Thursday, September 20, 2018

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

PCR and many people are criticising Putin for not standing to the Empire, but maybe he's more clever and astute than they realize.

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

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.


Matt Franko said...

OMG.... They have a bunch of Arabs running their Sam sites and ofc just shot down one of their own aircraft.... let’s not over think this...,

Konrad said...

Franko is not only a moron; he's a P.O.S. racist.


The claim is that on 18 Sep 2018 an Ilyushin Il-20M Coot-A ELINT plane was destroyed off the Syrian cost, along with 15 Russian personnel aboard.

If that claim is false, and no plane was destroyed, then perhaps the article above has a point.

If the claim is true, then the article above smells like another lame attempt to gloss over Russian weakness. Four Israeli F-16s were striking targets in the Lattakia region at the time. The consensus is that Syrian S-200 surface to air missiles accidentally hit the Il-20M surveillance plane instead of any of the attacking Israeli F-16s (and possible escorting aircraft). Therefore Israeli attacks caused the incident. Therefore Putin is unable or unwilling to stop Israel from attacking Syria at will, and from killing Russian personnel. Therefore Putin is a wimp for dismissing those fifteen deaths as merely “regrettable.”

If the missiles instead came from the French missile frigate Auvergne off the Syrian coast, then Putin remains a wimp. Fifteen Russians killed? Who cares? Certainly not Putin.


In the past, Israel has used a “deconfliction” hotline to alert Russia of impending strikes on Syria. Putin has allowed these strikes, since they came from his beloved Israelis. Therefore the Israelis evidently decided that they no longer need to alert Putin whenever they attack Syria.

I say that Russia should leave Syria, or else fully defend Syria from all attacks, including Israeli attacks.

The article above says, “Anyone who thinks Russia should have responded by shooting other planes out of the sky needs to pause and reflect.”

Right. When Israeli planes cause the deaths of Russian personnel, the Russians need to “pause and reflect” instead of defending themselves.

Tom Hickey said...

Did you read the all the relevant links, Konrad? This is as ill-informed as Matt's comments.

Bibi called Putin immediately and sent an Israeli military delegation to Moscow to explain their side.

Neither Russia or Israel want war with each other.

Tom Hickey said...

BTW, we don't know yet what happened behind the scenes. All we have so far is initial public reports and speculation of people familiar with the situation but not privy to intel or what is going on inside.

So jumping to conclusions is premature, especially in a situation that is highly nuanced.

Also if people don't read the links before commenting and showing their work, I will conclude that the links are an exercise in futility and stop putting them up. I have better things to do.

Konrad said...

“If people don't read the links before commenting and showing their work, I will conclude that the links are an exercise in futility and stop putting them up. I have better things to do.”

Likewise if people don’t read my comments before attacking then, then I will dismiss their attacks.

What I wrote was that if the claim is false, then…

And if the claim is true, then…

In this I admitted that I don’t know if the claim is true or false. We only have early and sketchy reports. You didn’t catch that, because you didn’t read my comment before you attacked it. You did exactly what you accuse others of.

Meanwhile I read many of the articles linked to in the post, but I not agree with you that readers must digest every single link in a long list of links before readers may comment on any one link. Please do not equate me with Franko, who spews his venom without reading any links at all.

In fact, it seems lazy to simply list a series of links, and then condemn someone as “ill informed” for commenting on only one of the many separate links. Why not do what most other bloggers do, which is write a digest with the links embedded in your commentary?

The crux of the matter is that you are a Putin apologist, whereas I question Putin’s apparent docility. Putin aids the Syrian government, but allows Israel to repeatedly attack Syria at will. I say that this is shameful. You say that this makes me “ill informed.”

So be it.

Kaivey said...

I think you're right, Tom, Putin is doing well despite the pressure. He's probably not a psychopath and is not prepared to risk the destruction of the planet. He can probably achieve everything he wants through other ways.

I have read how he totally outsmarted the Empire in Ukraine by not being drawn into their bait, but he got Crimea. And on the world stage he has outsmarted them with his links to China, getting around the sanctions. We just have to trust him.

Some people hate the Empire, Israel, and the western ruling elite so much they would like to see someone stand up to them and give them a bloody nose and risk the !oss of billions of lives, but Putin can outsmart them and gain strength. I think Putin is acting with amazing courage to take all the pressure and criticism.

I've watched loads of video on Putin and he always well mannered and polite, he is nothing like the big mouthed aggressive western leaders.

Noah Way said...

US politicians wouldn't know a real statesman if they had 18 wheels and ran over them.


In a semi-related story I was traumatized by an overly aggressive delivery driver Trumpster who reminded me of Franko - loud, obnoxious, ill-informed, and supremely confident in their own unfounded beliefs.

We are surely headed for civil war.

Matt Franko said...

“This is as ill-informed as Matt's comments”

Tom the key information is they shot down their own plane... completely unacceptable under any conditions...

Matt Franko said...

Neither the US or Russia should even be there it is the outhouse of planet earth...

GLH said...
Maybe you guys should read these articles.

Kaivey said...

Thanks, GLH . Looks interesting.