Russia’s defence ministry has summoned the British defence attache over reports in Sunday newspapers claiming that RAF pilots were given licence to shoot down Russian jets in Iraq if threatened.

The reports in the Daily Star on Sunday and the Sunday Times were described by the UK Foreign Office as inaccurate. The report said RAF Tornado fighters launching airstrikes on Islamic State targets in Iraq were using missiles designed for aerial combat.

The British embassy in Moscow confirmed that the defence attache had been asked to clarify the UK’s position and had visited the Russian ministry of defence in Moscow on Sunday.

According to a British government source, Russia accepted the explanation.

A Foreign Office spokesperson in London said the defence attache had expressed concern over Russia’s Syria policy during the meeting: “The Russian government sought clarification over inaccurate newspaper reports concerning RAF rules of engagement in Iraq. The defence attache reiterated the British government’s concerns about Russia’s military operation in Syria, including targeting legitimate opposition groups, using unguided weaponry and leading to large numbers of civilian deaths.”

In London, the Russian ambassador, Alexander Yakovenko, said Moscow had urgently requested an explanation from the Foreign Office.

He said: “The very premise of a potential conflict of UK and Russian combat aircraft over Iraq is incomprehensible. It is known that Russian air force does not take part in strikes against Isis targets in the said country. At the same time, RAF does not participate in the anti-Isis coalition strikes in Syria. The question arises, what is the goal of such a provocative media leak? Whose morale are they meant to raise?”

Advertisement

The Daily Star Sunday, which claimed the story as an exclusive, said British pilots have been told to take drastic action if fired upon by Russians during missions over Iraq and that it was just a matter of time before there was a deadly confrontation with Russian planes

The Star added that RAF Tornado jets will be equipped with the Advanced Short Range Air-to-Air Missile – a supersonic weapon which can blast any aircraft out of the sky.

The Sunday Times appears to have followed up the story.

An RAF spokesman said: “There is no truth in this story.”

A defence source said that RAF planes flying in Iraq can carry air-to-air missiles but they do not in Iraq and there is no intention to do so. The RAF only conducts surveillance over Syrian air space at present but these are carried out by Reaper drones. RAF surveillance planes also monitor events on the ground in Syria but they do so from positions outside Syria.

Russia has not ruled out airstrikes in Iraq if they are requested by the Iraqi government, but so far is only operating in Syria.

Yakovenko also complained that Britain had not provided intelligence to Russia on the location of Isis’s infrastructure in Syria, despite repeated requests. Western countries have expressed alarm at the Russian campaign in the country. President Vladimir Putin has said the goal is to target Isis, but the strikes appear mainly to have targeted rebel groups fighting Bashar al-Assad’s forces.

The Russian strikes came after Putin addressed the UN late last month and called for a global coalition against Isis. Just two days later, Russian planes carried out their first attacks.

Kommersant Dengi, a financial magazine, estimated the potential cost of Russia’s Syria commitments to be €1bn (£740m) a year.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/oct/12/raf-licence-shoot-down-russian-jets-iraq

British military intervention in Syria will solve nothing



Since the summer there has been a steady drumbeat in Westminster as David Cameron prepares for military intervention in Syria. First we heard about British pilots embedded with allied forces, then there was the use of drones. Now we hear that 50 Labour MPs are willing to vote for military action.

It is of course wrapped up as part of a humanitarian effort. The trouble is that parliament has been here before. All recent British military interventions in the region have had a humanitarian aspect. But nobody now argues that they were successful overall. And it is entirely disingenuous to argue for military action alongside a diplomatic and humanitarian action, as if they are inextricably linked. The British public and many Tory MPs remain deeply sceptical about military action.

British military intervention in Syria will solve nothing. Nobody knows whether the proposed “safe havens” would actually work. Notably they did not prevent thousands of Bosnian Muslims being slaughtered in Srebrenica. And Putin coming in on the side of Assad makes the situation even more fraught and the proposed military action even more dubious. As Nick Witney has pointed out: “The year-long US air campaign against Islamic State (Isis) in Syria is now widely acknowledged to have had remarkably little impact – beyond strengthening that organisation’s narrative of oppression by ‘crusaders’, and therefore its recruiting appeal. The idea that a few additional British bombs will make any difference is absurd.”

So the question is why so many MPs are apparently prepared to vote for military action. Obviously the horrific scenes of brutality and suffering we have seen on our screens, together with the Syrian refugee crisis, have given rise to that siren call “something must be done”. But that “something” is not necessarily British military action. On the question of refugees, it is far more important to get other EU powers to match our spending on the Syrian refugee camps and play our full part (including taking our quota) in resettling refugees who have made it to western Europe. The two things are not mutually exclusive.

But we also need redoubled activity on the diplomatic front. The regional powers, including Iran, must be made to step up to their responsibilities in both genuinely opposing Isis and playing their part in negotiating a sustainable peace. Some have paid lip service, but that is no longer enough. And we must cut the flows of arms and money going to Isis.

If some MPs are intent on military action, surely their first step should be to pressure Cameron to obtain some kind of UN resolution? If he tries and fails that is one thing. But it is surprising that so many MPs, of whatever party, are happy to contemplate a further British military adventure without even an attempt to obtain such a mandate. Last month Labour party conference debated and agreed to the terms on which it would support UK military action in Syria. Those terms included authorisation from the United Nations. Cameron has yet to make a military case for bombing. MPs of all parties will be well advised to hear what he actually has to say before committing themselves to yet another ill-fated military intervention in the Middle East.

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/oct/12/british-military-intervention-syria-un-resolution

Should the UK bomb Syria? If we want to make things far worse for everyone

Since the start of the refugee crisis the British government has been keen to emphasise the need to tackle the problem at source – in the countries of “origin and transit”. Looking after refugees on arrival would only encourage more to come. This argument was deployed to justify British support for the reduction of search-and-rescue efforts in the Mediterranean last autumn. That particular piece of callousness proved untenable: but the same line is now prominent again, as the government seeks to justify its refusal to help its EU partners deal with the hundreds of thousands of refugees (yes, and migrants) now overwhelming our continental neighbours.

But just because an argument is deployed for cynical purposes does not necessarily make it wrong. On the contrary, in the absence of any one, simple “magic bullet” to fix what is both a massive humanitarian tragedy and a political crisis that is threatening to tear the EU apart, trying to address the root causes of the mass displacement of people must be an essential complement to caring for those who have already made it to Europe.

But bombing in Syria is not the answer. Indeed, it is so obviously a rank idea that the arguments scarcely need to be laid out. In the first place, it will be ineffective. The year-long US air campaign against Islamic State (Isis) in Syria is now widely acknowledged to have had remarkably little impact – beyond strengthening that organisation’s narrative of oppression by “crusaders”, and therefore its recruiting appeal. The idea that a few additional British bombs will make any difference is absurd.


Record number of refugees enter Hungary amid border crackdown fears
Read more
Second, it will endanger British lives (and not just those whom we have now apparently decided that the British state is entitled to kill by drone strike without any judicial process, on the say-so of those intelligence authorities who so memorably gave us Saddam’s “weapons of mass destruction”). Isis is not about international jihad, like al-Qaida. Its aims are territorial – the establishment of its appalling “caliphate” in the Middle East. But if we want to encourage them to pay more attention to how they can strike at us by acts of terror in the UK, then bombing them is a great way to do it.

Third, the main beneficiary will be Bashar al-Assad (two years ago, of course, it was his regime that was the intended target when last the bombing of Syria was on the agenda): he will be able to use wider western involvement in an air campaign against Isis as vindication of his claim to be a lonely bulwark against what the rest of the world now understands to be the “real” source of all the region’s ills.

Fourth, it will continue to let the regional powers off the hook. Given that the US is not going to commit ground forces to the fight against Isis, only the neighbours can take effective action.

They have the most direct interest; they have easiest access, and the readiest means. The key neighbours in this case are Turkey, Iran and the Saudis and other Gulf states. The only long-term solution to the Isis problem is for those local powers to conclude that their shared interest in destroying Isis outweighs their individual interests in exploiting the current situation in their mutual rivalries. Western assumption of their responsibilities will only delay that day.

So a counterproductive and dangerous military gesture, though no doubt politically useful for a month or two, will do nothing to advance the stability of the region or to alter the circumstances that are driving hundreds of thousands of desperate people across Europe’s borders. What would?

Sadly, there is no quick and easy answer. The challenge is hydra-headed, and the response must be equally multifaceted.

First, more pressure needs to be put on Turkey. This is the biggest “country of transit”. Yet it is neither controlling Isis movements across its border with Syria nor attempting to control the people smugglers operating in Bodrum and Izmir. And its president is more concerned to boost his prospects in the upcoming election by attacking the Kurds than tackling Isis.

Turkey’s prosperity depends on its customs union with the EU. Here is economic leverage that Europe must now exercise.

The movement out of Africa across the Mediterranean may be an even worse problem in years to come
Second, it is time to engage in some serious diplomacy. Syria is not going to be “fixed” without Russia and Iran. This is unpalatable – but they have more stomach for this fight than does the west. The recent nuclear deal with Iran opens a window of new opportunity.

And last but not least, we must do what we can where we can. Alas, Syria is not the start and finish of the problem. While the migration though Turkey and across the Aegean commands our attention at the moment, the movement out of Africa across the Mediterranean may be an even worse problem in years to come. Africa will, over the next two decades, be home to the world’s last great population explosion – a billion more souls are dependably forecast. So it is of vital interest for Europeans to do everything we can for the continent’s stability and prosperity.

The job is doable: Africa has great natural resources, and despite all the conflict and corruption, has chalked up a steady 5% annual growth over the last decade. But if it is to have a chance of sustaining its burgeoning population it will need all the help that Europe can give it – development, investment, and yes, military assistance in dousing its many conflicts.

A focus on “countries of origin and transit” is indeed needed. But that means a sustained, difficult, expensive, strategic effort, working with EU and other partners. A cheap but counterproductive military gesture is no answer.

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/sep/10/uk-bomb-syria-eu-refugee-crisis

CSTR2:
Very interesting. Though the UK is a very sophisticated nation that knows the battles it should fight.
Going up against russia would be absolutely stupidd unless they are certain of american support which is also possible.
A provocation between the UK and russia has been coming since russian tupolev long range strike aircrafts hovering very close to UK airspace have been intercepted in a number of occasions.
One thing is certain though,america would very much like this to happen. It would create the perfect opportunity to prepare NATO for a military invasion of russian mainland.

CSTR2:
Very interesting. Though the UK is a very sophisticated nation that knows the battles it should fight.
Going up against russia would be absolutely stupidd unless they are certain of american support which is also possible.
A provocation between the UK and russia has been coming since russian tupolev long range strike aircrafts hovering very close to UK airspace have been intercepted in a number of occasions.
One thing is certain though,america would very much like this to happen. It would create the perfect opportunity to prepare NATO for a military invasion of russian mainland.

Sveen:
Russia has every European countries, including America on her radar. Let Nato bring it on, China and North Korea are also lurking nearby.

Tkester:


Prepare NATO for military invasion of Russia you said? You must be high on crack.

Sveen:
Russia has every European countries, including America on her radar. Let Nato bring it on, China and North Korea are also lurking nearby.

Tkester:


He's just a jester. Don't mind the doll.

CSTR2:
Given the intense power play going on, a WW111 is a likely possibility. Putin would soon over-reach to an extent that would make it impossible for US not to respond.
It is only a matter of time before america will ignore the global consequences of a US-russia war and just go for it especially under a republican presidency.
Having NATO's military support and readiness would be very much ideal.

CSTR2:
You and your likes are the jesters if you guys believe putin and his military is invincible.
It even makes it more obvious if you believe the US would not win over the chinese.

Tkester:



Stop giving your self false complexity, NATO and America cannot risk a war with Russia ( I mean only Russia). If AmErica decides to go to war with Russia, then it can only count on its support, many nations in Europe will never dare to fight Russia again. You will only find out how frail NATO is the moment America makes any move as to picking a fight with Russia. Oh what am I even saying? Didn't the UK back out of their planned coalition with the USA over military strikes on Syria, when Russia made it clear that it will come to Syria's assistance? Ditto Germany when America threatened to arm Ukraine.

It's pathetic how you guys make it sound as if the republican are not human. As if they are immune to death and destruction. Was it not a neocon republican who was the president of the U.S. When Russia invaded Georgia? I guess he bombed the hell out here of Russia. Wasn't it during the republican presidency that N. Korea tested its nuclear missile and what did the neocon do?

I hate arguments and long talk, I believe in action, putin is giving us actione and until America retaliates, till then Russia remains the Boss.

Tkester:



Had Putin not shown the world that he possesses Sea based cruise missiles, your likes (most especially missy89) will be running your mouths telling us how inferior Russia's military is: dey there very soon it go dawn for you.

CSTR2:
No problem.
I don't believe in talk either. Putin has drawn the first blood like you said, it is left for the US to respond.
Which is why i won't drag this issue any longer until after the US drops its inevitable response.

Tkester:



Stop giving your self false complexity, NATO and America cannot risk a war with Russia ( I mean only Russia). If AmErica decides to go to war with Russia, then it can only count on its support, many nations in Europe will never dare to fight Russia again. You will only find out how frail NATO is the moment America makes any move as to picking a fight with Russia. Oh what am I even saying? Didn't the UK back out of their planned coalition with the USA over military strikes on Syria, when Russia made it clear that it will come to Syria's assistance? Ditto Germany when America threatened to arm Ukraine.

It's pathetic how you guys make it sound as if the republican are not human. As if they are immune to death and destruction. Was it not a neocon republican who was the president of the U.S. When Russia invaded Georgia? I guess he bombed the hell out here of Russia. Wasn't it during the republican presidency that N. Korea tested its nuclear missile and what did the neocon do?

I hate arguments and long talk, I believe in action, putin is giving us actione and until America retaliates, till then Russia remains the Boss.

Shymm3x:
In as much as I think the whole threat of the RAF shooting down Russian planes was sensationalised by Dailymail and Dailyexpress (even Sunday Times took the bait) cos they're only arming the Tornado-GR4 with air-to-air missiles for protection against all eventualities - I don't think it's a wise thing to do. It seems these clowns have lost their minds.

I honestly don't know how the soon-to-be-decommissioned Tornado-GR4 can even go against the Russian aircraft. All Russia needs to do is send in MiG-31. Even the Su-34s currently in Syria would take out the Tornado-GR4. Scary times.

Missy89, Appleyard, Nairaminted, Tkester, Underground, CSTR2, lalasticlala et al - I have got food for you.

I shall be watching this one from the sideline and might chip in when I need to. But I'll leave you lot with the OP-ED on The Guardian by the ever reliable Diane Abott.

Tkester:


Good response. I like people like you, very objective. And not some kind of lady on this thread who will never see reason but chose to wallow and die in zombie fixation.

Bro one thing, are you in U.S.?

Missy89:

If i read correctly, The orders was that they should avoid Russia Jets at all cost but they should be ready to defend themselves IF THEIR LIVES DEPENDS ON IT.

I dont believe the news anyway or should i say the media made it sound as if British jets will be hunting Russian planes...but under normal circumstances, That is what any fighter pilot would do. If they are threatened they will use their missiles to defend themselves.

If it is true, There is nothing alarming about it at all. The Americans have decided to stay away from any Russian jet that is 20 nautical miles or there about to their own in Syria to prevent these kind of indecent. RAF probably kicked it up a notch and are preparing their pilots to have something to fight with.

If you think they have superior jets, why are they paranoid and summoning people everywhere. They should arm their war birds too and try to harass a tornado and lets see what will happen. Afterall, Russian defense chiefs have been ignoring their counterpart in the West since the beginning of their Syrian Crusade most of the time.

Shymm3x:


Do you actually believe that the Tornado-GR4 (not Eurofighter Typhoon) can go against the Russians in a dogfight? The Su-30s harassed Israeli F-15Es over Syria, and the MiG-29s also harassed Turkish F-16s over the airspace. And you think Tornado-GR4 stands a chance? You just want the UK to be at the receiving end of Russia's heavy-hand over a war that has nothing to do with the UK. I can see through ya BS.

Anyway, it's sensationalism and I believe the only reason why the Russians summoned the UK attache is basically just to clarify the statement.

Missy89:


RAF pilots are titans. Even the Supermarine Spitfire will shoot down anything the Russians throw at the Brits.

Shymm3x:


Do you actually believe that the Tornado-GR4 (not Eurofighter Typhoon) can go against the Russians in a dogfight? The Su-30s harassed Israeli F-15Es over Syria, and the MiG-29s also harassed Turkish F-16s over the airspace. And you think Tornado-GR4 stands a chance? You just want the UK to be at the receiving end of Russia's heavy-hand over a war that has nothing to do with the UK. I can see through ya BS.

Anyway, it's sensationalism and I believe the only reason why the Russians summoned the UK attache is basically just to clarify the statement.

NairaMinted:
Based on these extremely dangerous turn of events, all I can say is that shame on ANYONE that supports the reckless and downright evil actions of the US in the Middle East and in the world at large. How can one country in its drive for unbridled and blind desire for world hegemony take us all to the precipice of another world war? How can a country masquerading as a bastion of democracy unleash its proxy army of the vilest and most evil of terrorists across MENA just to have its way?

Would you believe that just today, a senate hearing committee was suggesting that Syrian refugees - the very same people that the mad men in Washington say they want to "liberate" from Assad - be used as human shields to prevent their so-called "moderate" rebels from being bombed by Russia? SOMEBODY SHOULD PLEASE DEFEND THIS INSANITY!

Shame on Missy89, shame on CSTR2, shame on anyone that is deluded enough to support this madness!! It may be Iraq, Libya, Syria, today, it might well be Nigeria tomorrow!

Tkester:



Stop giving your self false complexity, NATO and America cannot risk a war with Russia ( I mean only Russia). If AmErica decides to go to war with Russia, then it can only count on its support, many nations in Europe will never dare to fight Russia again. You will only find out how frail NATO is the moment America makes any move as to picking a fight with Russia. Oh what am I even saying? Didn't the UK back out of their planned coalition with the USA over military strikes on Syria, when Russia made it clear that it will come to Syria's assistance? Ditto Germany when America threatened to arm Ukraine.

It's pathetic how you guys make it sound as if the republican are not human. As if they are immune to death and destruction. Was it not a neocon republican who was the president of the U.S. When Russia invaded Georgia? I guess he bombed the hell out here of Russia. Wasn't it during the republican presidency that N. Korea tested its nuclear missile and what did the neocon do?

I hate arguments and long talk, I believe in action, putin is giving us actione and until America retaliates, till then Russia remains the Boss.

Missy89:


Lmao

Putin's propagandist.

CSTR2:
No problem.
I don't believe in talk either. Putin has drawn the first blood like you said, it is left for the US to respond.
Which is why i won't drag this issue any longer until after the US drops its inevitable response.

NairaMinted:


Obama's b*tch, thats all you got to say?

Missy89:


#FAIL, Not a fan of Obama.

Appleyard:
It has already drop her response: pulling her aircraft carrier from the Med while Russian fleeets moved in, staying away as far as 20-nautical miles from the Russians over the air in Syria, and complaining upon complaining.

That is ya response,, gringoo.

Missy89:


If i read correctly, The orders was that they should avoid Russia Jets at all cost but they should be ready to defend themselves IF THEIR LIVES DEPENDS ON IT.

I dont believe the news anyway or should i say the media made it sound as if British jets will be hunting Russian planes...but under normal circumstances, That is what any fighter pilot would do. If they are threatened they will use their missiles to defend themselves.

If it is true, There is nothing alarming about it at all. The Americans have decided to stay away from any Russian jet that is 20 nautical miles or there about to their own in Syria to prevent these kind of indecent. RAF probably kicked it up a notch and are preparing their pilots to have something to fight with.

If you think they have superior jets, why are they paranoid and summoning people everywhere. They should arm their war birds too and try to harass a tornado and lets see what will happen. Afterall, Russian defense chiefs have been ignoring their counterpart in the West since the beginning of their Syrian Crusade most of the time.

Appleyard:

Now, common Missy: what makes you think Russia can not stand up to the Uk Tornadoes or Hammatan what? Do you honestly believe the RAF can intimidate or bully the Russians in the skies, especially if the place is to be Syria? Cameron think say na James Bond movie him play?