E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSSNBC's Jim Miklaszewski reports that a Russian military ship carrying troops is on its way to Syria to protect a Russian deep water port.
Russia is sending armed troops to Syria amid escalating violence there, United States military officials told NBC News Friday, in a move certain to frustrate Western efforts to put pressure on the regime of President Bashir Assad.
Moscow has sent a ship carrying a small contingent of combat forces to guard Russia’s deep-water port and military base at the Syrian city of Tartus, the US officials said.
The U.S. officials also said Russia has not sent additional attack helicopters to the Syrian government, but replacement parts for the Russian helicopters the Syrians are already flying.
Days before President Barack Obama's meeting with Russian President Vladimir Putin, there has been a war of words between the U.S. and Syria's longtime military supplier. NBC's Andrea Mitchell reports.
It comes after the conflict was declared by France on Wednesday to be a full-blown civil war.
The head of the U.N. observers in Syria said Friday a recent spike in bloodshed is derailing the mission to monitor and defuse more than a year of violence and could prompt the unarmed force to pull out.
"Violence over the past 10 days has been intensifying willingly by the both parties, with losses on both sides and significant risks to our observers," Maj. Gen. Robert Mood told reporters in Damascus. "The escalating violence is now limiting our ability to observe, verify, report as well as assist in local dialogue and stability projects."
Tartus is one of Russia’s most strategically-important assets, giving it military access to the Mediterranean Sea.
Russia and China, both permanent members of the U.N. Security Council with veto power, frustrated attempts by key Western figures, including Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, to enforce a United Nations peace plan brokered by special envoy Kofi Annan.
Russia’s foreign minister Sergei Lavrov on Friday repeated Moscow's strong opposition to external interference in Syria, said it was not discussing plans for a Syrian political transformation following the exit of Assad.
At a news conference after talks with his Iraqi counterpart, Lavrov said he had seen reports saying U.S. State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland had suggested Washington and Moscow were discussing a post-Assad strategy in Syria.
"If that was really said then it's not true," Lavrov said. "Such discussions are not being held and cannot be held, because to decide for the Syrian people contradicts our position completely.
"We do not get involved in overthrowing regimes - neither through approval of unilateral actions by the U.N. Security Council nor by participation in any political plots."
Nuland was asked at a news conference on Thursday whether the United States and Russia were discussing a transition of power similar to that seen in Yemen last year, in which President Ali Abdullah Saleh was replaced by a deputy.
"We are continuing to talk about a post-Assad transition strategy in that context," she said.
Government forces in Syria have driven rebel fighters out of the town of Haffa near the Turkish border and are now allowing UN monitors to enter the area. NBC's Richard Engel reports.
Lavrov said any broad international talks on Syria must include Iran and must only address ways to create conditions for a political dialogue in Syria - not the content of that dialogue or preconditions such as Assad's exit.
Russia, which has come under increasing criticism from the West for arms deliveries to Syria, responded to U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's allegations that attack helicopters were on the way from Russia to Syria.
In a statement on the Foreign Ministry website, Russia said it had made no new deliveries of military helicopters to Syria but under old contracts it had repaired helicopters sent to Syria "many years ago".
"There are no new deliveries of Russian military helicopters to Syria. All arms industry cooperation with Syria is limited to a transfer of defensive arms," the ministry said on its website.
"As regards helicopters, planned repairs of (helicopters) delivered to Syria many years ago were conducted earlier," it said. It did not say when they had been repaired or, if they were repaired in Russia, when they were returned to Syria.
Inside Syria: War-torn city of Homs scarred by violence, riddled with fear
Syria's ambassador to Russia said on Thursday Russia had not sent new attack helicopters to Syria.
Russia says it is fulfilling existing contracts for air defense systems against external attacks. President Vladimir Putin, due to meet U.S. President Barack Obama next week, said the weapons Russia sends could not be used in civil conflicts.
A source close to Russia's arms exporting monopoly Rosoboronexport said Clinton's comments may have referred to helicopters sent to Russia in 2009 for repairs and which may be on the way back to Syria.
The source said on Wednesday at least nine Mi-25 helicopters were sent to Russia's Baltic exclave of Kaliningrad to be repaired by Oboronservis, owned by the Defense Ministry.
Russia delivered three different missile systems including Bastion anti-ship missile units and another anti-aircraft system to Syria last year.
At least two ships carrying Russian weapons have reportedly travelled to Syria since the beginning of the year, though possibly not on behalf of state arms exporter Rosoboronexport.
Reuters contributed to this report. Jim Miklaszewski is the chief Pentagon correspondent for NBC News.
More world news from msnbc.com and NBC News:
- Report: US expands secret 'shadow war' in Africa
- UK PM grilled over links to Rupert Murdoch's empire
- NBC's Richard Engel answers your questions on Syria
- Transgender pageant winner murdered in South Africa
- 'Maple Spring' student protests: Crackdown roils Quebec
- 'Forest boy' mystery: Stumped cops release photo
- Shot in the dark: Blinded sailor aims for Paralympics
- Survey: World's opinion of US, Obama slips
Follow us on Twitter: @msnbc_world
Leave a Comment:
I like that Putin wants to involve Iran with any talks. Putin is smarter than I thought and Obama, Biden and Clinton know this. Putin knows what the west is up to and that we all need to respect Iran's soviernty and include them in the big picture.
Putin is insane.
Let the Russians have it. KEEP OUR TROOPS OUT. We dont need another war.
Happily, Russia doesn't want it either.
I think the Russians have assessed the threat to their own security by the so-called "opposition" in Syria and decided they had to go in there. Not to defend Assad, but if the situation tilts in favor of the "anti-government" forces (who are definitely NOT all on the same page) it will be more horrific and more chaotic than we can imagine. Then, it will be just a matter of time before the Muslim Brotherhood of one of its affiliates steps in to fill the power vacuum. Next they impose a crackdown, and take away what few liberties, if any, are left.
Couple of thoughts here,
One is that Russians in Syria is not necessarily a bad thing, I don't think they're going to be too happy when they get shot at by Assad's thugs or kidnapped by jihadi terrorists. Having another player in the region helps take some of the targets off of the US's back, and we are living in a much different world than we were in the 80's.
That said, Russia can be a bit crazy, and the fact that they are putting themselves in the middle of the madness that is going on in the ME could have the potential of broadening the chaos to a truly world wide scale.
Right now, I think all this is is some caber rattling and Russia acting to protect its own ass(ets). Too bad they couldn't step in sooner, Syria is their buddy and they had all the capability to prevent this thing from getting to the point it is, but for now I'm going to see how this development plays out before I rush into believing Russia is trying to start another cold war...
Z, I'm on board with most of your statement. Don't fully trust the media or political reports at this time. But Russia is not crazy and Putin is smart. I believe Russia (and China) do not want to get involved with Syria's internal conflicts BUT we do.
Kevin,
I'm with you, but Russia does have a zero tolerance policy towards terrorism when it's in their interest (see Chechnya) and usually they don't wait for or care about the world's opinion before they react. It is only a matter of time before they loose a comrade, and then we'll all see how they are going to behave.
They've had incidents where (in my opinion) they had no choice but a zero tolerance policy. Remember when the Chechnyan rebels took an entire school hostage, and then blew up children along with themselves?
"We do not get involved in overthrowing regimes" But you do get involved propping up dictators who kill babies sucking their pacifiers.
From time immemorial, Russia has needed warm water ports for their navy. They view the possible loss of this strategic Syrian port as a mortal threat to Mother Russia and will defend it as such. Russia doesn't care about Syria. They care about their port.
Mike, good point about the port being of strategic interest to Russia
The "Arab Spring Rebels" in Libya have turned out to be jihadists from al-quaeda, and are now attacking the western forces there....
Why dont Obama and Hillary realize that these "Syrian Rebels" are none other than jihadists from al-quaeda, trying to get a foothold in the Mid East? And, terrorists are being financed and supported by Obama and Hillary, in their haste for a 'friendly regime change' in Syria. It is these insane and ruthless terrorists that are causing most of the deaths of the innocents in Syria and blaming it on the other side: (a basic terrorist tactic)
With Obama's short-sightedness and his willing suppport of these terrorists, al-quaeda will spread over the Mid East, and surround Israel with terror.
It is in fact good that Russia is making a stand against these terrorists.
So basically Hilary Clinton either lied or misspoke when she said Russia was sending attack helicopters. For someone who is supposed to be such an excellent sec of state, she sure dropped the ball on that one with a whole heck of a lot at stake. But I guess it doesn't matter because it's Russia, right? We already pre-judge them based on their Soviet history which ended over two decades ago. We're so idiotic sometimes, frankly. It's no wonder a world that relies on us is such a mess.
Mike, Hillary knew it was bs when she made the statement. She actually chuckled while making the statement. She was obviously ordered to make that statement prior to Obama's meeting with Putin next week in a lame attempt to be used as a diplomatic leverage.
the russians are making the same mistakes we keep making, even if assad remains in power the whole sunni world will resent/hate the russians
big, excellent point. Thats why I think Russia does not want to get involved with Syria's internal conflict
Well I have been telling you all , The Russians Are not going to put with these Jerks , the Saudis and Qataris bringing their Alqaeda fighters into Syria , Trying to take that country over like they did in Libya , And Hillary been helping with McCain and some of our senators to push the US in arming these thugs and training them , there are limits to every thing and I think the little rich oil countries are pushing their luck little too much .
Aaaccckkk! Why oh why haven't we learned our lesson? I mean, look how well our government's plan of arming and training the "freedom fighters" in Afghanistan worked out for us.
Wow Obama is a dictator? Then why does the GOP keep screwing with him? Putin can never be trusted
That's a completely uninformed thing to say, but bravo.
So Hilary Clinton either misspoke of lied when she said Russia was shipping attack helicopters. Either way, it's a pretty pitiful performance by a supposedly excellent sec of state. Is she going to apologize to the Russian government? Oh, sorry, I forgot, it's Russia. We still equate them with their Soviet history of over two decades ago, so they can be used as political fodder at our convenience. For the supposed leader of the 'free world' we're really sloppy often, which might explain a sloppy world. By the way, where is all of the mortal outrage with North Korea and a dozen other dictatorships killing their people? This one's strategic, not humanitarian. Don't let them make you believe anything different. It's an internal affair with all sides committing heinous crimes.
like we did iraq???
Good thing we don't have some tea-bagging, GOP president, that thinks taking on Syria is a good thing with achievable goals ala IRAQ.
Let Russia go in, and when they get fired on they can then try and save the situation. This can only backfire on Russia.
We need to stay far far away from this conflict.
I believe they have right to go wherever..we do it all the time so you people who are against this what do you say when we do this??/ im a 100% disable combat veteran
Gary, I say we let Russia have Syria. They can help us to keep pain in the a** Israel in diplomatic check
Either way, bad news for Syria.
Sheesh...talk about sensationalist reporting. So Russia isn't sending troops to Syria, they're NOT getting involved and they're just sending reinforcements to guard their own military base in Syria? I'm sorry...how is this news? And what is with the media trying to spin this right into a war?
Yeah...and these "spins" seems to be becoming more and more frequent. The person who rewrites the story from another story, or a wire report, changes just enough words to completely gut the factual part of the account.
Do any of the people who read these articles and post comments do any research? Historically, this region is well known for its sectarian divisiveness and violence. You have Sunni, Shia and Alawite muslims along with Druze, Jews and Christians. It's a volatile area If Assads' secular government (He is an Alawite) falls to a coalition of Sunnis, all of the other groups mentioned above will be slaughtered. The U.S. should stay out of this one. The Russians are just there to protect the bases...
Just as the U.S. would have the right to protect one of its ports in a foreign nation Russia has the right to protect it's port in Syria, their only Mediterranean port.
All you warmongers can continue to thump your chests and blame President Obama for anything and everything that doesn't agree with your political ideology.
Oh we have ports to visit near Russia, like S. Occetia.
Russia is not trying to instigate a war; they are simply looking after their own interests. Tartus, in Syria, is the only military base that Russia has outside of its own border. That alone should tell you how serious the Russians are about vetoing any action that does not include themselves and Iran in deliberation. They do not want to start negotiations on the best way to remove Assad from power because a new regime might have tremendous effects on the port that allows them access to the Mediterranean. Historically the Russians have felt that their interests have been disregarded when it came to the outcomes of UN resolutions which have caused them to be weary. All they are attempting to do is emphasize the seriousness of their intentions. Therefore the only way mediation will take place is through a joint UN – NATO negotiation that includes both Russia and Iran in its deliberative process. A deliberation must revolve around how to stop the massacres but not necessarily with the removal of Assad. That could be a happy ending but the key is to get Russia at least into deliberations.
Hey Clinou are a a sack of s**t you ugly c*nt. Your so stupid and have no idea of the lies you say including shipping of new weapons. You are a stupid cow. Obama must be retarded to have you as his secretary of state.
Russia is not trying to instigate a war; they are simply looking after their own interests. Tartus, in Syria, is the only military base that Russia has outside of its own border. That alone should tell you how serious the Russians are about vetoing any action that does not include themselves and Iran in deliberation. They do not want to start negotiations on the best way to remove Assad from power because a new regime might have tremendous effects on the port that allows them access to the Mediterranean. Historically the Russians have felt that their interests have been disregarded when it came to the outcomes of UN resolutions which have caused them to be weary. All they are attempting to do is emphasize the seriousness of their intentions. Therefore the only way mediation will take place is through a joint UN – NATO negotiation that includes both Russia and Iran in its deliberative process. A deliberation must revolve around how to stop the massacres but not necessarily with the removal of Assad. That could be a happy ending but the key is to get Russia at least into deliberations.
You right.
The US needs to back off, but I'm not sure what the next move will be.
WMD is Iraq. You stupid bunch of idiots. There were none and never were none. Saddam was bluffing and buffoons like you believed him. Bush went into Iraq bekicause he was mad at Hussein for trying to nail his father. Bush broke this country with his stupid wars. As far as the Soviets moving into Afghanistan, they could have cared less about some silly school. They wanted an outlet to the Indian Ocean. There are only two ice free ports for Russia. One on the Baltic and one on the Pacific. Not a good idea for a world power. Russia will end up in Syria just like they did in Afghanistan. Very soon a suicide bomber will hit the Russian base and Russian troops will be killed. The Russians are just as dumb as the Americans about getting involved in the Middle East. You are dealing with fanatics and they will kill anyone and in any number. Lots of luck Putin.
Personally I would love to see the Russians get bogged down in this, militarily, economically, socially, you name it! I'd love to see Islamic militants attacking both Russian (and later Chinese) interests -- both military and civilian -- for their continued support of the bloodshed in Syria! :-)
This is the same department of state that falsely accused the Russians of supplying attack helicopters to the Syria government. What is missing from the War in Context is the context. Looking back over all the reporting of the Syrian rebellion, it is blatant that we and our European and Arab allies had an agenda, quite early, to overthrow the government of Bashar al-Asad. Freedom and democracy are ruses to gain the support of the public for another Mideast war. As we have yet to pay for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, what is the likelihood that the Syrian war will be added to the trillions of dollars of debt we are already in? Democrat or Republican, we love war.
Actually, Russia did send back attack helicopters to syria that had been repaired and those attack helicopters are used to kill protesters seeking freedom, maybe you shouldn't support a hitler like dictator trying to commit genocide
Russia response to Assad's genocide b/c syrians demand their freedom and the right to elect the leader of "their" choosing is the following: "We do not get involved in overthrowing regimes - neither through approval of unilateral actions by the U.N. Security Council nor by participation in any political plots."
Is that what Russia thinks that genocide by a evil dictator is, a political plots? Remember stalin, Russia knows all too well about evil rulers killing thousands, Russia is supporting Assad's genocide and will armed Assad to see it through, the world must reject Assad and Russia's genocide aims to kill majority of syrians and shoot the middle finger to Russia by sending drones to even up the playing field by knocking out Assad's tanks and heavy weapontry
Russia has every right to defend their military base and ally just as we would in the same situation. This is not our war. This is not our Nation's problem. We have our flippin military boots in enough countries as it is. If other countries feel compelled to intervene in Syria, best of luck to them. Have fun putting the financial burden on your people. I think it's high time other countries started spending what we spend on foreign intervention and aid before they assume we're going to go in there guns a blazin'.
Assad did NOT start this civil revolution and unless these flippin pissed off radicals have a qualified and capable candidate to bring forth to debate Assad for leadership, these takeover militant radicals are starting to irritate me. Why do ignorant people assume that just because radical freaks go nuts that a sitting leader should leave his position and let the country and economy go to hell? There was no genocide prior to this revolution by Assad and so now that things have escalated into civil war it becomes genocide? Wow, talk about radical twisted blame shifting.
I don't think the U.S. would support a dictator trying to kill thousands to squash the "people" aim to freedom whether they were a ally or not, all you have to do is look at the U.S. position toward its ally the former Egypt president. "NEVER" would the U.S. support a hitler like dictator right to commit genocide, but Russia would. We should send drones with other countries to syria and give Assad a taste of his own medicine on his tanks and heavy weapontry, while rightly shooting the middle finger at Russia and Assad genocide aims.
It would not cost any american lives and cost a fraction of a penny compared to the afgh. war