Winter Patriot Community Blog

Thanks for the great analysis James. It seems no one else is talking about the Russian elephant in the room. All the commentary is about the details - who perpetrated the attack the gov or the rebels? was it even a sarin gas attack or some other chemical? why do the UN inspectors have such a limited mandate? which countries will go along with a US attack? mobilizations to demonstrate against the (non) attack, hysterical Israeli's clamoring for gas masks (Why would Syria attack Isreal in retaliation for a US strike? Makes more sense to me they would strike at the ships that are launching missiles at them.) etc. etc.

There is a massive amount of opinion being written and lots of fear and confusion being sown and everything else including events in Egypt has just dropped out of the news. All of this of course, misses the point that the US/Israel can't or won't attack Syria because the Russians have called their bluff. No where have I read a mention of the Russian pacific fleet parked off the coast of Cyprus, nor of their Black Sea fleet or their nuclear subs. And there is scant talk about their's (and Syria's) missile capability and the vulnerabilty of the US fleet to a missile attack. In fact, there seems to be very little, to no, awareness that there would a Syrian (and or Russian) response to a Shock and Awe Lite campaign on Syria. Which I guess is the point of all the words being printed because it props up the now shaky US/Israeli invincibility narrative. The idea they are all powerful. Everyone appears to be playing into it, knowingly or not.

On the other side (of all the western govs, lamestream and alternate media news hysteria) are the Russians - calm, reasoned, advocating caution, diplomacy, non interference and a political solution. It is masterful, really.

Unfortunately as you note, the evil ones will take maximum advantage of the fear and confusion they are sowing to strengthen the police state at home to deal with the inevitable backlash when the rabble figure out they are not all powerful and they have been conned. And of course, Plan B which is to create as much death and destruction as you can on your way out the door.

It is quite the show..

Well, maybe not 'bullshit'. But he did call it "nonsense". Telling it how it is.

"Moscow, (SANA)-President Vladimir Putin of Russia affirmed that the Syrian government has never used chemical weapons, describing the accusations against the Syrian army of using such weapons as "nonsense."

"Holding Syrian government responsible for the use of chemical weapon is a provocation and the calls for striking Syria were because of the victories achieved by the Syrian army and the retreat of the opposition's gunmen," Putin said in a statement in Vladivostok on Saturday.

The Russian president added that if Washington fails to show the proof, “that means there is none."

Putin also told the journalists that President Obama, a Nobel Peace Prize laureate, should think of the potential victims of a military attack against Syria.

The Russian President called for considering the trajectory of events over the past ten years as the US has always been making the first move to ignite armed confrontations in various parts of the world, which did not solve one single case in Libya, Iraq or Afghanistan.

"Regarding the position of our American colleagues, who affirm that government troops used ... chemical weapons, and say that they have proof; well, let them show it to the United Nations inspectors and the Security Council," Putin added, considering the excuse that the ''information are too classified to present them to anyone" as flimsy and shows their disrespect for their partners."

Read the rest here

Thanks for your comment, Mick. A lot of what you say is backed up by VideoRebel in his article "Updated: 5 Minutes To Self-Immolation Of The Israeli Empire"

As McJ says, no one is considering the fact that Syria and Iran will strike back in the event of a US attack. Their target will be US ships to begin with and then any country that attacks them or allows their bases to be used in an attack.

Morsi was thrown out because he was 'not with the program' enough (amongst other things, no doubt). He was dragging his feet in taking on the next poisonous IMF loan. He was in a parlous position, in any case, as he had no control over the economy or the military. The Egyptian central bank is owned by the jews and the Egyptian military is owned by the US. Al-Sisi was brought to power by the US and he is not about to bite the hand that feeds him, nevermind doing it publicly. So, I think it is reasonable to conclude that his statement about closing the Suez canal to American and British warships was made with the US' approval. In fact, they would have scripted it which means the US needs excuses for not attacking Syria

The way Russia cut through Georgia wasn't a big plus for western military planners.

Indeed it wasn't! The Georgia conflict is a model of how I see things going in Syria. Putin will not hesitate to defend Russia's ally (and their own national interests). And the US and israel (who were behind the Georgian attack) will abandon the battlefield and their ally. Their ally in this case will be the mercenaries and terrorists paid for by NATO and friends. But, of course, they want to keep their terrorists in Syria doing maximum damage for as long as possible. Hence all the talk of attacks.

The tide is turning...
The author doesn't get this all right imho but he is moving in the right direction. The gig is up, the veil is coming down, the party is almost over....

"Commentators in the West will surely declare that it was their democratic systems of government that forced US President Barack Obama to back down on attacking Syria. But the events that led up to Washington’s de-escalation suggest there were other factors at play.

When Obama stepped out into the White House Rose Garden to declare that, though still intent on attacking Syria, he wanted to get Congress’ approval first, the Pentagon must have breathed a sigh of relief, knowing full well that a military strike against Damascus could spark a major confrontation in the Middle East for which they were not adequately prepared.

The story starts shortly before the Israeli-Saudi intelligence operation that engineered the chemical attack near the Syrian capital. The Americans and Europeans had begun negotiating with the Russians and the Iranians for a political settlement, after having failed to remove the regime by force. The West’s only condition was that Bashar al-Assad would not be part of the solution, even proposing to Moscow that they would be willing to allow the Syrian president to pick a successor of his own choosing.

When the Russians – after extensive discussions with their allies – told Washington that it was difficult to accept such a condition, the West turned to Plan B, which was to raise the level of military support for the opposition and reorganize the armed groups fighting against the regime, allowing Saudi Arabia to take the lead in mobilizing them to up the ante on Damascus.

The goal was to squeeze Assad by launching major offensives from both the north and the south of the country, in addition to wreaking havoc on Hezbollah on its home ground and providing more appealing incentives for Syrian army officers to defect.

In the meantime, the regime and its allies were already in the process of consolidating military gains on a number of fronts by expanding the area under government control, particularly in the area around Damascus. One such operation was to be launched on the eve of the chemical attack on August 20 against opposition forces to the south and east of the capital.

After the opposition was quickly routed in the north as it tried to sweep through the coastal Latakia region, many of their regional and international backers understood that the only way to bring about a qualitative change on the ground was by drawing the West into a direct foreign military intervention in Syria – but a justification was necessary to prompt Washington to act.

It was for this reason that the “chemical massacre” in the Ghouta area around Damascus was carried out, most likely at the hands of the Saudi and Israeli intelligence. Barely an hour had passed before the orchestrated media campaign to get Assad was in full swing, followed by condemnations and threats from Western capitals.

Washington rushed to cash in on what they insisted was an imminent military attack by sending envoys to both Russia and Iran, giving the two countries a last opportunity to stand down before unleashing their missiles on Syria. But all the sabre-rattling was not enough to force any political concessions – even Assad informed his allies that he had chosen to take a stand.

The Americans tried to respond to this by showing that they were serious about a strike, moving additional naval vessels into the eastern Mediterranean, as well as increasing the number of fighter planes in bases around Syria. But again, Russia and Iran were unmoved, refusing to give Washington any guarantees that its limited strike would not turn into a broader, prolonged war, with devastating consequences for the region as a whole.

They backed their words with action, as Russia, Iran, Syria, and Hezbollah put their forces on high alert, ordering them to make preparations for a military confrontation. Most notably, Hezbollah directed its fighters to return to their bases, as it set up an operations room in coordination with Damascus to make effective use of their combined arsenal of rockets.

The first to buckle was that old hand at such affairs, the United Kingdom, whose parliament gave Prime Minister David Cameron a way out, putting their ally Washington in the uncomfortable position of going it alone. Suddenly, Obama, too, felt the need to consult the American public and seek the approval of their representatives in Congress.

Nevertheless, Obama – having lost the initiative – has but two choices before him: He either retreats and seeks out a political settlement, or enters into a military adventure, whose outcome he cannot control. The results of round one of this global confrontation in Syria provide yet another indicator that the days when the US can call the shots, without regard for the rest of the world, are on their way to becoming a relic of history."
http://english.al-akhbar.com/content/full-story-why-obama-backed-down-syria

I linked to this piece at my blog
with this intro

*"James@ WinterPatriot wrote a very good piece regarding the Syrian situation. James is confident the attack on Syria will not happen and has put forth a very good article explaining why he holds this opinion.
Definitely worth a read! Thank you James for your insights."*

I described you as being confident. Is this fair or inaccurate?
Trying to present your view of this situation without my influence

If it does not sufficiently or adequately describe how you feel please let me know?

Striving for accuracy.

And while your there, what do you think of Israel in all this?
The joker.
The missile fire yesterday, wondered if it was a test or provocation?

The senate foreign relations committee passed a resolution trying to make this look like a done deal. I don't believe this will ever pass however. The risks are too great

And Russia is now threatening in so many words to sell more advanced weaponry to Iran and others if this happens. It of course would be against international law but possibly his position is if nobody follows international law, why should russia.

I keep reading there was some type Un embargo that Russia signed onto via the UN quite some time ago that forbid the S-300 sales to Iran. At any rate Russia held up sending them because of this and I believe Iran has taken it to international court. The S-300 at present (they say) are still sitting in Russia. I do read at times articles indicating that Iran is making their own now. Russia could get irritated and send S400 and S-500 missiles there the way things are going.

It is becoming more and more like the twilight zone. Bela Pelosi says she doesn't think this had to be passed by the senate but she is glad bama went that route. (she doesn't think the constitution matters any more?)

I am truly getting some troll commenters on my site lately!

http://telegrafist.org/2013/09/04/83711/

It seems China is indeed getting involved here. The type naval ships which lead to speculation of the Chinese version of the S-300 missile system. It certainly bolsters your position that there is not going to be a US strike for now anyway.

I had 4 boys show up (one of them under whereiseverybody saying the heb dublin is the only one that comments) at the same time telling me I must be bro krapner's brother, Dublin must be a hebe, how long does it take to get a post on this site, does the hebe want us to send some money, yada yada.

From AlArabiya (quoting AFP, Moscow)

You've got to wonder what they are anticipating with so many amphibious assault craft.

It seems the Chinese and Russians are using the time that Oboma's referral of the vote to Congress has given them to apply a little pressure of their own.

Can you imagine the panic if the Russian and Chinese marines landed on the beach at Tel Aviv? Or Haifa and followed the IDF into Lebanon sandwiching them with Hezbollah in front of them? And the US standing off at sea just like they did to Poor ole' Georgia?
Just a thought.

H/T to anon commenter at Penny's

I asked in my first comment above why Syria would attack Israel in retaliation for a strike by the US. It was a bit of a rhetorical question as I am aware the Syrians know Israel is behind the war in their country. I did however think it would make more sense for the Syrians to strike back at the US ships that would be firing on them rather than open up another front against Israel. What is not clear to me is if the Syrians have the capability to do that. Can their missiles reach the US fleet? Do they have those S300 or other missiles in place and ready?

As pointed out in the article above that Mick linked there seems to be a suggestion that the Chinese warship may be carrying the Chinese equivalent of these missiles. "We remind that according to several sources in Syria could be the Chinese equivalent of c-300." Will they be delivering them to Syria?

Anyways, in this article from Al Akbhar, Sharmine Narwani explains that if the US attacks Syria; Syria, Iran and Hezbollah will attack Israel with all they have. Which of course will cause mass panic in Israel. And I imagine the average Israeli who buys into their goverment's BS will be in for a big surprise. Question is, what will the Isarelis do? In desperation to save themselves will they choose the Samson option? Negotiate a cease fire, in which case they lose and it is all over for them? ...Hmmmm....

The source of this report is JPost.

I have always thought winter patriot had very good insight. He was right you see on calling off the Syria strike for now. Many are taking credit for this but are way behind this site. I don't say this because I (agreed )

James at one time was truly convinced I was the worst disinfo trash artist because I post on the nefilim. I can understand that. I however try and fill in blanks that the mainstream leaves out. It can be strange at times. When you discuss it you will be pegged as a forerunner for project blue beam etc etc.

At any rate this site pegged there will be no strike on Syria way ahead of others. The logistics, you know, does not only entail what they are saying but why are they saying it. Something to keep in mind and a great credit to this site for pointing this out.

Yes I will send you an email.