Kerry: Russian fighter jets in Syria raise serious questions

[Omaha Steve]

Source: AP

By KEN DILANIAN

LONDON (AP) — U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry said Saturday that Russia's movement of tactical aircraft and surface-to-air missiles to Syria could pose a threat to American and allied forces, and made clear that the U.S. could accept a resolution to the civil war that allows President Bashar Assad to remain in power for an unspecified time.

"We're prepared to negotiate. Is Assad prepared to negotiate, really negotiate? Is Russia prepared to bring him to the table and actually find the solution to this violence?" Kerry told reporters after meeting with British Foreign Secretary Philip Hammond.

U.S. officials said Russia sent a small number of fighter jets to a base in Syria on Friday, hours after U.S. Defense Secretary Ash Carter talked with Russia Defense Minister Sergei Shoigu in the first military contacts between the two countries in some time.

"Clearly, the presence of aircraft with air-to-air combat capacity ... and surface-to-air missiles raise serious questions," Kerry said. The Russians have deployed at least one such system, according to an American official, who was not authorized to discuss military matters and spoke on condition of anonymity.

FULL story at link.


Secretary of State John Kerry answers a question about the ongoing crisis in Syria during a news conference with British Foreign Secretary Philip Hammond, on Saturday, Sept. 19, 2015, in London. (AP Photo/Evan Vucci, Pool)

Read more: http://bigstory.ap.org/article/919348810c354c8fbb1a79dc4ff9e742/kerry-russian-fighter-jets-syria-raise-serious-questions

[Purveyor]

1. No John, there are no questions at all. Vlad is not going to let the West destroy another ME

country without challenge. About time someone put a stop to our crazy ME foreign policy.

[oberliner]

5. Putin/Assad apologist?

Fascinating.

[Purveyor]

7. aka "Putinista"...

[leveymg]

45. Not about Putin. Regime change in Syria will make Damascus the capital of the Islamic State.

The goal of the neocons for the entire region is overthrow of non-Sunni regimes and ethnic cleansing of the Shi'ia. Saudi Arabia and Israel are both behind that project.

Is that what you want, too?

[Purveyor]

49. Assad needs to stay right where he is and regain control of Syria. Hopefully Russia can help... eom

[killbotfactory]

20. Just like those nasty pro-Saddam apologists who opposed the last Iraq war. nt

[karynnj]

8. Please read the Guardian or better yet watch the interview Kerry gave to British TV

The AP has their own agenda.

[truth2power]

28. "Vlad not going to allow the West..." I agree,

but you know, Purveyor, that any truth about what's going on in the ME (or Ukraine, for that matter) can't be allowed, here.

The usual folks have already weighed in. Put on your fire-proof vest.

[Purveyor]

34. Heck, I've been posting around here long enough now that

I have 'fire retardant' flowing in my veins.

[leveymg]

46. Thanks for posting real news on this subject. Most would rather ignore what's going on over there.

Most of what you post is factual. We may not agree in where we're coming from (or where we want this to go), but the facts improve the level of debate. Greatly.

[840high]

30. ....x10+

[thereismore]

36. Agreed. nt

[thereismore]

37. Agreed. nt

[karynnj]

2. Very strange article as in most of the world the call is to negotiate and that Russia and the US

will "deconflict" with both going after ISIS. The headline here suggests that the US and Russia at the edge of attacking.

Here, by the way, is an excellent 18 minute interview of Kerry by a British journalist -

[oberliner]

3. Russia has been pretty keen on keeping Assad in place

I don't see him agreeing to leave quietly as long as he has Putin and company backing him up.

[Plucketeer]

4. And to think that it was humans

who invented religion(s). Those hominids they just discovered in those caves were lucky in that they had smaller brains.

[oberliner]

6. None of the players involved here are especially religious

Certain not Putin, Assad, or Kerry for that matter.

[karynnj]

9. I have no idea about Putin or Assad, but Kerry actually is

Last edited Sat Sep 19, 2015, 05:40 PM - Edit history (1)

Have you ever read any of his speeches that dealt with faith? I would guess that he is likely as conversant with his Jesuit type Catholicism as you are with your religion. (By the way, people have seen him at the Boston and Georgetown churches that he attends and he has gone to mass elsewhere.) One early mentor of Kerry's was Father Drinan, who Kerry helped run for Congress in 1970 after he didn't run himself. They remained friends and he advised Kerry including in 2004. In 2004, Drinan was asked if Kerry was a good Catholic - his answer was that he was very very good man .. and a good Catholic. (Father Drinan was a Jesuit priest and the Dean of Boston College Law School, before he went to DC as a Congressman. After Drinan died, Boston College gave an annual award in his name -- Kerry was the first one to get it.)

Link to Pepperdine speech - http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/18/AR2006091801046.html

[oberliner]

10. Not sure I agree with you there

He says he is Catholic and open-minded about the subject. I wouldn't say he was particular religious (though I am certainly not suggesting that he isn't religious at all). Maybe it's just semantics, but, in any case, I don't think any of the three's religion plays much of a factor here.

[karynnj]

13. I suspect I have read far more of and by Kerry than you have

Here is a recent article that he wrote that might change your mind. In it he speaks of having reorganized part of the State Department to have a group that considers the impact of religions on diplomacy. The fact that he made this an issue - suggests it is important to him. There is only one paragraph that speaks of him personally.


In early 2014, I had the honor of traveling with President Obama to Rome to meet His Holiness Pope Francis. Visiting the first Jesuit pope as the U.S. secretary of state was an experience that I never could have imagined when I was an altar boy 60 years ago. The moment was both personally thrilling and an embodiment of the deep connection between religion and America’s foreign affairs.


http://americamagazine.org/issue/religion-and-diplomacy

Do you make judgments on all leaders -- or just the ones you are at odds with? I would take the words of Father Drinan, a close friend and mentor, rather seriously. Although I could, with at least as much justification as you have here, I would not argue Netanyahu's religiousness.

[IthinkThereforeIAM]

17. Great find...

... and great on Kerry for starting a group that takes into consider religious factors involved with diplomacy.

[Plucketeer]

31. And my earlier comment wasn't directed at these three

My comment was referring to the fact that religions are at the bottom of SO MUCH of the world's woes - religions created by mans suspicions and ignorance.

I sometimes stop to ponder..... Does the president REALLY pray for guidance and backing? I have to wonder if his appearing to do so isn't just for show. When you're in HIS position - with ALL of the realities of the world truly in your face..... Do you honestly think that sending off prayers into the ether is gonna summon supernatural intervention? If Obama (or Kerry, for that matter) really, sincerely does that with hopes of results, that's some SCARY shit! Matter of fact, if that IS the case - I should start playin' the lottery again, cause I got WAY BETTER odds of idyllic results.

[Crowman1979]

11. They're called weapons sales.

USA does them all the time.

John Kerry: I'm shocked! Shocked there are weapons sales going on here!

Assistant: Here's your receipt for the weapons aide to Saudi Arabia.

John Kerry: Oh Thanks!

[TwilightGardener]

12. What leverage do we have to drive negotiations?

Russia is setting the rules now in Syria. Their presence and activities are forcing our military to check and coordinate with them, which means we no longer have the unchallenged ability to threaten Assad militarily the way we did in August 2013 (which made him turn over the chem weapons). Our recently-trained rebels are down to 5, we have shown that we are not serious about either Assad or ISIS enough to have a serious group of ground fighters that we will protect and support. So where is our stick?

[karynnj]

14. The leverage is that Iran and Russia are both geographically closer to the area where ISIS is

Iran is not fighting them because they want to help others, they are fighting because they are a close ally of the Iraq government and they themselves could be threatened. Russia has already dealt with the Chechnyans - and various accounts mentioned that they are part of the population of foreign fighters in ISIS.

It is both their interests to not have a large area of land controlled by these people. This means creating a transition to a state not in chaos in Syria and to help Iraq regain its areas. The best leverage I can see for pushing Assad out is if the comment that he is a magnet that brings in people to fight is at least partly correct. Note that if not true, the need to close the wounds likely means that he has to be out -- there are too many who could never again accept him.

Note none of this defends any country or leader. It says that Syria is a mess and many helped make it so -- it is just saying that everyone needs to find a way to step back.

[bemildred]

15. +1. nt

[TwilightGardener]

19. Russia could have forced out Assad, in any number of ways, at any time in the

past few years. They could have intervened militarily in the last few years (the way they're doing now) to prop him up, to fight the jihadists, or to bring the civil war to an end. In fact, they watched us threaten Assad for quite a while--we were talking all sorts of tough, making it seem that regime change would happen again as with Qaddafi. They were not terribly concerned about ISIS pre-Iran deal, but as soon as the ink was dry, they're meeting with Iran and moving forces into Syria. This tells me something: all this time they believed that the US was unwilling to act in a conclusive way against Assad because it would jeopardize the Iran deal. Did we send those signals? Maybe as soon as the deal was done, they assumed we would immediately try to either take out Assad or establish no fly zones and increase our presence or strength (either with our troops or our trained rebels) and squeeze him while using ISIS as a pretext--none of which would serve their interests. So they suddenly move in with fighter jets and anti-aircraft systems (obviously not meant to fight ISIS) but with the stated goal of fighting ISIS. Hmm. I don't believe Russia is suddenly looking for a responsible end to the whole sorry situation and suddenly wants to work with us. I think they've been reading the signals and our intentions all these years, watching the timing, and are now moving to keep us out of Syria or controlling our activities to their/Assad's/Iran's advantage. Worry about jihadists and war and refugees and destabilization are not their main motivator--hasn't bothered them up till now.

[karynnj]

21. I think the change was NOT the US

Assad himself was losing ground - unfortunately not to anyone better - but to ISIS and Al Nusra. One other difference was that Turkey joined in fighting, but they also used the chance to attack the Kurds. Again, not what we wanted, but something Turkey has done for decades.

When the US first started attacks in Syria on ISIS, they spoke of "deconflicting" with Syria. They argued that this meant that though both were fighting ISIS, they were not coordinating or working together. (I actually though this was a made up word, but apparently it isn't.) This was in fact as FAR as one could get from declaring a no fly zone in Syria. It is insuring that with both countries flying missions, we did not accidentally hit each other -- and we haven't.

The calls for a no fly zone came from the Syrian rebels and people like John McCain. From the beginning, the Obama administration - first term and second - have said that a Syrian no fly zone would be far more problematic. As to regime change against Assad - obviously it wouldn't be public, but there is no indication that anything of that sort was in the cards.

What WAS signaled was that Kerry spoke of how Zarif had told him that they might be able to work "on other things" after the deal. That would signal a new Geneva 2 -- one where Iran was pushing as well. The previous efforts , led by the UN, included the US and Russia and went nowhere. Both Obama and Kerry have said for more than a year that a diplomatic solution is the only possible answer.

I think the horrors of the refugee crisis might have added pressure here.

[TwilightGardener]

23. Assad was weakening and losing ground and I'm sure

Russia and Iran didn't like further Turkish interference (because Turkey had aided ISIS to fight Assad and was only truly after Assad and the Kurds), but both countries surely could have moved out Assad by now and propped up a less-toxic puppet who could have negotiated an end to the civil war. They did not, pre-deal, and they don't appear to be doing that now, post-deal. So when we say we (and other western powers) will negotiate to get Assad out, that presumes that Russia and Iran also want him out, but I'm not seeing that yet. There is something about continuing to prop up Assad, even now, that serves their purposes--is that their current leverage over us? That and a new Russian military presence that keeps us from really doing anything about him now. I just don't see us having any real leverage here, without a credible military force threat behind it. Are we preparing to offer some concession to see him removed? Wonder where the entire rest of the foreign policy/national security team is, anyway. Kerry's the only one out there, Susan Rice and Samantha Power seem to have been moved into a witness protection program, Carter appears to be a complete non-factor to the point where Kerry set up the military-to-military talks, and Benny Rhodes, Fiction Writer, is sure quiet lately.

[karynnj]

25. Like you, I don't get the impression that Carter is a powerful part of the team.

It also might be that as bad as US/Russia relations are, only Kerry and Lavrov had preserved their personal relationship. Remenber that it is not just the chemical weapons deal that the two worked on, but they were both in the intense Iran negotiations.

I did read that Susan Rice was working on some cyber security deal with China. On Syria, I did read that she was in favor of the effort to deconflict with Russia in fighting ISIS.

Did you watch the long interview with Kerry on British TV? There is a lot there. One thing that has gotten headlines elsewhere is that Kerry is saying Assad does not have to be out day 1 or month 1 -- but there has to be a process where he is out. One thing I read on Iran, was that one thing that started the secret negotiations via Oman was when Kerry spoke of the US moving form the position that Iran could not have ANY nuclear program - military or otherwise. What I wonder is whether this is a similar concession. It lets Syria, Russia and Iran find a solution where Assad is in power as elections (or some other method) defines a new government without him.

This might be the US concession needed to move forward. (PS if you search John Kerry on twitter.com -- you will see many many very angry people - likely allies of the FSA or McCain. ) I think it would be great if they find a path out of this -- but I KNOW it will lead to people screaming angry things about Obama and Kerry --- just like on Iran.

[bemildred]

40. +1. nt

[bemildred]

41. I think Putin likes the Shi'ia Crescent and is moving to protect it.

A confluence of factors made it the right time to move:
The Iran deal as you mention, so
Kerry and Lavrov are freed up, and
the refugee crisis has multiple effects making this the time to move:
it adds urgency and sucks the oxygen from other issues,
and it will tie up all sorts of resources,
and distracts the EU and US, if not worse; and
Assad has conceded he cannot control all of Syria (manpower problems), so
the coastal Alawite homeland is defensible and shoring up Assad with guns and troops can work there, so
Assad is not going anywhere soon, but he can be negotiated out in due course as long as his people are protected, but
that will be tricky to arrange.

Now that you mention it I think a lot of things may start to happen now that the Iran deal is in the can.

[karynnj]

42. + 1. nt

[killbotfactory]

22. We and our allies in the region want Syria to suffer

We don't gain anything by putting down ISIS. Our allies are funding them. We just want to keep them contained and to let them wreak havoc while in our geopolitical enemies territory.

Russia has a naval base in Syria. They had extensive naval bases in Crimea when Ukraine turned against pro-russia politicians.

Everything about this mess is ugly.

[TwilightGardener]

27. While I agree that our efforts against ISIS seem to be

on a weird sort of backburner lately, I don't think it's deliberate malice on our part. I don't think we back ISIS, and I don't think we want them to run Assad out and cause headaches for Russia and Iran. My impression is that Obama would always have just rather left the whole mess alone to resolve itself, ISIS included, if it was politically or morally feasible to do so.

[ozone_man]

38. He does seem to have made a half hearted

attempt to support the "rebels", whoever they were. It seems like a typical page out of the CIA playbook. Why are we even there, or supporting rebels, other than to continue this PNAC plan? Is it really to drive out Assad, because he is a bad man? Or, is it, as many theorize, to gain control of Syria, and build a gas pipeline across the country. And perhaps also, to block the Iran-Syria-Hizbolla axis.
Also, why have we turned a blind eye towards Saudia Arabia support of ISIS, e.g. Prince Bandar, or Turkey, or Qatar? That seems more than just Obama wishing it would resolve itself. If so, that borders on incompetence, and I'm pretty sure Obama is not that.

[leveymg]

47. The stick is that we've reduced oil imports from 40% to 25%. Our leverage is over KSA

Last edited Mon Sep 21, 2015, 08:22 AM - Edit history (1)

and it's economy -- we could embargo Saudi oil and freeze funds in the West, just as we did Iran -- now is the time to start using it to decouple ISIS from its primary funding source, which is KSA and the Gulf emirates.

[bemildred]

56. Yeah, I think things are not going well for the Saudis.

Saudi’s crude stockpiles at record high as exports fall:

http://timesofoman.com/article/68034/Business/Saudi

Saudi Petrochemicals Industries Index down 27% in past three months:

http://www.platts.com/latest-news/petrochemicals/london/saudi-petrochemicals-industries-index-down-27-26214613

[leveymg]

59. The last I heard, however, KSA's foreign reserves were $900B

KSA and Qatar both have a long way to go before they're in any danger of running out of liquidity. However, their investments in the west are enormous and immensely vulnerable -- and it through those corporate holdings that they wage their persuasive power and meddle in US and UK government policy. Just the threat of a Justice Department investigations of corruption and violations of the Federal election laws would probably do it.

As for their conventional military, it is actually notional as it is vulnerable -- entirely dependent upon western contractors for required maintenance and parts. Again, corruption investigations of these contractors would probably do the trick.

We don't need blunter instruments to push them to part with ISIS.

[7962]

16. I'm sure they'll leave as soon as things calm down, like we did in Iraq.

Yeah, right

[leveymg]

48. They're not leaving. Period. Russia has been in Syria longer than it was in Poland.

Syria is Russia's last Mediterranian base in an area that is adjacent to its own southern border.

[7962]

50. Oh, I agree. I was kidding. Dont know how the Russian civilians will like it

when MORE caskets start coming home. They started protesting Ukraine as those "volunteers" started coming home in caskets
Although Russia wont be nearly as careful at avoiding civilian casualties as the West is. Which will be bad news for the Islamists.

[red dog 1]

18. K&R

[Demeter]

24. And this is the question Vlad is asking Barack:

[ReactFlux]

26. Is the world not our playground anymore

The elite won't like that, eh?

[snappyturtle]

29. Kerry wouldn't have to worry if we got out of the ME. He's between a rock and a

hard place. Putin got the upper hand offering to fight ISIS et. al. Syria has asked Russia for help and Russia has said it would think about supplying troops if Syria were to ask. The U.S. wants Assad out and when hopes to do that in September 2013 were squashed ISIS became sort of a proxy, as far as I am concerned. I'm tired of the U.S. policy of replacing leaders it doesn't like. It shouldn't be any of our business but.... follow the money. Some days I feel like I'm sitting at the Alice in Wonderland Tea Party. IMHO

[karynnj]

32. It was Mccain/Rubio etc that wanted regime change in September 2013, not Obama

In fact Rubio said as much in last week's debate when he defended why he voted AGAINST Obama have authority to strike Syria to try to make it less likely he would use chemical weapons. Rubio's stated reason "Obama was talking of a pinprick - and the US military does not do pinpricks".

Yes, I was here on DU where the usual cynics immediately equivalenced Obama to George Bush and spoke of how this would involve us in an Iraq style war leading to regime change. That was NOT what Obama (or Kerry ) ever called for.

Their position was simple - Obama had said use of CW was crossing a red line. Assad did so. Obama wanted to respond TO THE USE OF CHEMICAL WEAPONS making future use less likely. The republicans did not back him because they wanted what you say here was Obama's policy.

In fact the right turns it around, saying that Obama promised the type of effort they wanted and backed down on the red line. In fact, the chemical weapons deal was exactly what Obama's pin prick strike would have tried to get somewhere close to - but clearly would have been less successful in removing the chemicals.

[snappyturtle]

33. Well if you sleep better at night biting on the cw excuse, be my guest. Catch up. nt

[karynnj]

35. I followed what happened - obviously better than you did

Obviously, you jumped to conclusions that Obama was lying when he spoke of the goals. If things were as you insist, he would have had enough Republican support to get approval.

[snappyturtle]

43. I never used the President's name period! What are you talking about?

[karynnj]

44. Explain then what exactly you meant in the post I responded to

My interpretation is that you were saying the chemical weapons issue was the real reason behind Obama's intention to strike Syria in 2013.

[snappyturtle]

58. Assuming you meant to reply to me, I am saying cw was the excuse to strike.

And, while we're at it, why didn't that happen?

[DustyJoe]

53. What can Kerry do ?

Draw a red line for Putin ?
Anyone think Putin would give a tiny rats asz ?

[7962]

51. Sure, let Russia control ALL the ME. And along with that goes all the oil.

Which we still need like it or not.

[snappyturtle]

57. What we "need" from the ME is oil sold with the petro dollar. nt

[Monk06]

39. Of course Canadian jets bombing Syria no problema

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/canadian-jets-drop-first-bombs-in-syria/article23850987/

[7962]

52. The Canadians have no plans to STAY there if ISIS is eliminated nt

[Monk06]

55. Harper has no business sending Canadian jets to bomb anybody. Lester Pearson was the Canadian

PM who negotiated an end to the Suez crisis and promoted the formation of UN Peace Keepers, the Blue Helmets.

Harper is a punk who wants to hang with the school bullies JMHO

[forsaken mortal]

54. Syria is a sovereign country

If the Syrians want Russia to build military bases within Syrian borders, then it has every right to allow Russia to build such bases.