Catte, conflict zones, France, latest, NATO
Comments 80

What about the Auvergne? Is Russia engaging in strategic disinfo to avoid being drawn into trap?

Catte

According to an a analysis offered by Joaquin Flores on Fort Russ the recent bizarre events unfolding over Syria may have been an attempt, not simply by Israel, but also by France to draw Russia into a renewed political/diplomatic confrontation with NATO.

Flores says:

What the Russians claim is that Israeli craft using the Il-20 for cover ‘confused’ the SAA system and that the SAA system hit the Russian Il-20. We will explain that while this is possible, it is unlikely, and in fact the least likely of any realistic scenarios given the tremendous preparation and planning that goes into these events.

The original Russian announcement about the alleged firing of missiles by the French frigate Auvergne, was always curious. The fact the two events – the alleged missile firing and the disappearance of the Il-20 – were linked by timing in the Russian announcement is not the kind of wording to be used casually when dealing with a NATO member country. The Russians would need good reason for saying something this potentially inflammatory at such a time. It being a kind of code for “we know France just shot down our plane” is not implausible. Flores again:

It’s highly intelligent on the part of Russia, for many reasons, that they blame Israel for this, if the option is France. Russia refuses to countenance steps leading to any war when other means are clear & available….outright war is no answer whatever emerges ultimately. This was the thought process of Russian authorities, and the basis as well, of their disinfo campaign.

Flores argues that Russia blaming Israel was the last thing the neocons/neolibs expected. They anticipated instead that France would be accused, would be able to vociferously deny, and use indignation over the “false allegations” to create an excuse for further anti-Russian propaganda/theatre in the UN and create further distance and hostility between Russia and a significant NATO member country. He argues Russia had to think quickly in response and find a way of avoiding having to blame France. This indirect blaming of Israel was what they came up with, sidestepping the trap of going head to head with France and not making a direct claim of Israel involvement that could be refuted with physical evidence.

Between blaming France or Israel, the US expected Russia to blame France. Between blaming Syria or France, the US expected Russia to blame France. Between blaming Syria or Israel, the US expected Israel to be blamed.

They did not expect this hybrid of ‘somewhat’ blaming Israel for doing ‘tricky stuff’ in the air, the motives being hard to prove or qualify.

If Russia was to avoid an MH-17 situation in reverse, they had to think with agility. Russia has the physical evidence, the flight data, and the missile launch data. If they were going to blame France, which was mostly expected, it would have been a UNSC charade, a General Assembly charade, and a media charade with ‘Putin blaming France’ and Russia being accused of having possession of the evidence from which their case is made, and therefore the evidence being dodgy or even manufactured entirely.

The crash remains of the IL-20 are going to absolutely show that it was hit with a missile, any fragments etc. required to establish that, will show that’s an Aster missile, or similar, like the missiles used in the S-200’s. But they aren’t going to show that the impact is consistent with a small missile carried by Israeli planes, or by gun strafing from an attack plane.

This is why Russia could not [directly] blame Israel, yet they knew that Israel was involved in attacking Lattakia, and it appears that Russia is also calculating the blaming of Israel in order to do yet something else unexpected.

We recommend taking the time to read Flores very detailed article in full. While it may turn out not be the truth, or the whole truth, of the matter, it’s well argued and currently plausible.

And, of course, if France did shoot down the Russian plane, or even take part in action likely to cause loss of Russian life, then it’s clear the most insane elements in the pro-war neocon/neolib alliance currently have the initiative, and, as Flores, says, Putin’s caution in responding is well explained.

It’s early days, and no one should leap to conclusions,and – certainly – anyone who thinks Russia should have responded by shooting other planes out of the sky needs to pause and reflect.

The next few weeks will be interesting.

Joaquin Flores’ article can be read in full here.


80 Comments

  1. King Kong says

    Facts check:
    Russia has about 8000 nuclear warheads, the Us and allies maybe roughly the same and third parties may 600 warheads.
    All in all about 16 500 warheads. Most of the are dialed in at about 500 Kiloton, and many at one Mega ton.
    Now that leaves us with about 8250 Mega tonnes of destructive power, at the ready.
    A one megaton in London and one in the north , say Birmingham, will utterly cripple Britain, even two 500 Kiloton would do it.
    Watch “Threads” , it is on Youtube, it is harsh.
    I was in the Army (Danish) during the cold war, we knew civilians would die like flies in the event of a war, we would maybe live a little longer and the succumb.
    With the proliferation and abundance of nuclear weapons, a conflict between nuclear powers can not be contained. It is ostrich tactics, it will escalate, all studies says so and all war games I have participated in show it.
    Politicians that lobby for war should either be executed by quatering and drawing or legally lynched.
    That will teach them. Nobody who has been shot at have sweet dreams about, I personally know that.

  2. vexarb says

    Someone complained recently “where are the antisemitic posts when we need them?”. Always happy to oblige:

    ‘Dr NG Maroudas BTL Saker Vineyard on September 21, 2018 · at 1:49 am EST/EDT
    Israel always hogs the spotlight but surely France and Britain are a far more serious issue. For the Auvergne and the RAF simultaneously to attack Syria without provocation or warning is an act of naked aggression. France and UK are the two principal Zio-Capitalist countries, where sit French Baron Rothschild and English Lord Rothschild, respectively. Unless these two countries are summoned promptly by the UN to stand before the bar of world opinion and be disciplined for disturbance of world peace, F & UK will be enboldened to summon their big dumb attack dog U$A, and yesterday’s little sneak attack will become tomorrow’s big resource war ad majorem gloriam Rothschildiensis.

    • The facts are: we know of the presence of two RAF Tornado’s from Akrotiri, in a ‘holding pattern’ (IFF transponders ‘on’ so as not to be mis-identified), above the IDF F-16s: ‘coincidentally’ at the same time as an unprovoked naked act of aggression and act of war on Syria …resulting in the death of 15 Russian service personnel (plus casualties on the ground). We now know there was a naval task force that moved into the waters around Latakia (NATO Maritime Group 2). This included a Royal Navy submarine, HMS Talent, equipped with 10 TLAMs (Tomahawk cruise missiles) [See Fort Russ News for details]. It is highly unlikely that Russia effectively shot down its own plane (the Il-20). Here, Flores’ follow up article is revealing. He confirms the Russia only fhad one Il-20, and its downing was to see how the integrated Russian/Syrian AD would “plug the gap”.

      https://www.fort-russ.com/2018/09/more-experts-confirm-that-france-took-down-il-20-identify-friend-foe-system-did-not-fail/

      Whilst there is no conclusive evidence (yet) that the RAF and RN took part in an unprovoked act of war: there is a serious possibility that they did (what else would they be doing: the Tornados in particular?). If there is ever the factual evidence forthcoming that they did: this would represent a coup d’etat. Who the fuck is running the UK? Who authorised any of this, presuming UK involvement? Parliament is in recess (conference season) and however venal she might be, Treason May sure as hell ain’t running the show. So who the hell is, and who do they answer to …not the British public, who are too drunk on beer and kebabs to notice that their lives were being put at risk?

      OMG, Vex, the ramifications are enormous! Just who do our gutless, spineless, career brown-nosers actually represent? Tuesday morning could have dawned in a radioactive orange glow …on who’s say so? If it was a coordinated ZioFUK action, as seems likely, it wasn’t just a reckless provocation, it was evil and insane. The worst part is, that without a firm, factual base, there is nothing anyone can do …that wouldn’t be dismissable as purely conspiratorial and speculative.

      The lunatics are running the asylum, and all we can do is watch them play …and hope we don’t all get burned. 🙁

        • Dimona? I don’t know what you are talking about?

          Dimona doesn’t exist. Nor do the 5 Dolphin class submarines that Germany semi-gifted to assuage their WW2 guilt; nor do the Popeye missiles (you can’t make this shit up – Popeye!) that can carry the non-existent 200kt nuclear warheads that definitely do not come from Dimona!

          • Paul X says

            Dimona was where Israel created its first nuclear bomb in the early 1960’s. It was of course secret -so secret the CIA (Dulles) tried to keep it from President Kennedy. Just as they feared he was opposed seeing it as a disastrous development for the ME. If the historians of the assisination are right his opposition to an Israeli nuke prompted Mossad and the Jewish Mafia, run by Meyer Lansky and his Dallas No,1 Jack Ruby, to contribute a team of snipers from Montreal to join the three other teams descending on Dallas in November 1963. (Dulles always over organised his wheezes).

          • King Kong says

            I fully agree. But you left this out:
            The peaceful Israelis has alway shown the way in peaceful coexistence with all nations. And the rumors the armed South Africa with 5 nuclear weapons are fake news. They never exploded a nuclear weapon in the south pacific, it was somebody else.
            Israelis only kill savage Palaestnian savages, not protesters demanding a right to a decent life and civil liberties.
            Comparing Israel to the third Reich is a crime and should be punished with at least death!
            Israel is the largest contributor of aid to the UN, blieving in all peoples right to prosperity.
            Israel has never attacked any one, as peaceful as Switzerland or Sweden.
            Israel regard the racial brethren , the Semitic Arabs as their brothers, and kiss and hug them when they encounter them.
            No Jew can ever be a filthy ,lying dirty bastard, it is against their religion.

            (I will not add more , as I have to go and vomit, sorry….)

    • Thanks vexarb, glad you’re happy to oblige, you’ve brightened up a dull day! I’m leaning towards the theory that the international courts and UN have become corrupted by the malign influence themselves, hence why we don’t have any condemnation of these events. Thats just my thoughts. I’m a self confessed deep thinker and its been helping for me to look at these events in simplistic terms. Why the hate towards Russia? Is it because Russia have the audacity to hold huge gas reserves? Where thee is gas there is oil, could it be that our Rothschild backed players are bitter that they do not hold enough control of these resources? Get rid of Putin and install a Yeltsin like compliant leader again? A little off topic I know, but just a thought. Keep up the great work by majority of all Off-G writers and commenters. May I thank you again for such a great site.

      • “Get rid of Putin and install a Yeltsin like compliant leader again?..”
        I think that it is important to recognise that most states are led by Yeltsins- May is a Yeltsin; Macron is a Yeltsin; Merkel and Trudeau are a pair of Yeltsins; Ave is a Yeltsin.
        These people lack Boris Nikolayevich\s more colourful personal appetites and antics (altho’; Boris Johnson doesn’t) but they are just as easy for the US oligarchs to order around. And the proof lies in the suicidal sanctions regimes that the EU and the G7 maintain, at enormous cost to their own economies, because they are ordered to do so.
        It goes without saying that most of the rest of the world is run by Yeltsins too. They are everywhere, but not in Russia or China, where they wait in the wings, following the NED’s advice and collecting their NED salaries.

  3. 0use4msm says

    If the premise of the article is true, it would make Russia’s response an even bigger sign of weakness than it is already widely perceived. It would be like a victim of domestic violence blaming the injuries on a fall down the stairs or hitting a lamp post. It doesn’t really matter what the public is told, if the real perpetrator knows it can get away with it without being called out, it will only increase its provocations to the next level..

    • King Kong says

      We are debating domestic violence. We are debating a possible demise of the world as we know it.
      There is a slight difference.

    • So, to whom ought Russia to report this violence?
      And should it move into an abused nations shelter?

  4. vexarb says

    More on how the word gets around re truther media:

    Marcus Wolf BTL Saker on September 20, 2018 · at 8:03 am EST/EDT

    “Off-Guardian.org isn’t the Guardian! It’s a sort of anti-Guardian in fact. The Guardian would sadly never publish such an article.

    If you don’t know OffG please check it out. It’s a great source of analysis on the Guardian’s sad decline.”

    16
  5. Lochearn says

    The Flores hypothesis stating that it was the French ship that downed IL-20 is well argued but obviously still a hypothesis. As it happens, Flores has in the process taken the heat off both Israel and Putin. After a difficult 24 hours Putin has gone -on so many forums- from weak-kneed Israeli puppet back to 3d chess master, having in this latest version brilliantly refused to take the NATO bait. And Israel’s role as primary baddie has been taken over by France. There are several problems with the Flores version of events, however.

    Does Macron look like the type of guy who would risk shooting down a large and very valuable Russian aircraft with a crew of 14 on board on its way back to base? Does Macron look like the type of guy who would risk being held responsible for instigating WWIII? No, he most certainly doesn’t. He’s a finance guy. And how would France benefit from such reckless provocation of a formidable opponent?

    But France may have agreed, under Israeli pressure, to fire off some missiles at Latakia. Latakia is a bit close to the Russian base so maybe the Israelis wanted a co-conspirator to soften possible Russian reaction. But there could be another motive. Knowing they were going to set the Russian plane up for a hit, would it not be in Israel’s interest to deflect attention away from their part in the downing of the plane by having a French frigate in the vicinity firing off missiles. Sooner or later someone was going to blame the French and create a NATO conspiracy angle, which in fact Mr Flores just did.

    If the French had indeed downed the Russian plane, would the Russian military have been so quick to put the blame – and with obvious anger – on the Israelis and admit that the Syrian defences had in fact committed the act? In my opinion they would have been much more guarded.

    4
    1
    • Paul X says

      The question of whether the French frigate did fire missiles or not is unresolved. If there is evidence it’s not been shown. As for Macron his militaristic and imperialist tendencies have long been noted. For him personally Assad is a butcher and ‘must’ go. As in Libya French pressure on the US to take strong action in Syria has been very evident. The French armada patrolling the sea includes the Charles de Gauile the massive nuclear powered air craft carrier complete with cruise missiles and jet fighters. The idea Macron of all people would urge restraint is not credible.

      • Lochearn says

        The Charles de Gaulle carrier has been roaming around the seas since 1994 and seen how many Presidents come and go? There is a massive difference between urging restraint and being the perpetrator of an unbelievably provocative act on an opponent that could wipe out your entire country in half an hour. In Libya Obama led, in typical sneaky fashion, from the back and deputized France to take the lead. Vassal states do not push the hegemon around. I maintain this young and inexperienced President would never have dared carry out such an attack.

        • Paul X says

          According to the interview in the Atlantic magazine by Obama (2/17) he and the Chiefs of Staff were against involvement in Libya. He said Clinton persuaded him partly by saying how Skorzy was ‘hysterical’ for an attack and Cameron was right behind him. Clinton agrees and has some interesting observations about the French insistence that Libya had to be bombed. She said she was unable to discover exactly why the French were so keen. Nuland and Power both agreed it was French pressure more than anything that persuaded them to advise Obama to go ahead. They reflected on French involvement in N Africa over many years and felt the French (and Italians) knew best. But Obama said the US wouldn’t take a leading role and the operation would have to be fronted by France and the UK. In the event the Europeans soon ran out of bombs and missiles and the US supplied more. The Europeans also needed American intelligence assistance as well as help targeting. Obama claimed in the article that by decreeing France and the UK would take responsibility for the attack they would also be responsible for the re-building and stabilisation of Libya. It seems he was prompted to speak out when the French President and British PM made a victory speech in Benghazi saying they’d ensure everything would be well – and then buggered off home and did nothing as the country descended into chaos. Obama says he was particularly upset to hear the French President claim Libya as his victory, ignoring the fact that the munitions and strategy came from the US. Of course Obama had a reason to distance himself from the Libyan debacle but there is creditabilty in what he says, especially when you look back at what the two Europeans were saying at the time. It’s also probably true he was genuinely outraged at the French taking ‘the credit’ for what was in reality an American operation. Running out of missiles a few days after jumping in was seen as proof they always intended the Americans to take over. Unsurprisingly there are strong indications that Skorzy was ‘earning’ out of his stance. Cameron seems to have been motivated by fear the French would take all the credit. It’s also true all parties agreed on taking Gaddafi down without supplying an alternative. Chaos and total disruption was better for the Western Coalition.

    • “… And how would France benefit from such reckless provocation of a formidable opponent? …”

      If the provocation was part of a script as Joaquin Flores suggests, then you need to consider what that script might be and what was the intended end goal.

      Was the script meant to follow on with Russia attacking the French frigate, the French then invoking Article 5 of the NATO treaty and the US-led NATO coalition now able to invade Syria with the excuse that a NATO member was attacked?

      Instead with Russia now putting the blame on Israel, that scenario of a NATO invasion has been put off again.

      The Israelis now have to send the Israeli Air Force commander to Moscow to explain what happened and come up with some feeble reassurance that a similar incident will not occur. And Syria and the Russian Ministry of Defence may be able to press the Kremlin with justification to agree to deliver that S-300 missile defence system that Israel doesn’t want Syria to have.

      Oops, Israel’s worst nightmare may finally come true.

  6. I’m no military expert, so can any of you buffs confirm or deny my supposition that the Il-20 ‘Coot’ HQ (ELINT) was deliberately targeted for its electronic warfare capability? If NATO executed a joint airborne/seaborne assault on three locations, including Latakia …taking out the integrated Russian/Syrian ‘eye-in-the-sky’ makes perfect sense, especially if it was equipped with an EW capability? NATO’s previous attacks have been partially repelled, seemingly by Russian EW, or the TLAMs (Tomahawks) are shit, one of the two. Taking out the EW, or part of it, would give the assault ‘clear blue sky’. There’s the motive, which also represents a significant escalation on behalf of NATO.

    The Il-20 was on a recon mission to locate drones in Idlib, according to Sputnik/Rus MOD. These wouldn’t be the same drones that were reported as taking part in the attack on Latakia? Taking out the early warning of such an attack seems plausible to me.

    What were the two Tornado’s from Akoritiri doing: waiting for clearance? Did they take part in the NATO assault? Four F-16s can’t sustain an assault for 40-50 minutes. Four F-16s; two Tornados, the FS Auvergne; and multiple drones from Idlib; perhaps could?

    The IDF F-16, the FS Auvergne, and the loss of the Il-20 all occurred “within seconds”, according to Rus MOD (reported by John Helmer). There’s the opportunity. I can’t buy the ‘friendly fire’ downing: the Syrian and Russian air defences are integrated with joint operations rooms. This is essentially the same as saying that the Russians shot down their own aircraft. That they fired indiscriminately, not knowing their own plane was there seems wholly implausible to me. Konashenkov has stated there was no failure of the IFF: they knew exactly where there plane was. John Helmer also reports that the S-400s from Kheimim would be tracking the IDF, the RAF, and their Il-20 (though they have a standing order not to engage).

    Irrespective of the late de-confliction call from the IDF, the F-16s were ‘on screen’ from the moment they took off. Friendly fire, or convenient fiction, as the article states …because the NATO attack is an act of war: and none of us want that. Of the two possible culprits, I too don’t buy that the IDF would shoot down a Russian plane …they would have too much to lose (clear blue sky over Syria, with tacit Russian approval in the main). That leaves the FS Auvergne: which looks like a deliberate act of war to me, even if some of my reasoning proves faulty. You can’t accidentally fire missiles: they either targeted the Il-20, Latakia, or both.

    What I’m not expecting is any further revelations when the IDF take their data to Russia today. It looks to me as though NATO just upped the ante, to protect their terrorists in Idlib. Was the latest terrorist WH film noire meant to be released before this attack? The Flores article seems quite plausible to me, having essentially come to the same conclusion independently. Particularly the bit about the manual overide: and accidental downing seems very unlikely. An act of war diplomatically avoided seems to be the best conclusion I can draw.

    http://johnhelmer.org/?p=17934

    • Russian primary radar knows the truth I expect. Russia/Putin wont shoot from the hip until they know the story. Israel is cap in hand in Moscow apologizing right now and trying to explain. Why?.. might be needed with 1,2 Russians in Israel.

    • always write says

      friendly fire incidents do happen, our own, UK forces, got clobbered by American A10s during the Iraq war

      yes the IL 20 would be a very lucrative target to take out, however its value to NATO would be in analysis of its emissions from the various sensors so that counter measures can be created, perhaps NATO has enough intelligence now?

      • Yarkob says

        You can never have “enough” intelligence in war, or as my wartime naval officer grandfather used to say: “enough is too little, too much is enough”. Whoever shot it down, it is a high-value target just because of what it does. Liken it to a P3 Orion. It’s not just flying around

        • My info, from Airwars, I think, was that Russia only has one Il-20 in Syria. Sure, they can fly in another, but take it down and you’ve got a 24hr window …to launch a drone attack from the very area it was meant to cover?

          I don’t know, just thinking out loud.

      • @Always Write: I said I’m no expert, I didn’t say I was an eeejit! 😀

        An A-10 Warthog’s principal targeting device is a Redneck pilot getting eyeball on anything that moves …mainly tanks, but failing that, ambulances, allied troop carriers, etc

        In a warzone: first rule of engagement …never get in front of the Yanks!

        While I’m here, another thing has been bothering me: just how long can an Mach 7 F-16 stay in the radar shadow of an Il-20 ….about 0.25secs? Everything that has come out in forums about the larger radar cross section: I’m pretty sure military professional’s know this too, before firing?

        • grandstand says

          The F-16 max speed is a little over Mach 2 at 40000 ft. Close to the ground it would be quite a bit less. And more important its stall speed appears from a quick google search to be 110kn which is more than an IL-20 but it is likely that the latter was flying much faster than stall speed. There are many situations, eg refuelling, where a fast jet sits close to a much slower large plane.

          • Thanks. I did my own ‘generic search engine’ search and found the F-16 can fly alongside a Cessna light aircraft, flaps down (stall speed 90kph) and escort them off restricted airspace.

            The chances of the F-16s, the FS Auvergne, and the Il-20 all becoming aligned to unleash a “tragic set of circumstances” still seem vanishingly thin to me. It all seems a bit coincidental and pre-planned to me.

            So, the IDF F-16s scream up the coast, fire missiles at targets in Latakia; veer inland, flaps down fly in the radar shadow of the IL-20; the Russian/Syrian joint operation air defences engage the F-16s (not their missiles, they’ve gone), knowing their IL-20 is there; fire SAMs (to shoot down the F-16s?); and the F-16s then scream off at Mach 2 (not sure where I got Mach 7 (hypersonic) from) leaving the Il-20 a sitting duck; because there is no manual overide on the missile …or the overide was still close enough for the kill.

            Why am I finding this narrative implausible? There’s no scale on the Russian map but the Il-20 was downed AFTER the contact with the F-16s, and further up the coast (toward Latakia). If it was ‘accidental’, the air defences were more likely targeting incoming missiles from the FS Auvergne and probably the RAF. The IDF had nothing to do with it, they were half-way to Haifa at the time?

            • grandstand says

              I’d agree re preplanned. How long was the IL-20 in the air? And would the Israelis/French be aware of its flight path early enough to use its presence as cover?

              • From John Helmer: the IL-20 took off at 20:31, and was hit at 22:07 …so just over 1 1/2 hours. From previous comments, I believe the Il-20 had been flying the same pattern for months …so, plenty of time.

                I don’t know how accurate the Russian map is, but its 45 miles from Tartus to Latakia (as the crow flies), and the Il-20 looks to have traveled about a third of that after contact with the IDF (IAF). That’s 15 miles after they were in each others radar shadow. Of course, it’s not a scale map, but the Il-20 would have to have been shot down synchronously with the contact to make the narrative work?

    • grandstand says

      I doubt that they are worried about protecting their terrorists in Idlib. More likely they are worried about UK, French, US and Israeli special forces embedded with the terrorists. This has been typically the issue in previous cases.

  7. what was interesting was how little this was reported, the BBC World channel like to says its the global leader in breaking news, but every hour, half hour i checked it had very little about this story, apart from RT there was a kind of news blank out, and now almost nothing……strang, very,very strange!!!!!

    11
    • vexarb says

      PM, if the British were firing missiles at Syria via the RAF at Akrotiri, within seconds of the French firing from their carrier in the Med, then I’m not surprised the BBC would prefer to remain rather quiet about a plain case of naked aggression by UK collusion with France to make a sneak attack on Syria — a country with which we are not at war and which never attacked us.

      • I’d suggest they were waiting for the response, which much like a damp fire work failed to go BANG!

        • always write says

          yup, just like they did when the Russians presented that small Syrian boy who was allegedly the victim of the chemical weopons attack at the Hague in April, didn’t western media call this a disgusting stunt, or words to that effect

          its not just the BBC though, it was almost all the channels i have access to including France 24, TRT World, Al Jazeera, DW news and Euro News English, only the Israel channal i24 had the il 20 shootdown story covered

  8. It wasn’t that long ago that Israeli planes tricked the SAA into thinking they were US planes and attacked Syria from west of the Euphartes.

  9. Mikaelvuo says

    This is first time for an sudden and without warnings made big cruise missile attac against Syria and Russian forces. I was extremely dangerous situation, if Russia would have retaliate….
    Thank you for this article!
    (I heard, that here is could be more information and a timeline for the situation.. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D99lEEUdojA)

  10. Meanwhile, despite a sly hit by F UK Z in the air, the ground war against NATZO’s proxy army progresses apace.:

    Canthama BTL SyrPer:

    “As .. news from the Syrian desert, ISIS pocket between Homs and DeZ Province has shrunk considerably in the last 2 weeks due to the coordinated effort by Liwa al Quds and the SAA. They basically pushed ISIS left over terrorists to about 1/4 of the original pocket they held 2 weeks ago, finally dislodged from al Sarayim area, a long time stronghold due to its 1,000 ft hill.

    The preparation to the final push toward Doubayat gas field, the last oil/gas filed held by ISIS west of the Euphrates is on going.

    http://wikimapia.org/#lang=en&lat=34.885931&lon=39.600220&z=9&m=w&gz=0;390371704;345834750;5712890;2596377;4833984;700695;4064941;135664;576782;0;0;1558804

    Differently from al Safa pocket, the Homs/DeZ had fewer terrorists, spread out in a larger area, al Safa continues to be tough due to the 1,000 terrorists still able to fight, but now without access to water.

    Soon we will see ISIS completely eradicated from western Euphrates; basically ISIS will remain east of the Euphrates and in a specific pocket in Idlib, protected by Muslin Brotherhood and the [Turkish] regime that supports it the most.”

    8
    1
  11. vexarb says

    How the news goes round on altmedia. Bundy on SyrPer cites OffG cites Flores on..:

    Igor Bundy
    According to an analysis offered by Joaquin Flores on Fort Russ the recent bizarre events unfolding over Syria may have been an attempt, not simply by Israel, but also by France to draw Russia into a renewed political/diplomatic confrontation with NATO.

    https://off-guardian.org/2018/09/19/is-russia-engaging-in-strategic-disinfo-to-avoid-being-drawn-into-trap/

  12. It is clear that the Russian strategy is not to escalate tensions with the attack on Idlib being put on hold to thwart a White Helmets false-flag snuff-vid.

    This was clearly a planned provocation and must have been coordinated between Bibi and the FUKUS triumvirate. Russia has been busy working to establish rat lines out of Idlib into Turkey for the head-chopping moderates to avail themselves of in an attempt to prevent a conflagration of deceit.

    Joaquin is right with this, it appears Putin personally and the Russians have had to go to great lengths to play this “illegal” escalation down.

    What is seriously criminal is the potential flash points which exist in Syria being stoked by western actors who have no right being there!

    The silence of the western media is telling within all this – never focusing on the illegality of their countries actions in Syria. Preferring instead to carry on with their agitprop memes of civilians being brutally suppressed and murdered by their elected president not the black clad [white hatted] Jihadists.

    19
  13. Unexpected article at Fort Russ. I read it completely.

    I must say that everything written seems to me extremely improbable. In my personal opinion, this is exactly what is called speculation. Speculation not in the sense that people deliberately try to distort information and fool the reader, but that a person tries to see what is not there.

    I’m following the theme of a downed plane. I must say that no one (at least for now) in the Russian expert community (these are serious experienced people, including former high-ranking military personnel) don’t even consider/discuss the option that France could have shot down the Russian aircraft. No one.

    Dear Off-Guardian, you wrote:

    “This indirect blaming of Israel was what they came up with, sidestepping the trap of going head to head with France and not making a direct claim of Israel involvement…”

    But… The Russian Ministry of Defense clearly stated: “Israeli side is fully responsible for Il-20 crash”.

    Is this not a statement of Israel’s direct responsibility (i.e. involvement, naturally)? How else can this be called? Hmm…

    Now, regarding Fort Russ’ article.

    I must say that the most famous Russian military correspondent Yevgeny Poddubny in a recent report from Syria (he was present there during the incident) said that the attack of Israel [against Latakia] really took place, and that it lasted about 40 minutes (because Syrian ADS worked for about 40 minutes). I.e. there was a natural reason for the work of the Syrian ADS, it is not an invention.

    Those who follow the topic [of Syrian conflict] know that the Syrian ADS in recent times are very often used. There are reasons for this work. I.e., indeed there was the Israeli attack, and indeed it was the work of the Syrian ADS to repel this attack.

    Russian experts agree that Israel, raiding in the area of the Russian airbase (in fact, using it as some kind of a “shield”), has shown criminal negligence, having decided that Syria “will be afraid” of launching missiles in the direction where the Russian air base is located and Russian planes are flying. Israel was mistaken. This is the irresponsibility of which the Russian side speaks, accusing Israel.

    Next, the author says that ‘Fact 1’ is the launching of French missiles, and ‘Fact 2’ is the Israel’s attack on Latakia (and the self-defense of Syria). For some reason, the author divides these events. He says (reviewing Sputnik’s article):

    “…an event is registered as happening [Fact 1], and the activities of another party [Fact 2] are named, but no connection is specifically made. Fact 1 and Fact 2 are divided”.

    In my opinion, this is a very strange division. The fact is that there were two events (the launch of French missiles, the attack of Israel on Latakia). There is no inconsistency here. In the article, Sputnik speaks of two events. Two events were registered – not one, as the author says.

    1) “an event is registered as happening” – this is the registration of one event (the launching of French missiles – Fact 1).

    2) “the activities of another party” – this is the registration of the second event (Israeli attack on Latakia – Fact 2). The response to this

    second registered event was the work of Syrian ADS, which led to the crash of the Russian aircraft. In Sputnik’ article this was directly stated:

    “The IL-20 aircraft has been downed by Syrian military forces after Israel jets put it under attack off the Syrian coast.”

    Fort Russ:

    “Israel has refused comment, and this makes sense.”

    I’d like to note that Israel almost always refuses to comment. Israel conducts its military operations and does not consider it necessary/important to report. The absence of comments from Israel is a standard practice, there is nothing surprising [in this]. During the Syrian conflict, Israel committed about 200 air operations, and only in the rarest (or the most resonant) cases Israel gave any comments. Therefore, one should not take the absence of comments from Israel as something unusual.

    There is one very important point that the author of the article at Fort Russ for some reason does not mention. If it was allegedly Russia’s disinfo, how then to explain the behavior of Israel? This country brought condolences to the deceased Russian military. Israel accuses Syria of the fact that the Russian plane was shot down (standard shifting of the aggressor’s guilt to the victim). The commander of the Israeli aviation was sent to Russia for explanations. Netanyahu called Putin [to discuss the incident]. Israel expressed its readiness to cooperate, to provide all the materials [for investigation]. Israel does not deny the fact of warning [the Russian side] about the attack (in fact, a minute before the very attack).

    I mean, in case it was a “Russian disinfo”, we need to say that Israel is also involved in a “skillful campaign of disinformation”, agreeing, in fact, to assume the role of guilty (albeit indirectly). It is very strange. If Israel was part of the insidious NATO plan for the clash between Russia and France, then why did Israel assume the role of “indirectly guilty”? It would be logical that Israel will completely deny its involvement, thereby “pushing” Russia to conclude that France is guilty.

    It is worth noting that the Israeli media are also indignant about the behavior of their military (who provoked such an incident). Personally, I have no doubt (at least now) that Israel committed something that led to the tragic crash of the Russian aircraft. At least the actions of the Israeli side (officials, media) speak in favor of this.

    Fort Russ:

    “Russia did not register Israeli missile launches”.

    Yes. Because there were no missiles. The above-mentioned military correspondent Yevgeny Poddubny in his report told (after talking with sources on the ground) that Israel used corrected airbombs, not missiles. A representative of the Russian Defense Ministry also said about airbombs, not missiles. It’s hard to say whether Russia was registering these airbombs trajectories, but Russia knew for sure about Israel’s activity in the area.

    Fort Russ:

    “…Russia accuses the Israeli fighter jet of using the Russian plane as a screen (flying in super close proximity) to draw the missile to the Russian plane. If so, that raises a whole new issue; where were the Russian interceptors?”

    The author misses the important point that Russian and Israeli fighters in the sky are “friendly”, they are perceive each other as such. Seeing an Israeli fighter nearby, the Russian one does not consider him an “enemy”. Russia does not expect “danger” from the Israeli forces. It is therefore quite natural that the Russian interceptors were not in the air when the Israelis were there. The agreement on the prevention of dangerous situations has been in effect for three years now between Israel and Russia. Until now, Israel and Russia have perfectly coordinated their actions. I repeat, for the last few years Israel has already committed about 200 air raids to Syria. I never heard of a Russian fighter taking off for the interception of an Israeli aircraft. Not once.

    Fort Russ:

    “…that raises a whole new issue … On top of that, why wouldn’t the Russian plane have been rerouted?”

    A warning from Israel about the attack (which he does not deny) came a minute before the attack itself. In such conditions it is physically impossible to redirect/reroute the aircraft from the dangerous zone of combat operation.

    Fort Russ:

    “Israel doesn’t feel they have that much to lose. Nevertheless, they didn’t shoot down the Russian Il-20. Everything points to France, on multiple levels.”

    Again, no one says that Israel shot down a Russian plane. It was clearly stated that it was Syrian ADS.

    And the last. Do you really think that France would have decided to shoot down a Russian airplane and face the prospect of a nuclear superpower response? Macron, of course, is a clown, but he is not a brainless fool. Even the Americans, during their aggressions against Syria, were afraid to touch Russia at the slightest degree. They planned their attacks so as not to offend/affect Russians. Moreover, Americans warned Russians about their attacks to accurately avoid any damage to Russia. And now you say that France suddenly became bolder than the US and agreed to shoot down a Russian plane? I think this is very improbable.

    Shoot down a Russian plane only to continue anti-Russian propaganda? In my opinion, this thesis can not withstand any criticism. Maybe someone has not understood yet, but the “collective West” has long needed no real reasons for accusing Russia/Putin of all mortal sins. Let me remind you, the investigation of the “Skripal case” is not over yet. It is not yet known how long it will last. It is not yet known when there will be a trial, and whether there will ever be. But real measures – sanctions, deportation of Russian diplomats etc – already happened. The “collective West” can come up with anything, any kind of rubbish/nonsense. On the basis of this nonsense real anti-Russian measures will be taken. No evidence, no facts, no real investigations – they don’t need anything to continue anti-Russian propaganda.

    To come up with such a dangerous incident, which can lead to WW3? Why should they do this when they have:

    Russian “Novichok”.
    Skripals “poisoning”.
    Shapiro and rat poison.
    A couple from Amesbury.
    “Acoustic attacks” on American diplomats in Cuba.
    Elusive Russian submarines off the coast of England.
    Mythical “Russian hackers” who interfere in elections around the world.
    The “annexation” of the Crimea.
    “Humanitarian disaster” in the Crimea, “discrimination and oppression” of the population of Crimea.
    Russian submarines-saboteurs, who can damage cables on the sea bottom and thus harm NATO.
    Putin’s secret weapon – a giant trained squid killer.
    “Murder” of Arkady Babchenko in Ukraine.
    Factories of “Russian trolls” (naturally managed by the Kremlin).
    Suffering Chechen gays.
    State sponsored doping in Russia, Russian athletes “all dirty”.
    “Russian aggression” against Ukraine.
    Russian BUK, who “shot down” MH17.
    Russia sponsors Taliban in Afghanistan.
    “Russian propaganda” and “disinformation” from RT and Sputnik.
    “Dirty Russian money” in London
    Russian gas pipeline threatens the independence of European states.
    “Russian spies” in Sweden, Norway, Estonia, US etc.
    Maria Butina – a Putin’s agent.
    Russian diplomats all spies in the US.
    “Russia’s interference” in the US elections.
    Russia will soon attack and seize the Baltic states.
    The Russian threat in space.
    Russian propaganda discredits the heroes from the White Helmets.
    Russia destroyed “the last hospital”.
    Russia supports the bloody dictator Assad.
    Russian spy microchips in the balls from the World Cup.
    Russia uses the World Cup as Hitler used the Olympics in 1936.
    Russia illegally arrested artist P.Pavlensky, director K.Serebrennikov, oppositionist A.Navalny etc.

    This list is endless. I repeat, they can invent any nonsense to maintain anti-Russian propaganda at the proper level. To do this, they don’t have to shot down a Russian plane (to then show France “unfairly accused” by the insidious Putin).

    And most importantly. It seems to me not very reasonable to think that Russia would not have responded if France (or the US, or someone else) had attacked the Russian forces directly. The S-400 is located in Syria for a reason. If France had fired on a Russian plane, this launch would have been instantly tracked and identified as hostile, and Russian ADS would have eliminated minimum the missile itself (or maybe a carrier also).

    If it really was a French missile that shot down Russian IL-20, what reason for Russia to be afraid to say so? “Problems”/”misunderstandings” in the UNSC, at the General Assembly? Very doubtful. Russia has long been not afraid of this. In this case, simply because Russia could clearly confirm its accusations with facts – show the radar data, provide the fragments of the missile, determine its belonging (it’s not difficult) etc. These are all things that could not be denied.

    Let me remind you that at the beginning of the operation in Syria, Russia often acted with a kind of revealing speeches. For example, the Ministry of Defense of Russia in detail reported on the flights of Belgian F-16 fighters in the Syrian sky in October 2016. Flight trajectories, exact time and even airborne numbers of these aircraft were named. Russia had all this data, she perfectly saw the whole situation. By the way, the Belgian authorities (let’s note, Belgium is a NATO country) indignantly tried to deny their involvement. But Russia had irrefutable data. The Russian Defense Ministry does not say something “just like that”. All statements are based on factual material, which, of course, can be provided and confirmed.

    So, if France was guilty, then Russia could confirm and prove it without any problems. By the way, this would expose the “collective West” in an unattractive light and would force it at least apologize and, for example, pay compensation to Russia. “Terrible Russia” in this case would look like a victim, which of course would only be advantageous for the Kremlin. But that did not happen.

    Fort Russ:

    “…readers will take note of the inclusion of the French denial. This French denial is bizarre and entirely out of place, since no one accused France.”

    I disagree. This is not bizarre. In April 2018, France allegedly used its aircraft to bomb objects in Syria (the departure of four Rafale fighters was shown to public), but the Russian General Staff denied this information, saying at a briefing that Russian ADS did not record the announced participation of French aviation (it’s like the “reverse option” – France says that it participated, but Russia reported it does not). As i said above, Russia also reported on the flights of Belgian F-16 fighters in Syria (they attacked the settlement of Hassajeck) in October 2016, although Belgium denied this. In both cases, no one blamed France or Belgium for anything. Russia simply reported what was recorded. In this case, it’s the same thing – just reporting of what was recorded.

    France’s exceptional importance for Russia is such that Russia is afraid of spoiling it, accusing France? I don’t know where the author of the article get this. Yes, of course relations with France are important, but not more than with other countries. For example, with Hungary, Russia has much more important projects (nuclear power plant, a possible gas pipeline to Hungary from the Turkish pipeline etc). Frankly, in Russia they speak very little about France – at least significantly less than about other countries. Many and often talk about Germany, yes. France is practically “not visible” in the Russian information space.

    The share of France in the foreign trade turnover of Russia in 2017 was 2.6469% against 2.8364% in 2016.
    In terms of share in the Russian trade turnover in 2017, France took 12th place (in 2016 – 10th place).

    The main trading partners of Russia in the 2nd quarter of 2018 were China (15.1126% of the total foreign trade turnover of Russia), Germany (8.6472%), the Netherlands (6.5931%), Belarus (4.9418%), the United States (4.0964%), Italy (3.8962%), the Republic of Korea (3.7266%), Turkey (3.6733%), Japan (3.2755%), Poland (3.0567%), Kazakhstan (2.7180%), France (2.6189%), Finland (2.2188%), Ukraine (2.1794%), Great Britain (2.0442%)…

    See, France is far from being the most important trading partner for Russia (although, of course, it is an important partner). Even Poland and the Netherlands outran France.

    http://russian-trade.com/reports-and-reviews/2018-08/vneshnyaya-torgovlya-rossii-vo-2-kvartale-2018-goda/

    So, of course, the Fort Russ author’s version of events has the right to exist. This is his opinion.
    But I don’t share it. It seems to me that this is a very strange opinion.
    I concluded that the author of the article is trying to see what really is not there. Though, i respect his opinion.

    10
    2
    • Very thoughtful comment…..much appreciated. Although mysteries remain….what did the French frigate do….the coincidentally timing with illegal IDF attack…I have sometimes felt there are rogue elements in western military re Syria….especially Der ez Zer region….al Tanf……although France economically should not be overated the “dealings” over Mistral seem to suggest everything was being done to preserve the political value of Russian Franco relationships(despite Macron attempting to most undiplomatically humiliate Putin with claims of election interference at that press conference….Russia “using” France relationship to show it is not against some western liberal values where based on proven constitutional principles of integrity liberty fraternity equality….)… French Foreign Ministry over last 3 -4 years has definitely been denigrating in a most accusatory and confrontaional manner Russia’s efforts also supports my thinking they have got it in for Putin and would be underhandedly willing to be complicit in situations to create leverage against Putin…….although was tjete a hint they were indicating a willingness as a threat to send of missiles back in April but it did not quite happen(someone deliberately doing that or the plug being pulled at thelast minute?)

      …so what is going to be interesting is if information about the 100% correlation between IDF recorded information of the events (knowing their duplicity in so many things)when they meet Rusdian MoD today……and rhis correlation will be publicly agreed…..or kept silent….or stories blown out of the window. So far….no stories from France …not even condolences…….not e en from Erdogan. John Helmets article re these events is quite thought provoking re Erdo has been successful in expanding into Syrian territories as he wanted all along etc etc…..and Russia has gone along with it in order not to risk themselves any further.

  14. Antonyl says

    Who runs France? Is Macron a tool of French deep state?

    What does France have to gain by alienating Russia?
    Piss off Merkel who depends on Russian gas?
    In a nutshell: motive.

    3
    5
    • John A says

      The US runs France. CIA organised a failed coup against De Gaulle in 1961 and then a successful one in 1968. Dominique Strauss-Kahn was perhaps the best candidate 10 years ago but would have been too ‘socialist’ for US liking so a sex scandal was concocted in New York that destroyed his chances. The compliant nonentity Hollande took his place and was an austerity poodle, even to the extent of cancelling the naval helicopter carrier order that Russia had already paid for. Macron is another yes man for the US.

      18
    • Mulga Mumblebrain says

      France’s simple relationship with Israel-total, groveling, obedience.

  15. My feeling, for what it’s worth, is that this was – just another – conspiracy by Israel/France/US/UK, not to see Russia condemned at the UNSC and further marginalised, but focused on destroying a key asset in Russia’s electronic defence system – as suggested by Pepe Escobar. They cleverly coordinated the attack so that Syrian defences were tricked into shooting down their target.
    i don’t believe the targets of the “Israeli and French aerial attacks on Syrian State assets” (the actual quote on SBS TV news) were the focus of the operation, or of any significance; this was an attack aimed at Hmeimin, which will now be more exposed to a concerted cruise missile attack. This looks all too much like softening up Russian defences in preparation for such an attack, when the terrorist squads refuse to “remove their heavy weapons” from the demilitarised zone, and then the SAA launches a CW attack on them… in a worst case scenario.
    I don’t know how they sleep at night, or how Putin manages to either. Interestingly though, Putin said that he had personally authorised the Defence ministry’s uncompromising statement of blame against Israel, who had launched a totally illegal attack on Syria, again.

    6
    2
  16. Portonchok says

    Nice theory but does not make sense give the facts. The US military made a very early public statement that it was Syrian AA which brought down the Russian plane. Why would the US do this if they expected Russia to blame France? The US would simply keep quiet until the Russians make their statement, hopefully blaming France, otherwise they’d be supporting the Russians.

    5
    3
    • The author of the original article (Flores) suggests this was part of the plan – Russia would blame France, NATO would repudiate the accusation and use this allegedly false accusation as a platform for more political attacks on Russia. So the US pre-empting by saying it was Syria actually fits very well with Flores’s theory.

      11
    • That would be WW3. We would all be dead in days. It’s a good job the Russian MoD and govt have a better grip and a better sense of proportion than some of the armchair warriors airing their views all over the net.

      31
      • Francis Lee says

        If Russia cannot defend itself without provoking WW3 then it had better surrender, surrender to the allegedly all-powerful zionist 5th column, that Saker drones on about. Do you really think the west is ready to commit global suicide by a war on Russia. It’s a bluff. Appeasement never works as Churchill said of Chamberlain in 1938. ‘You had a choice between war and dishonour, you chose dishonour and you will get war.’

        This is an existential issue for the AZ-empire as well as Russia and China. Is Russia going to be defeated, dismembered and the AZ empire dominant on the basis of a western bluff.

        • (1) Churchill? Ouch! Bad example. Not only was he something of a career war criminal, but the accepted viewpoint of WW2 as “the just war” has been widely questioned in recent times (and not just by sad men on white supremacist websites, caps-lock typing extracts from Mein Kampf while wearing a Waffen-SS battle helmet).

          If all wars are bankers’ wars, maybe it’s time to realise 1939-45 may not have been the shining exception to that rule we’ve all believed it was, and that all those millions died, not defeating Nazism (which wasn’t so much defeated anyway as displaced), but enriching the wealthy. We might reflect that being conned into thinking of “appeasement” as the ultimate dirty word is not very sophisticated of us in these complex nuclear times.

          (2)Let’s recall that Russia has been and is defending itself and its interests quite successfully while avoiding WW3. But can we agree the best way of doing that probably isn’t blowing the head off a NATO frigate that only may have unleashed some of its missiles in the direction of Syria?

          It’s time to recall our sense of proportion, remember this isn’t a video game with a handy quick load button, and realise the fact Putin isn’t current;y riding into Tel Aviv (or Paris) bare-chested on the back of a tank doesn’t mean he’s “not doing anything”,or doesn’t intend to do anything.

          Addendum:
          (3) The argument nuclear war won’t happen because no one wants the world to end is missing the point. Nuclear war, if it happens, will be as a result of accident or panic. And when you have people who believe it won’t/can’t happen you’re already part the way toward ensuring it will. These fools will make no effort to avoid the trigger situations. This is what those we call the “hardcore neocons” nearly did in Ukraine, and have nearly done several times in Syria. They believe in the possibility of a limited conventional war with Russia and are too stupid or crazy to be disabused. Allowing these idiots to get the escalation they seem to want would be folly of a rare magnitude. They would soon find themselves in a situation they couldn’t control. And that would be it for all of us.

          22
        • Yup …but west wants to see Russia neutralised….a laughing stock…povertised…ridiculed…thrown out of so called democratic organisations…subject to control by removal of veto system at UN….the bogeyman using undeclared chemicals on innocent citizens(including one of its own) and foreign assassinations….permanently under sanctions …expelled from PACE and G7…..so a Russian plane shot down by a Russian out of date missile system by Syrians sure goes along with that plan of compleye subjugation.

      • But Russian fleet has the capability -?-could at least have shot down the French missiles cos they could have gone anywhere…..that would have been a strong statement to support Syrian Sovreignty and produce more evidence of Nato illegal actions…..or did they know or get informed…and is just sitting there as an empty gesture implying its ok…missiles were not aimed at us but at Syria on an excuse to attack Iran so that is alright as we kept out of the way before. Methinks there is going to be a lot of MoD internal meetings now to really sort out what is going on or there are gonna be a lot of angry frustrated personnel as the navy and army have a huge sense of well earned and deserved integrity and pride supported by Russian peoples….and this should not be put at risk by false associations of political expediency with treacherous ” partners”.

        • Paul X says

          The MoD is probably working out whether another opportunity to widen the war will present itself soon or will they have to stand down the forces they had ready for the guaranteed chemical weapon shout? Putin slips away again. Turkey has one month to clear the DMZ of radicals. Erdoghan can’t and won’t so the next opportunity will be mid October. I imagine Putin will play it slowly-slowly picking off areas and maybe radical groups one by one. The Chinese look to be the best target as nobody likes them not even the other Jihadis and they’ve ended up in the South of Idlip. Putin is still winning but knows the West is getting desperate and he (thankfully!) is avoiding the big war he can’t win.

  17. Harry Law says

    The Russians are probably aware of all the circumstances of this incident, that is why Putin was able to speak before an actual inquiry, but to my mind it matters little who was to blame since all the actors, Israel, France and other NATO states want to regime change Syria and vilify Russia. I have never suggested sinking NATO ships or giving NATO an excuse for a wider war, but what is it those regime changers fear the most, Syria [or Iran/Hezbollah] being able to defend themselves. The US scrapped the Iran agreement not because of the nuclear issue but because of Iran’s ability to build their own conventional weapons systems, long range ‘accurate’ rockets and the Bavar 373 anti aircraft system [an improvement on the Russian supplied S-300] Keeping Israels neighbors without the means to defend themselves is the name of the game, how else can Israel threaten and bomb their neighbors with impunity? Notice how the US supply the Lebanese army with the most innocuous weaponry, a couple of Sopwith pups [circa 1930] and rifles that when fired release a sign out the end ‘BANG’. It is long past time for Russia to supply Syria with an up to date means to defend themselves. If not, Iran will do it, they know they are is next and are quite right to assume if they don’t hang together, they will assuredly hang separately.

    24
    • Mulga Mumblebrain says

      And as Hezbollah shewed in 2000 and 2006, the Zionazis are not much good at fighting trained, determined, men (or women) anymore. ‘Defeating’ Gazan children or terrorising old people at check-points in the West Bank internment camp is more their go these days.

      13
      1
  18. If you read the Fort Russ report, you will understand that the RF has what remains of the IL-20: they have the evidence, they know who shot their plane out of the sky, which gives them the option of telling any lie they please and there is f***k all FUKUS can do about it!

    15
  19. Adrian E. says

    I think the big question is whether there really was a missile launch from the French ship Auvergne. If there was and perhaps the Israeli and French attacks were co-ordinated, this would, of course be something very grave.

    However, is it really clear that there were missile launches from the French ship Auvergne? It seems the Israeli planes were very close to that ship when they attacked objects in Syria, and then, a launch detector might give a false alert about a missile launch from the ship.

    • Mulga Mumblebrain says

      The Zionazis fully control France, one of the more markedly servile slave states of the West. What Israel wants, Macron the marionette, delivers.

      8
      2
    • “I think the big question is whether there really was a missile launch from the French ship Auvergne.”

      This is a very good question.
      Btw, i didn’t heard the Russian Defense Ministry stated this. To this moment, i saw two official videos – short message from the Russian MoD’s spokesman (he said that Auvergne was just around), and a statement from Sergei Shoigu. In both cases there was not a single word about “France launching missiles”.
      But this is present in the media. Hmm…

  20. Nowarrr says

    Undoubtedly Putins first call would have been to Trump to confirm he hadn’t been briefed. That this was an impromptu false flag and that Russia was expected to retaliate against the French ship. Thus forcing Trump into interweening.

    The warmongers are getting twitchy are they going to step it up? A battallion of isis to attack Russia directly?
    The donkeys just can’t admit defeat. Pathetic.

    46
    • robjira says

      “The donkeys just can’t admit defeat…”
      Right on the effin money; to think a lot of the current bs stems from the simple fact that someone with the initials Hillary Clinton simply can’t admit their own intended palooka wound up defeating them is frightening, to say the least.
      Excellent comment.

  21. Overplayed says

    Ah well time to ask about the relationship between Macron and his special armed friend (where is he from?) he who likes to dress up as a policeman and beat up people… revenge is going to be cold and an early end of the dauphin and would-be new sun king’s plans.

    I wonder how Merkel is going to react too – she also has a few scores to settle after the attacks she survived.

  22. That seems to me to be stretching it a bit. The reports stating that the French ship was detected by missile launch detecting technologies in no way detracts from the efficacy of the official explanation. Looking at the published maps and flightpaths it is easy to see that the Israeli warplanes came in low and seaward of the Russian plane and fired their missiles in such a way that land based radar would have a hard job seperating targets from friend. The only real question is was this a descision of clever Israeli pilots taking advantage of an obvious tactical opportunity or something planned higher up to humiliate the Russians? It seems to me Netenyahu probably claimed the former and Putin accepted the apology with caveats. A second fatal incident from Israel would surely be impossible to excuse.
    As for the French ship, is it not more likely that it lobbed a few missiles under the cover of the Israeli air attack? Perhaps I missed it but I have seen no French denial of the missile launch detection, only that they were involved in the downing of the Russian plane. This covert attack on Syria with advanced weaponry is illegal under international law. It shows how low we have now descended that this question isn’t even floated by anyone.

    17
    2
    • At aircraft targets with altitudes below 3km, the range of Aster 30 is 50km. The ‘Auvergne’ would have not engaged an aerial target 27 km off the Syrian coast. (Off Banias, where AIS shows the location of a Russian ship, part of the SAR response).

    • Adrian E. says

      There is a denial:

      But the French military denied any involvement, with spokesman Colonel Patrik Steiger telling AFP the frigate Auvergne “did not fire anything last night”.

      https://www.afp.com/en/news/205/syria-shoots-down-russian-plane-during-israeli-air-strike-doc-19742e5

      Elsewhere, it was formulated as if he said that the frigate Auvergne only had nothing to do with shooting the Russian airplane, but it seems they deny the missile launch.

      France’s envoy to the United States called the message about the missile launch from Auvergne “fake news”: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-mideast-crisis-syria-france/russian-fake-news-machine-going-mad-says-french-envoy-to-u-s-idUSKCN1LY2C4

    • Ken Underwood says

      You are quite right about how the illegality of the US coalition in Syria being ignored. It’s an outrage.
      Whose job is it to enforce international law.
      Flores’ article clarifies why the French are the most likely culprits in shooting the Il20 down.
      Notice how the official statements by MFA RT and Sputnik meticulously avoid blaming France or making direct and specific accusations of anything!

      • Paul X says

        The UN is a hopeless organisation corrupted by its funding. In the Yemen they managed to get the Houthis on a list of war criminals but Saudi Arabia was on the list of humanitarian helpers. A billion dollars from His Highness was gratefully received. In Syria the UN man is an elderly very aristocratic and paternalistic Italian ex-diplomat who goes out of his way to stir up trouble rather than look for solutions, such as when he waded in saying he would set up save exit routes for civilians in Idlip, ignoring Syrian and Russian routes out while he admitted ‘his’ scheme’ needed friendly jihadis to ‘give way’.

        10
    • Aren’t we a bit past the stage of suggesting a few lies in the upper echelons is “stretching it a bit”? I have no way of knowing if this narrative is correct, wholly or in part, but NO, it’s not stretching it a bit!

      13
  23. Paul X says

    Very thought provoking, thanks. The really chilling bit is that the lunatics are in charge in Washington, Paris and London if the French vessel did fire missiles. If Russia had retiliated wouldnt NATO have met pretty soon and decided on a response? In the ‘light’ of the smokescreens of dis-information and say the fatalities on the Auvergne were high, wouldn’t that response be war? They were all ready prepared for the chemical attack response; being on the ground in force the minute hostilities break out, fully armed and fuelled is a tempting advantage.

    11

Please note the opinions expressed in the comments do not necessarily reflect those of the editors or of OffG as a whole