's Houthi problem being solved *for KSA.*
Egypt and Ethiopia have good relations with Russia and BRICS--both are slated to join in January. I like Luongo's thesis that debt to the West relief is what's in play (Ethiopia defaulted just a week or two ago), and that could well play into Egypt's seemingly calm response to the Suez situation.
"Lebanon aka Hizbullah" seems too simple. The Lebanese government doesn't control Hizbullah, but that doesn't mean vice versa is the case. Recent Israeli reports suggest alarm at the extent of Hizbulla's already constantly increasing involvement.
I agree that Iran is certainly studiously avoiding full involvement, but probably not out of doubt as to how to proceed. Rather, they may be sacrificing pieces in order to enhance their board position.
As before, Russia's intentions are the wildcard. At the beginning of the conflict in Gaza Russia was reported to have sent 2,000 more troops of unspecified type to their bases in Syria. That's not an inconsiderable number to add to their current deployment. I haven't seen much about their overall strength there, but their aggressive air patrols around US bases suggest it's substantial.
Yes I've seen that footage and would struggle to classify it. I guess I naively thought that if it was a nuke we would have heard something, right..? Ha.
Brietbart is reporting that the US has kicked things up a notch by sinking some Houthi vessels during an attack. This mess can reach critical mass in a heartbeat!
I wonder if the US suspects the Houthis possess carrier killers or commercial ships in the Red Sea have Russia’s fabled ship container missiles.
It makes sense that the carrier group is being very wary.
https://www.antiwar.com/blog/2023/12/30/once-again-biden-bypasses-congress-to-approve-arms-sale-to-israel/
These people are so out of control! They don’t like a Constitutional prohibition, just ignore it. Don’t like a ruling the SCOTUS makes, just ignore it. And where are the Republicans? Nowhere to be found.
How can we possibly fix this when not one damn person in DC seems to care about the Constitution or the law in general, on either side.
This looks like a significant development:
@Megatron_ron
Russia is now openly shooting down Israeli missiles over Syria.
Sputnik:
"Russian anti-aircraft missile systems Pantsir-S have shot down ten guided bombs and three cruise missiles launched by the Israeli air force towards Syria, the Russian Defense Ministry's Center for Reconciliation of Opposing Sides in Syria said on Friday."
Russian ADS but used by Syrians. Sputnik corrected their headline and I believe Will Schryver did too.
Here's the corrected article though I see the URL is the same. (This will be an artefact of the Content Management System used by Sputnik.)
https://sputnikglobe.com/20231229/russian-forces-destroy-10-air-bombs-3-cruise-missiles-fired-by-israel-on-syria-1115881500.html
tl;dr: never happened
I've seen past articles that maintain that use of some of these Russian systems is controlled by the Russians--systems/weaponry are provided with rules/strings attached. Probably not so different from the situation in Ukraine, where many AD systems are actually manned and their use controlled by NATO personnel, although Ukrainians no doubt participate. So the correction may reflect public positions, i.e., deniability, that Russia wishes to maintain, more or less the same as with attacks into Russia by NATO. For example, the response to the attack may have been intended to send a message short of Sputnik's initial "Russia is now involved" article.
Highly plausible but that veneer of deniability is part of the message in a way. We know that you know etc.
The Pantsir-S only has a 10 mile range.
My guess the Israeli bombs and missiles were too close to the Russian base. Perhaps they were trying for a Russian USS Liberty, and blame it on Isis?
Or trying to use the airspace over the Russian base as a safe zone to travel to other targets?
Or just testing the Russian defenses?
Hyperbole. Lavrov did not say that, or not in the terms that are being spun, and Russia did not fire the said missiles.
Thanks for that confirmation:
https://meaninginhistory.substack.com/p/is-something-about-to-give-in-the/comment/46390929
That I would agree with, yes. Lavrov said that Israel's aim to destroy Hamas was the same as RFs aim to "denazify" Ukraine. He ought to have gone on to say that the means towards that end differed widely, but did not do so.
As to why... On the one hand, to do so would have been unnecessary. Putin already said that the strategy, if it can be called that, is wrong. More importantly though Russia has time on its side, wants to try and preserve some measure of goodwill with the populations who will be it's citizens, and recognises their common cultural/ethnic heritage. Israel... well I hardly need to conclude the sentence.
The hue and cry over Sergei Lavrov's words was massively performative, let's put it that way.
A Russian no fly zone over Syria would complicate things for the U.S. and Israel.
Russia already has an airbase in Syria. For years. And a Naval base too.
Which Putin said they will be doing. Wow this whole thread is way off beam. Too much haste to chip in first?
If the Russians had enough anti air, ecm, anti missile no jets required it could easily be done. Russia has shown their capability in Ukraine.
My guess is Putin is to keep it as leverage, and is focused on Ukraine. Plus why interfere when Israel with U.S. support and Iranian proxies are fighting. Russia gains nothing by getting into that fight at this time.
U.S. forces are under constant attack by Iranian proxies including Yemen, Syria, and Iraq. And the U.S. is declining in popularity in the Arab World.
From what I read Russia still does not have as much of the needed hardware as they would like, so the coverage is uneven in Ukraine. It’sstill a huge improvement from the start of the conflict.
Maladroit, to say the least.
Ooh, ooh, vocabulary showoff……👏
Boy i had to look that one up.
Lavrov is neither.
And Russia called out Czech weapons being used.
You hit the nail right on the head with your characterization of our diplomats as “hapless”. They are flailing around with no apparent strategy and certainly no overarching understanding of just how big a calamity they have created with the net result being that virtually every move they make solves nothing but in fact opens a new flashpoint or exacerbates an existing one.
I just don’t see how this ends well.
Nice job, Mark--for pulling all the loose threads together.
Happy New Year and hoping you and all your readers enjoy a safe & happy 2024.
Thanks and to you.
I also noticed the "rape thing" hitting the MSM again.
My notion was the same, The Powers That Be had lost control of the Narrative again.
Brain shock to reset the hypnosis of their captured masses is above all most important
Manufacturing Consent has never been a clean business yet one you'll never recover from as a controlling legal authority.
I'm optimistic it's desperation and won't work, after Zhou was forced to walk back the beheaded babies BS.
The seeming inaction of the countries you name has various causes:
Turkiye: Erdogan likes to pose and throw around belligerent rhetoric while biding his time and letting others do the heavy lifting. It's shrewd but so well established a routine that no one takes it seriously.
Saudi: waiting to see if their Houthi problem is solved for them by NATO... Or to be more accurate UK/US
Egypt: non-player character, as with SA keen to see that Red Sea/Suez shipping becomes viable again Very Soon.
Lebanon aka Hizbullah: fairly actively involved already but keeping their powder dry for the most part.
Iran: they know they need to conserve strength if Israel succeeds in getting US/UK to fight for them.
When in doubt, push pawn.
I think you're probably correct about the Beirut port attack, some kind of proof-of-concept by Israel, and that they will consider more of the same is horribly plausible.
Re Saudi: I'm not so sure KSA wants their Houthi problem solved by US/UK, since that could lead to KSA being forced out of BRICS and back into vassalship. Commitment to BRICS appears to be long term. Solving the Red Sea blockade doesn't equate to KSA's Houthi problem being solved *for KSA.*
Egypt and Ethiopia have good relations with Russia and BRICS--both are slated to join in January. I like Luongo's thesis that debt to the West relief is what's in play (Ethiopia defaulted just a week or two ago), and that could well play into Egypt's seemingly calm response to the Suez situation.
"Lebanon aka Hizbullah" seems too simple. The Lebanese government doesn't control Hizbullah, but that doesn't mean vice versa is the case. Recent Israeli reports suggest alarm at the extent of Hizbulla's already constantly increasing involvement.
I agree that Iran is certainly studiously avoiding full involvement, but probably not out of doubt as to how to proceed. Rather, they may be sacrificing pieces in order to enhance their board position.
As before, Russia's intentions are the wildcard. At the beginning of the conflict in Gaza Russia was reported to have sent 2,000 more troops of unspecified type to their bases in Syria. That's not an inconsiderable number to add to their current deployment. I haven't seen much about their overall strength there, but their aggressive air patrols around US bases suggest it's substantial.
Yes I've seen that footage and would struggle to classify it. I guess I naively thought that if it was a nuke we would have heard something, right..? Ha.