E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSSRussia is sending a new shipment of helicopter gunships to Syria, a move that Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said Tuesday could escalate the conflict "quite dramatically."
Syria already has a fleet of the Russian gunships which are armed with rockets, cannons and heavy machine guns.
Syrian President Bashar al-Assad is one of Russia’s main weapons customers, according to Reuters, and Moscow sold a large shipment to the country as recently as mid-May.
Russia’s business relationship with Syria has presented a problem on the U.N. Security Council, which has been seeking a unified stance in confronting the Assad regime. Russia along with China -- two of the council’s five permanent members -- has been reluctant to admonish the Syrian leader, despite the growing bloody toll in a conflict that a U.N. official said Tuesday had all the characteristics of a civil war.
The violence that has left more than 10,000 people dead since the uprising against Assad’s government began 15 months ago. Most of the dead were civilians, according to opposition groups.
It is not clear when this latest batch of attack helicopters is due to arrive in Syria and there is no indication the U.S. would attempt to intercept the shipment. Officials refused to divulge the source of the intelligence reports.
NBC's Richard Engel talks about the situation in Syria and descriptions by a top U.N. official who described "large chunks" of Syrian cities as being under the control of the anti-government rebels.
Secretary Clinton disclosed the shipment during a question-and-answer session at the Brookings Institution.
NATO chief sees parallel between Syria and the Balkans
Meantime, there is a debate as to whether Russia and China have slowed a potential U.N. military intervention in Syria.
In an online question-and-answer for The New Yorker, writer Philip Gourevitch wrote that it was unlikely that Western forces would get involved in the Syrian conflict, even if China and Russia were out of the equation. He said that China and Russia have given "someone for us to blame."
"I'm not at all sure that there's any Western appetite to go into Syria," Gourevitch said.
UN struggles for answers as Syrian truce falls apart
"When Russia and China refused to sign on to a toothless resolution condemning Assad and calling for him to step down early this year, Hillary Clinton called their action (or inaction) ‘despicable,'" Gourevitch said. “But without their resistance, we would not look more effective -- and we might look much less effective.”
Msnbc.com's Isolde Raftery contributed to this report.
More world news from msnbc.com and NBC News:
- UN: Children tortured, used as human shields in Syria
- Twist in 32-year-old case as coroner rules dingo took baby
- NBC News: Egypt's ex-dictator Hosni Mubarak slips into coma
- Reports: UK PM David Cameron leaves 8-year-old daughter in pub
Follow us on Twitter: @msnbc_world
Leave a Comment:
Ha ha...Putin just couldnt wait!
Now he is overtly implicated in intervening in the Syrian Civil War...I guess this means "all bets are off"....
Let's see how his "SAM-bait" fares once one of them goes down...which will surely happen.
Really nce to see the Prince of Darkness sticking his bloody fingers into this Muslim quicksand....there is no way Russia or Iran can now come out of it other than smelling like a festering turd...
Those whom the gods seek to destroy, they first make mad....
Putin better cover his back since he is considered little better than an "Assad" back home.....
@Curious Bob
I think you are wrong in your assessment. I don't think Putin, Russia are so stupid as Bush Jr. is in turms of immersing themselves in a war (wars) when they have Bush's and US's bitter experience in conducting war for a decade. In my opinion Russia, China, Iran will help Syria with armament, with money, but not with their troop's blood as US is doing. On the contrary, I guess these countries will loor US into conflict while suplying Syria with quality armament. US now has almost 15 trillion debt, 2-3 trillion will be added to it in a new war, if US tries to involve in. I think this is the plan those countries are after. US should stay away from that conflict.
Putin's agit-prop gang busy here too, I see.
If Hillary did not know how to give head, she would have never gotten ahead with her inabilility to act like she knows what the faulkland islands she is talking about. The only war we should be involved with or care about are the ones which cause us problems. Whothe hell cares what some dumb foreign land is doing. If they want to kill themsellves, I say, let them do it! Then after they have all killed themselves, we send our troups in and declare it U.S. Territory. We then force the remainning few to learn english, we then teach them how to be Union Workers and we then have a productive new U.S. Commonwealth in the world and we lose no one to the stupidity of war. So please, ignore their wars, let them fight their own battles and if they accidently hit us, let's just nuke them and say, "Ooops!" like we did with flight 007 in N.Y...
Wow. I never cease to be amazed at how so many people can reply to the most inane comments on here and continue to stick with the bs and ridiculous talking points that have been handed to them by politicians and the media...
All the while, not even acknowledging words written/spoken by folks with no political or economic agenda.
In other words, it appears as if we, as a nation, have been dumbed-down to such an extent that we can't even comprehend truth when we read/hear it.
Thank you TrustVerifiy for your post (it bears re-posting for the very few who 'get it')...
According to Veterans Today:
“There is no question this is a Washington-orchestrated war. It is
a low-level war to the extent that NATO has not gotten directly involved. But
it is exactly what happened in Libya last year. An insurgency began; Washington
orchestrated it; insurgents were recruited; they were funded; they were armed;
they were US special forces, British special forces, CIA, MI6, Qatari special
forces. They are in Syria now; they are directing these massacres, these
killings. They are funding, they are training; they are picking targets; they
are leading these dead squad games to places like Houla [and] Takiba. They are
picking up who to slaughter. They go after pro-Assad loyalists.
You always have to ask, when terrible incidents occur, whether it
is car bombings, whether it is massacres of civilians, cui bono, who benefits?
Assad gets nothing from this. Only the opposition gains. Assad is the victim.
The victim is being blamed for the perpetrator’s crimes. But again make no
mistake. The nexus of this struggle emanates from Washington, doesn’t matter
whether it is Obama, [former US President] George Bush or anybody else. Syria,
and other regional countries, have been targeted for regime change for years,
at least a decade. It was only the question when each one would come up.
Syria’s turn came up and violence has been raging since early last year.”
Folks this has been per-planned for a while, Syria has been on the
list for a long time and now their time has come up. Do you really want another
unnecessary war? Do you want your children fighting for another corporate war?
I keep adding General Clark’s admonition of America’s plan to take over the Middle
East because it is playing itself out right in front of the world! This isn’t a
necessary war!
General
Wesley Clark: "America will take out 7 countries in 5 years"
According to Former NATO supreme allied commander, former
presidential candidate and 4 star US General Wesley Clark that they had
received a memo that America is going to take out 7 countries in the Middle
East starting with Iraq, Libya, Syria Lebanon Sudan, Somalia, and finally Iran.
It is amazing that even if it is taking longer than originally planned, how
these things that were planned years ago are being achieved in front of our
eyes.
When we twist ourselves into knots to the extent that we start to believe this, then we can also use those same knots to show that the geopolitical power has nothing to do with Oil in the Middle East. We are not thinking correctly if we cannot understand that as it is the global economy that is enabled by energy from oil.
Why is that we think that armaments are always the final demonstration of strength and power, when it is the economic system its corporations, and the supporting countries that produce the abundance of those armaments that is the source of both the strength and power? Yet we disconnect those two interrelated and inseparable thoughts, when we make some scurrilous suggestion, that more armaments one way or another would resolve the problem.
To be clear it is the "fake possibility" of resolution of such problems that shows most clearly that these sorts of problems are not to be resolved. The presence of Oil in the Middle East is problem not having solution, no solution can resolve the dependency problem, and no amount of sharing will actually solve the problem. The problem then is not Oil, but of Russia, China and the US from controlling it, in the absence of the "owners" of the Middle East, if easy to see why. None of those sovereign interests R-C-US coincides with the Middle East Countries sovereign interests. None of those countries is the least bit willing to accept the dominance of the other three (Nuclear Powers if you don’t get the distinction) over Oil.
The Middle East countries in the cat bird seat, have of necessity, not trusted their allies, and cannot, but sides with those allies that can best support them. The communist label mean nothing, Russia means domination by willing to accept death and suffering, China means concept death has not meaning, the US merely arranges capital to produce products that produce profits that through taxes provide in infinitude of military power. For the Middle East it is their capital that runs Wall Street, and the Worlds Banking centers, and it the Middle East Oil that gives those countries the power of the world economy that runs on Oil.
Because we can see this tangle of knots does not mean that we can see a way out, it is more likely that we don't want to seek that way out. This is in mathematical terms the way the capitalist power and economic equations are solved; there is no other possibility except to fully understand where all the basic energy came from in the first place. That understanding is both too easy and too difficult, where the too difficult part is proven by fact that we will continue to make wars to some maximal limit, that limit is the artificial acceptance that nuclear war is the same is game over.
If we ever acknowledge that we can destroy ourselves, then we might in instance of sanity choose not to. It should be fair warning that I cannot predict which will better. You do see that granting yourself that power to decide world problems by yourself keeps those problems unsolved.
We should shoot them down.
The facts are the following:
Russia is not our friend
Russia now with Putin, will continue to peddle their hardware and cause strife with no regards for human life or for that matter, any one who opposes their actions
Syria is now looking to print more money (or rumors of).. which will probably be the tipping point to World Economic disaster. Oh by the way, quess who is printing it? You guessed it! A Russian company...
Iran's Belligerence is in part due to the Obama weak foreign policies and spineless behavior, in addition to Russia's nuclear assistance and hardware assistance.
Thanks
She knows about the helicopters because the CIA agents over there doing all the killing told her about them.
This is a wag the dog way to steal their resources and undermine Iran.
tiredofdoublestandard100 All i have to say to that ... YOU HIT IT ON THE NOSE BUDDY .
It this is true, there is an easy solution.
We are buying the same helicopter from Russia for use in Afghanistan.
We should buy all that Russia can make so that Russia will have none to ship to Syria.
Syria is in a full blown civil war. The weapons are coming from other Arab nations, and I would not put it past our leaders that we are using some sort of back door to get weapons to the "rebels". My feeling is we need to stay the HELL out of other countries business. We have our own issues here AT HOME to take care of. Our country is a mess people. It is way, way past time to stop acting like policeman of the world on our tax dollars, and even more our lives of our sons and daughters. If China, Russia or whomever were to try to invade the U.S. I would be one of the first to grab my guns ... Time for the U.S. to take car of our own.
The Russians would not have done this unless they already had assurances that Obama would take no real action. Obama does their bidding in other areas as well.
In a conversation with Russian President Dmitry Medvedev on March 26th, Obama admitted that he was planning to bow to some Russian demand, but that he would have to wait until after the election to do it. What is it that he doesn't want us to know now? He clearly believes that if we were to find out about it, we would not re-elect him. That's good enough for me! If Obama himself believes that his plan will anger the American people, then we need to prevent him from executing that plan.
It appears that you castigate Obama for doing exactly what you tell us all that the US should do.
Brick - I read your post three times, and it still has zero meaning. What are you trying to say?
Drones, drones, drones !!!!!!
Good plan to give rebels who hate us with a passion weapons to use against us when this is over.
Good point - that is exactly what happened in Afghanistan - Charlie Wilson was a fool to help the rebels there when they were fighting Russia.
lmao, Russia and China both daring the US to stick their meddling nose in this one hahahahah. While Iran and North Korea fine tune their missiles. Get ready people, arm yourselves.
Some of your questions were not decided on economic interests. Some were decided on strategic interest.
Send in some AC-130H Spectre gunships in along with the Russians helicopter gunships!
There's not a whole lot we can do even if we wanted to. The deep cover Pakistani operative (Obama) has decimated our mitary and its effectiveness to do anything, let alone defend our own shores. The military is currently being downsized to almost nothing and the only ones left behind are gay. Pretty soon, wars in countries like Syria won't be the problem. Attacks on our soil will be the front page news. Maybe all the powder-puffs can fight them off with their rainbow flags. Or even better, maybe all the homeless and unemployed that have nothing better to do than "occupy" can push them back with their un-informed and illogical rhetoric. We are pretty much screwed as a country.
Remember when being an American used to be a source of pride?
interesting how obama has "decimated" our military, yet FY2012 defense budget is upwards to 1.6 trillion. The pentagon alone has a budget of 707 billion, a significant increase from five years ago. the military is not being decimated. leon pannetta and the right wing circus are, as usual, full of @!$%#. if obama deserves any criticism, its not making the defense budget cuts that need to be made. It is a mathematical FACT that empire and its hubris cannot be maintained.
there will not be attacks on our soil because our military is still the largest and best equipped in the world. There is also the massive paramilitary apparatus and 80 million plus armed americans. We are indeed secure. Consider that it is infeasible for a foreign nation to attack us, there is not enough energy or resources to do so.
occupy has illogical rhetoric? their "rhetoric" states that our whole government institution, influenced by wall street and the banks, is hopelessly corrupt. There is no rhetoric about this; its FACT.
That is a civil war against an administration that we don't like. It is friends with the Soviets, however. We did the same thing in Vietnam. We had to protect Vietnam from the Vietnamese. We don't even know who we do want to get into power if the present administration falls. How about let's decide who we support in this fight rather than who we oppose. Even the UN doesn't know who to support. We have had one P---poor military strategy in the middle east. The Russians are sending attack helicopters and we are sending non-military humanitarian aid. You can't win a civil war with humanitarian aid. The combatants need military aid in the form of weapons. With Russia as wel as the other members of the security council having veto power nothing will ever get done. With all the "diplomacy" people are "apparently" still dying.
Sure the Russians have a base there,....why all the hysterical propaganda from the administration, please no more wars, we're tired of them!
Russia should stop sending weapons to Syria only when the USA stops sending weapons to Israel. When it comes to pure hyprocrisy, the USA is unrivaled!
what is the big @!$%#ing deal? the US is the world's largest arms exporter. americans complaining against russian or chinese arms exports are hypocrites, plain and simple. hell, the people that influence our government, the banks, finance both sides of major wars.
When we twist ourselves into knots to the extent that we start to believe this (is new), then we can also use those same knots to show that the geopolitical power has nothing to do with Oil in the Middle East. We are not thinking correctly if we cannot understand that as it is the global economy that is enabled by energy from oil.
Why is that we think that armaments are always the final demonstration of strength and power, when it is the economic system its corporations, and the supporting countries that produce the abundance of those armaments that is the source of both the strength and power? Yet we disconnect those two interrelated and inseparable thoughts, when we make some scurrilous suggestion, that more armaments one way or another would resolve the problem.
To be clear it is the "fake possibility" of resolution of such problems that shows most clearly that these sorts of problems are not to be resolved. The presence of Oil in the Middle East is problem not having solution, no solution can resolve the dependency problem, and no amount of sharing will actually solve the problem. The problem then is not Oil, but of Russia, China and the US from controlling it, in the absence of the "owners" of the Middle East, if easy to see why. None of those sovereign interests R-C-US coincides with the Middle East Countries sovereign interests. None of those countries is the least bit willing to accept the dominance of the other three (Nuclear Powers if you don’t get the distinction) over Oil.
The Middle East countries in the cat bird seat, have of necessity, not trusted their allies, and cannot, but sides with those allies that can best support them. The communist label mean nothing, Russia means domination by willing to accept death and suffering, China means concept death has not meaning, the US merely arranges capital to produce products that produce profits that through taxes provide in infinitude of military power. For the Middle East it is their capital that runs Wall Street, and the Worlds Banking centers, and it the Middle East Oil that gives those countries the power of the world economy that runs on Oil.
Because we can see this tangle of knots does not mean that we can see a way out, it is more likely that we don't want to seek that way out. This is in mathematical terms the way the capitalist power and economic equations are solved; there is no other possibility except to fully understand where all the basic energy came from in the first place. That understanding is both too easy and too difficult, where the too difficult part is proven by fact that we will continue to make wars to some maximal limit, that limit is the artificial acceptance that nuclear war is the same is game over.
If we ever acknowledge that we can destroy ourselves, then we might in instance of sanity choose not to. It should be fair warning that I cannot predict which will better. You do see that granting yourself that power to decide world problems by yourself keeps those problems unsolved.