Kibkom North Cyprus Forum

interesting article Famagusta-Gazette today.

The warship today is resting 24hrs before heading to Port of Tartus ( Russian Black Sea Fleet base ). If things go belly up in Syria hope they dont transfer to on our doorstep.

Makes one wonder what strings might have been attached to the last Russian Bailout Loan and the fact they are asking Russia for another.

Article states that more warships are expected in the comings days.

Im not over the moon with this news, how about anyone else ?

What makes you feel you are not over the moon about this?

I think there is a lot of "heavy weather" made in trying to understand russian motives ...from the kremlin's viewpoint, they "lost" iraq and libya to western intervention nuff said:
and are very reluctant to see their evil client state, syria, go the same way

to look for motives about the e2.5b loan is to ignore the obvious, russia's huge investment in south cyprus, both in people and in offshore company addresses

note that I never actually used the phrase money laundering as such

russian friends I have continue to be somewhat blinkered about how dangerous the financial crisis in the eurozone really is, russian tv ranting against the dollar six months ago now seems ludicrous since the kremlin had switched a lot of its cash into dodgy euros

I think it quite likely they will never get the e2.5b repaid and expect no criticism to ever emerge from pipsqueak eu member, republic of cyprus, in return: and moscow hopes to get first refusal on lucrative gas development

as stated many times becuse "cyprus" is not a nato member, just who they choose to be matey with is not really of world-shattering importance

andre514 wrote:.... because "cyprus" is not a nato member, just who they choose to be matey with is not really of world-shattering importance

Not "world-shattering" perhaps, but the geographical location makes it of strategic interest to a lot of parties...

I agree with what you say about Russia's motives, and would just add this - Russia always seems to oppose organised 'Foreign interference' in the internal affairs of any Sovereign State, and I get the feeling that they have an eye on the possibility of having to argue against 'Foreign interference' in their own affairs, should they just happen to be slaughtering people by the thousand...

the geographical location makes it of strategic interest to a lot of parties... is the answer to why I am not over the moon about it.

As an EU passport holder I am as little concerned that the Pesidency of the EU is held by a country in the Euro Zone and seems to want the benefits but not so keen on the responsibilities involved with an EU bail out package, prefering foreign assistance if possible.

Are the Russian warships the escort ships for the freighter carrying 3 attack helicopters to the war criminal Assad's regime?

DAVPAT- if that is the case , I thought the EU were actively supporting an embargo on War Weapons destined for Syria ?

russia's policy on syria is of course cynical in the extreme
but if in the end assad runs out of weaponry and poison gas,
the kremlin will obviously need to find somewhere or other to
host its fleet, most likely on an occasional basis

"cyprus" itself will probably be a bit circumspect about all this
since although the eu is not a military alliance most of its 27
punter-nations are members:

to get problems from "cyprus" is not what the eu leadership
wants to hear after decades of paying lip-service to nicosia's
unique run of bad luck starting, apparently, in 1974

on the creepy question of growing russian involvement in
cyprus I do believe we will have to put up with it, whoever
readers may think "we" really represents

keith,

I cannot comment on the "slaughtering of thousands"
unless you are aguing for example that their brief war
on georgia or a continuing operations in the caucasus
are quite different to the whole bloody iraq shambles

russia's unwillingness to Play the Game on libya, iraq
...and now syria, can be wholly explained in terms of
losing out to western nations, the supposed "we" in
the equation

having said that I would very much like to hope a free
syria will not become just another unstable and bitterly
sectarian failed state in the fullness of time

andre514 wrote:...having said that I would very much like to hope a free syria will not become just another unstable and bitterly sectarian failed state in the fullness of time

andre, I believe that we would all like to hope the same thing. Past experiences don't make it look very promising though - the inevitable jockeying for power, and settling of old scores is likely to further deepen the divide between the various factions, not to mention the Totalitarian views of the different religious sects... And it is by no means certain that Assad will go. He doesn't appear to care how many he has to kill to stay in power. I read a report yesterday that said hundreds of children have been killed so far, and hundreds more imprisoned and tortured. Even if he does go, his supporters have got the resentment against that barbarity to face...

Mel7348 wrote:DAVPAT- if that is the case , I thought the EU were actively supporting an embargo on War Weapons destined for Syria ?

Mel,

Yes there is an EU embargo,but Russia is a law unto itself,as is China,both countries that have commercial links with Syria,further news re the attack helicopters,apparently Russia supplied the helicopters under a contract,which included maintenance and repair,these 3 are being returned under that contract........or so we are informed!!???


David

One has to ask from where the rebels are getting their weapons?

Up until March of last year, Syria was a fairly peaceful country - there wasn't the violence as seen in the 70s in Northern Ireland. One wonders how the British government would have reacted to foreign involvement following the "Bogside Massacre" of 26 unnarmed civilians by the British army in 1972.

With arms, now overtly flowing into Syria to support the rebels, we have a bloodbath on our hands And clearly there does now need some intervention. Russia's "indifference" can (as Andre wrote) "be wholly explained in terms of losing out to western nations".

The questions though remain, should the rebels have been given the military support in the outset? Should western powers have interfered in yet another Arab country's affairs?

The questions though remain, should the rebels have been given the military support in the outset? Should western powers have interfered in yet another Arab country's affairs?

I thought the main suppliers were Saudi Arabia,Qatar and possibley Turkey. Their support seems to be from both East and West.

Last year had a holiday in Hatay and went through the first refugee camps, now moved further from the border. I stayed within yards of the border and it took less than 2 hours by plane and road to reach it.

Its a sobering thought that all this is almost on our doorstep.

Here's an interesting article Mel, dated August 2011 :
http://www.infowars.com/nato-and-turkey ... %e2%80%9d/
"The Western media has played a central role in obfuscating the nature of foreign interference in Syria including outside support to armed insurgents. In chorus they have described recent events in Syria as a “peaceful protest movement” directed against the government of Bashar Al Assad."

there seems to be some genuine confusion about anything required
of russia and china in a purely legal sense, (they blocked it though)

eu directives, embargoes and divers handwringing etc does not apply to
other states in any technical way:only in the eye of the beholder, morally

the authoritarian leaderships of both would claim that it is to the benefit
of the national interest to continue to deal with the genocidal assad regime
...they might point out with some irritation that "our" forces not only caused
vast collateral damage in the last twenty years but also championed pol pot against vietnam for yonks prior

not to mention hoards of death squads in latin america in years gone by

yes I would agree their attitude to what is going on in syria is pretty
scandalous but there seems little point in expecting them to change their
views under what is hopefully called "western pressure"

and at the risk of being misunderstood yet again, I still wonder what a free
syria may really be like when the smoke and sarin gas drifts away

stop press:

"deadly suicide bombing attack in central damascus by free syrian army
kills senior officials...defence minister and assad brother in law are victims"

expect russian navy to select limassol as alternative r+r and resupply base

iancrumpy- Thanks for that excellent link, am still pondering the implications.

Actually Mel, I was under the impression that Ankara had more sense than to get involved

And I do wonder if the foreign powers truly understand the implications of helping to destabilize these regimes

ian, you seem to support my view that a free syria may or may not be the paradise on earth we would like it to be

but are you saying though that there is some sort of conspiracy going on to upset the applecart?

europe only got involved with libya after the uprising started and really I wonder if western europe has the wherewithall to actually overthrow anyone,
america by its own admission is increasingly looking to the asia-pacific region

I am still not clear what is all the fuss about russian ships stopping at limassol
as mentioned in the article:
nicosia can host who the heck it likes and if they do too much to appease the russians, a deal of muttering will start in european capitals they can ill afford to provoke

but the deeper question is who does cyprus "really" belong to?*
candidates would include the greek cypriots, turkey, just possibly the cypriots whoever they actually are, the eu ("not a state" said newsweek),
british/british expats of good moral standing etc or even "europe" as a concept

concerning the comments about russians in cyprus, I am reminded of king
canute commanding the sea, and stable doors and horses also spring to mind

*no prizes for guessing the correct answer, it is of course "asia"