HMS Dragon (foreground), a Type 45 Royal Navy destroyer, escorting the Admiral Kuznetsov in the English Channel in 2014 Credit: EPA Russia is expected to sail its only aircraft carrier through the English Channel later this month amid strained relations between London and Moscow over the Syria crisis.
Royal Navy chiefs and their Nato allies are drawing up plans to escort up to eight Russian warships which are due to leave port imminently to join the country’s air strike campaign against Syrian rebels.
Admirals believe the Kremlin will use the voyage as an opportunity for a show of strength as it passes Britain, and expect the carrier’s aircraft to launch flying drills off the British and French coasts.
Nato navies have been preparing a major operation to track the 55,000 tonne Admiral Kuznetsov and its escorts in a game of “naval cat and mouse” down through the North Atlantic to the Bay of Biscay and then into the Mediterranean.
Boris tells people to protest outside Russian embassies over Syria Play! 01:37
One Nato naval source said the Russian vessels were due to leave Severomorsk near Murmansk imminently and could pass Britain as early as next week.
The source said: “It’s not catching us by surprise, we are working up what to do and we are all over it. The most likely thing is that they will go through the North Sea, down the Dover Strait and through the Channel.
“They might even stop off the North East coast to fly for a bit.”
But the source said it was also possible the Russian warships would split, with some going through the Irish Sea or down the West coast of Ireland, “to cause more trouble”.
The source said: “Even if it splits five ways and we can’t man mark them, it doesn’t matter, we have got this covered.”
One Royal Navy Type 23 frigate and one Type 45 destroyer are being prepared to monitor the Russians, while an RAF Rivet Joint spy plane, C130 Hercules and Typhoon jets will also be on standby.
But sources said, with the Royal Navy short of ships and sailors, the warships would have to be diverted from other missions to meet the Russian vessels.
Sergei Shoigu, Russian defence minister, has said the carrier will be escorted by six warships and three or four support vessels. The Russian vessels are expected to include the battlecruiser Peter the Great and a Udaloy class destroyer.
Once in the Mediterranean, the Kuznetsov is set to take up position off the coast of Syria for four to five months, where it could uses its complement of MiG-29K/KUB jets and helicopters to carry out airstrikes.
Lord West of Spithead, a former First Sea Lord, said the Russians were entitled to sail down the Channel, and the ageing carrier was not fully operational, but he said the country’s posturing over Syria would risk inflaming tensions.
He said: “When people start posturing, things become dangerous. It all raises tensions and makes things more difficult and that’s not a clever thing to do.
“It makes sense to have them monitored by a couple of Nato ships. The fact that the Navy is scrabbling around for a frigate is symptomatic of the fact that it’s a national disgrace we only have 19 surface escorts.
He said: “I find Russia very worrying at the moment. Their economy is on a war footing.”
Dr Igor Sutyagin, a Russia expert at the Royal United Services Institute, said that as the country’s economy foundered it was left only with its military might to project influence.
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 15 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Nikita Khrushchev:"We will bury you"
"Your grandchildren will live under communism."
“You Americans are so gullible.
No, you won’t accept To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 15 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. outright, but we’ll keep feeding you small doses of To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 15 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. until you’ll finally wake up and find you already have communism.
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 15 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. ."
We’ll so weaken your To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 15 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. until you’ll To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 15 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. like overripe fruit into our hands."
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 15 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Nikita Khrushchev:"We will bury you"
"Your grandchildren will live under communism."
“You Americans are so gullible.
No, you won’t accept To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 15 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. outright, but we’ll keep feeding you small doses of To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 15 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. until you’ll finally wake up and find you already have communism.
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 15 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. ."
We’ll so weaken your To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 15 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. until you’ll To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 15 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. like overripe fruit into our hands."
Depicted TFR data may not be a complete listing. Pilots should not use the information on this website for flight planning purposes. For the latest information, call your local Flight Service Station at 1-800-WX-BRIEF.
Libertatem Prius!
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 15 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 15 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Nikita Khrushchev:"We will bury you"
"Your grandchildren will live under communism."
“You Americans are so gullible.
No, you won’t accept To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 15 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. outright, but we’ll keep feeding you small doses of To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 15 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. until you’ll finally wake up and find you already have communism.
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 15 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. ."
We’ll so weaken your To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 15 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. until you’ll To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 15 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. like overripe fruit into our hands."
‘Why have most people not left already, given the intensity of Russian bombing: is it that the jihadis are blocking people’s escape?’ Rebel soldiers in Aleppo, August 2016. Photograph: Imageslive/REX/Shutterstock Share on LinkedIn
Much was made in this week’s Commons debate on Syria of the need for ano-fly zone over Aleppo. Given that the Syrian government and the Russians have a monopoly of air power over the city, the idea of denting or deterring it might seem attractive. Hillary Clinton also advocated such a zone in Sunday’s presidential TV debate. Protests outside the Russian embassy – what is Boris Johnson up to now?
In 1991 the US and Britain imposed a successful no-fly zone over northern Iraq to protect the Kurds. But they were already at war with Saddam Hussein, having just defeated him in Kuwait. Saddam was on his own internationally, despised and isolated. He had no support from Russia or any Arab allies. The last thing he wanted was to confront the US any further. Enforcing a no-fly zone (even though it had no clear UN security council authorisation) involved no risk to the US or UK. Saddam made little effort to resist and not one of their manned aircraft was shot down.
Today’s situation in Syria is different. The Syrian air force is fully engaged and will not back down in its campaign to defeat its enemies in Aleppo. After three years of military stalemate, Bashar al-Assad feels he has regained the upper hand and is determined to retake his country’s largest city.
More importantly, the Russians are also active in the air. Imposing a no-fly zone unilaterally (it would never gain a security council mandate) would be a declaration of war on Russia as well as on Assad. The dangers are obvious. It is not just a question of a clash between western and Russian planes by accident. That might be the only risk if it was assumed the Russians would meekly leave the skies free. Why would they? They are not going to be deterred from a bombing campaign that appears to be helping Assad’s ground forces advance. For the west to confront them risks an incalculably serious war.
Many on the jihadi side would like nothing more than to see the two Satans – the west and Russia – destroying each other in a hot war. But for Britain and the US it is madness. Hillary Clinton seemed to recognise that in a speech to corporate donors, according to the latest Wikileaks release. “All of a sudden this intervention that people talk about so glibly becomes an American and Nato involvement where you take [out] a lot of civilians”, she said.The second option is for Syrian government forces to retake the whole cityThere are only three sensible ways to save Aleppo’s people. One is the voluntary departure of the jihadis who, in the words of UN envoy Staffan de Mistura, are holding civilians hostage. One could go further and say they are keeping eastern Aleppo’s civilians as human shields. Why, for example, have most people not left already, given the intensity of Russian bombing: is it that the jihadis are blocking people’s escape? Syria is also mired in a propaganda war, and in the heart-rending images that the rebels put out on social media about life and death in Aleppo, the seamier side of the armed groups’ control is suppressed.
Hundreds of civilians recently left the besieged Damascus suburb of Daraya after the rebels gave in, with no reprisals from Assad forces. Gunmen were even allowed to keep their weapons and were taken by buses to rebel-held areas in the north.
The second option is for Syrian government forces to retake the whole city, just as Iraqi forces retook jihadi-held Ramadi and Falluja in recent months. Iraqi barrel bombs and US airstrikes had left three-quarters of those cities in ruins, but civilians got the chance to rebuild their lives.
The concept of an Assad victory will stick in the throats of hundreds of thousands of Syrians who have lost so much in the fight against him. But if the secular multicultural tolerance of pre-war Syria is to be restored, it is better to deny victory to the Sunni extremists who pose the main opposition to Assad, whether it is Islamic State, the al-Qaida-linked Jabhat al-Nusra or similar groups.
The third option is a ceasefire. Last month’s Russian-US agreement provided for the superpowers to separate the al-Nusra fighters from those Syrian Islamists prepared to negotiate with Assad’s representatives in Geneva for a coalition government.
The ceasefire never took hold because the Islamists refused to split. Al-Nusra understandably did not want to be isolated and left vulnerable to a joint US-Russian air campaign. So they used their dominance among the Aleppo fighters to press the other groups to stick with them. For their part, the non-Nusra fighters feared an alliance between the Americans, the Russians and Assad’s army.
Having failed once, for the Russians and Americans to broker a new ceasefire is a tall order. The other options are equally difficult. But at least they tend towards de-escalation. Proposing a no-fly zone not only risks greater catastrophe for the people of Aleppo. It threatens to engulf us all.
Libertatem Prius!
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 15 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Green party presidential candidate Jill Stein says Donald Trump is less scary on foreign wars, because he wants to work with Russia.
JILL STEIN: It's important to look at where we are going. It's not just a moment in time, but where has the strategy of voting for the lesser evil taken us?
All these times you have been told to vote for the lesser evil because you didn't want the wars, or the meltdown of the climate, or the offshoring of our jobs, or the attack on immigrants, or the massive bailout for Wall Street, but that is actually what we have gotten. By the droves.
Because we with public interest allow ourselves to be silent, and voted for the lesser evil. But the lesser evil doesn't solve the problem.
The Obama administration, even with both houses of Congress, actually did all of these fossil fuel emissions. "All of the above" gave us some renewable energy but it completely amplified and intensified our carbon production, which has been incredibly destructive to the climate.
The wars have gotten bigger, we are now bombing seven countries.
It is important to not just look at the rhetoric but also look at the track record and the reality is the lesser people and greater people is a race to the bottom, and even Donald Trump in the right wing extremism grows out of the policies of the Clintons, in particular Nafta, which sent our jobs overseas and Wall Street deregulation, which blew 9 million jobs up into smoke.
That is what is creating this right wing extremism. A vote for Hillary Clinton isn't going to fix it...
It is now Hillary Clinton that wants to start an air war with Russia over Syria by calling for a no fly zone.
We have 2000 nuclear missiles on hairtrigger alert. They are saying we are closer to a nuclear war than we have ever been.
Under Hillary Clinton, we could slide into nuclear war very quickly from her declared policy in Syria.
I sure won't sleep well at night if Donald Trump is elected, but I sure won't sleep well at night if Hillary Clinton elected. We have another choice other than these two candidates who are both promoting lethal policies.
On the issue of war and nuclear weapons, it is actually Hillary's policies which are much scarier than Donald Trump who does not want to go to war with Russia.
He wants to seek modes of working together, which is the route that we need to follow not to go into confrontation and nuclear war with Russia.
Libertatem Prius!
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 15 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
By David Filipov October 15 at 6:00 AM
Lt. Gen. Sergei Rudskoi of the Russian Military General Staff talks to reporters in September. (Alexander Zemlianichenko/Assocaited Press)
Some activities going on in Russia these days might make it seem like the country is genuinely preparing for war. Talk of bunkers and rations; missiles moving around; politicians uttering dire warnings — are these harbingers of a Russian-U.S. conflict?
The Washington Post's Moscow bureau decided to rank the signs to see how likely they suggest that Russia is getting ready to fight.
1. New bomb shelters
A poster appeared in a Moscow neighborhood asking residents to pony up 500 rubles (about $8) for the construction of a new bomb shelter because of "the expected nuclear attack on [Russia] from unfriendly countries (the USA and its satellites.)"
Does this mean war? Most definitely not. It turned out to be a hoax, probably aimed at bilking pensioners. View image on Twitter
I just got this email. I think this writer nails a very plausible scenario.
Looks to me like Obama is attempting to set up Putin as a perpetrator of a false flag cyber attack. Such a "attack" would shut down the financial markets, e-banking, and debit cards a week before the election. Obama would claim it was Russia and evil Putin. If it disrupts people's checking account, it might get attention.
Hillary is a Putin war hawk and claim Trump is too soft on Putin.
The Bimbo Pageant isn't working and a terrorist attack would drive voters towards Trump. A false flag cyber attack could swing voters and have the support of the media.
A mostly harmless cyber attack would have no blood on the streets and blaming Putin might swing voters towards Hillary.
Putin sees it coming and has been taking defensive measures which Obama claims as offensive tactics.
Does Obama want war with Russia? Maybe he just wants a scapegoat and win a passing contest with Putin. Much of the last few years, our foriegn policy towards Russia amounts to nothing more than passing contests between Obama looking to one up Putin.
It's odd that Obama want to lower America's standing in the world but desires to one up Putin o the world stage.
Sounds crazy but I don't buy Obama's claim that all hacking of Hillary's people is Russia's fault. If this were the case, it might be wise to have some cash before the election.
Hey, there's crazier ideas on the internet.
Enjoy your posts on Facebook.
Does Obama want war with Russia? Maybe he just wants a scapegoat and win a passing contest with Putin. Much of the last few years, our foreign policy towards Russia amounts to nothing more than passing contests between Obama looking to one up Putin.
President Obama and Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. at a reception at the White House on Wednesday.CreditAl Drago/The New York TimesWASHINGTON — Since the Obama administration formally accused Russia about a week ago of trying to interfere in the election, there has been intense speculation about whether President Obama has ordered theNational Security Agency to conduct a retaliatory cyberstrike.
The strongest hint so far has come from Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr., who either revealed American plans for a strike or engaged in one of the better bits of psychological warfare in recent times.
Taping an interview for NBC’s “Meet the Press,” Mr. Biden was asked whether the United States was preparing to send a message to the Russian president, Vladimir V. Putin. Days before, the American intelligence agencies and the Department of Homeland Security declared that the Russian leadership was responsible for attacks on the Democratic National Committee and the leaking of stolen emails.
“We’re sending a message,” Mr. Biden told Chuck Todd, the show’s host. “We have the capacity to do it.”
“He’ll know it,” Mr. Biden added. “And it will be at the time of our choosing. And under the circumstances that have the greatest impact.”
Later, after Mr. Biden said he was not concerned that Russia could “fundamentally alter the election,” Mr. Todd asked whether the American public would know if the message to Mr. Putin had been sent.
“Hope not,” Mr. Biden responded.
His warning seems to suggest that Mr. Obama is prepared to order — or has already ordered — some kind of covert action after the stolen emails were published online. That would require what is known in the intelligence agencies as a finding — a presidential determination authorizing covert action.
Such a finding would allow the United States to make use of its newly developed arsenal of cyberweapons, which are under the control of the military’s Cyber Command, the N.S.A. and, in some circumstances, theC.I.A.
Mr. Biden’s statement does not exclude the possibility of a response outside the realm of cyberspace. But most of the other options under discussion in the White House involve actions that would be public, such as economic sanctions under a 2015 presidential order on responding to cyberattacks. Such sanctions have never been invoked, but are well suited to cases like the presumed effort to influence the election.
Some experts, however, say they may be insufficient. James G. Stavridis, the former supreme allied commander of NATO, wrote in Foreign Policylast week that the first step could be making America’s evidence against Russia public.
“Revealing the names of the officials who authorized the cyberattacks against the United States would put Moscow in an extremely uncomfortable position,” wrote Mr. Stavridis, a former admiral who is now dean of the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy at Tufts University. “Ideally, the United States could reveal emails or conversations between Russian officials that demonstrated their intent to undermine the U.S. electoral process.”
But that would run counter to Mr. Biden’s “hope not” statement. Mr. Stavridis and others have advocated other steps, including knocking holes in the Kremlin’s wall of censorship so that opponents of Putin could begin to conspire with one another.
“As a response to the Russian attacks on the U.S. democratic system, this would be both proportional and distinctive,” Mr. Stavridis wrote. It might also be deniable — a key to any covert action approved by the president.
Many others have advocated using cybertechniques to expose Mr. Putin’s links to Russia’s oligarchs and reveal his financial holdings overseas, which are believed to be vast. But such steps would risk escalation, and advisers have warned Mr. Obama that the United States is more vulnerable than most nations.
Mr. Putin initially denied any Russian involvement in the attacks. But in an interview several days ago, he said the important thing was not how emails from Hillary Clinton’s campaign had been hacked, but what they said. Sergey V. Lavrov, the Russian foreign minister, went further. “We did not deny this,” he said of the hacking. But he added that the United States had offered no proof.
A crucial question being debated in the White House is whether warnings like Mr. Biden’s will be enough to make Russia, or others, pull back in their hacking. The calculus behind the decision to formally accuse Russia was that the mere publication of the conclusion could temper the activity.
If so, it may not have worked. WikiLeaks in the past few days has published thousands of emails stolen from the Gmail account of John D. Podesta, the chairman of the Clinton campaign. While Mr. Podesta has blamed Russia for the attack, intelligence agencies say they have not formally reached that conclusion.
There are only two known cases in which Mr. Obama has authorized an offensive cyberaction. One was the operation against Iran’s nuclear program, code-named Olympic Games. That operation was not detected by the Iranians for years, until an accidental release of the computer code made it obvious that its centrifuges were exploding because of a cyberattack.
The other case has been action against the Islamic State, mostly to interfere with its communications or alter data in its systems. Those attacks were publicly announced by Defense Secretary Ashton B. Carter and others, though no details were offered.
The announcement seemed intended in part to cause Islamic State insurgents to question whether their internal communications were genuine.
Libertatem Prius!
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 15 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Royal Navy vessels are following Russian warships as they pass through the English Channel on their way to the eastern Mediterranean to a suspected bolstering of the bombing campaign of Aleppo.
The Russian fleet will be marked "every inch of the way", according to Defence Secretary Sir Michael Fallon as he claimed the deployment was aimed at testing British capabilities.
The Russian vessels, including the aircraft carrier Admiral Kuznetsov, were being shadowed by the Navy as they headed towards Syria via the Dover Strait.
The Admiral Kuznetsov is the only carrier in the Russian navy and can carry more than 50 aircraft. Its weapons systems include granit anti-ship cruise missiles.
The Admiral Kuznetsov can carry more than 50 aircraft. Credit: PoolOn Tuesday, Type 45 destroyer HMS Duncan sailed from Portsmouth to "man-mark" the Kuznetsov group, and Type 23 frigate HMS Richmond escorted the group from the Norwegian Sea as it steamed south.
Earlier on Friday a British MP condemned Russian airstrikes on Aleppo as "shameful" and "making the situation worse".
Russian destroyer Vice-Admiral Kulakov. Credit: PoolThe Russian deployment comes as Theresa May condemned President Vladimir Putin's aggression in Syria, accusing Moscow of being behind "sickening atrocities" in support of Bashar Assad's regime.
Syrian forces, backed by Russian air power, have agreed a temporary humanitarian truce in Aleppo, but Ms May has urged European leaders to take a firm stance against Moscow.
A Russian destroyer. Credit: PoolNato said the prospect of Russia's only aircraft carrier heading to the region does not "inspire confidence" that Moscow is seeking a political solution to the Syrian crisis.
Russia already has around 10 ships off the coast of Syria. In the past they have fired cruise missiles during Russia's bombardment of what it says are anti-government rebels in Syria.
“Son of man, set your face toward Gog of the land of Magog, the prince of Rosh, Meshech and Tubal, and prophesy against him.” Ezekiel 38:2 (The Israel Bible™)
Against a backdrop of increasing tension with the US, the Russian fleet passed through the English Channel on Friday en route to Syria in the country’s largest surface deployment since the end of the Cold War. The British Royal Navy is “man marking” the Russian fleet as it passes their shores, keeping a distance of about five miles in order to monitor it.
According to Western intelligence reports, Russian is sending its entire Northern Fleet and part of its Baltic Fleet, a total of eight warships including one aircraft carrier. The armada is sailing to the Mediterranean to reinforce the Russian military presence in Syria.
A senior NATO diplomat told the Telegraph, a major British news service, that the deployment was part of a renewed Russian attack in Aleppo.
“They are deploying all of the Northern Fleet and much of the Baltic Fleet in the largest surface deployment since the end of the Cold War,” the diplomat said.
“This is not a friendly port call. In two weeks, we will see a crescendo of air attacks on Aleppo as part of Russia’s strategy to declare victory there.”
Russia and the United States are at odds in Syria, with Russia supporting Syrian President Bashar Assad and the US supporting anti-Assad rebels. Both countries have a military presence in the region, though Russia has a more substantial military commitment including advanced anti-air sysytems. Confrontations have already come close to sparking a multi-national conflict. In November, Turkey, a NATO member and American ally, shot down a Russian bomber over Syria, killing the Russian pilot and a rescue serviceman. War was averted through diplomatic negotiations. Russia initiated severe economic sanctions. image: http://www.breakingisraelnews.com/wp...st-600WIDE.jpg
Friction between the two super-powers is growing on the home-front as well. Last Friday, Vice President Joe Biden US Vice President Joe Biden threatened Russia with a cyber-attack in a Meet the Press televised interview.
“We’re sending a message,” Biden warned. “We have the capacity to do it. It will be at the time of our choosing, and under the circumstances that will have the greatest impact.”
The vice-presidential threat comes as a result of claims Russian interfered with the American elections by launching cyber-attacks and hacking more than 100 Democratic Party officials and groups.
Russia is taking the cyber-threat seriously. Sergei Kislyak, the Russian ambassador to the US, told SCMagazineUK , an online news service for computer security professionals, that the US government has not yet provided proof that the cyber-attacks on the Democratic National Convention was perpetrated by Russia. Yuri Ushakov, the Russian presidential aide, told SCMagazineUK that Russia has already begun designing protective measures.
Ivan Beregovoy, a senior IT engineer of CyberZahita, a Russian developer of IT solutions, said to SCMagazineUK that the US is unlikely to conduct massive cyber-attacks on Russia’s critical infrastructure due to its own vulnerability to such attacks. The US is considered to have a higher level of vulnerability since its businesses and infrastructure are much more dependent on computerization than Russia.
Re: World War Three Thread....
Reply With Quote
Originally Posted by vector7
Alexey Navalny 
Re: World War Three Thread....
Play video
Russian warship preparing to sail (Photo by Shutterstock)
Bookmarks