ADVERTISEMENT

Russia missile for Syria, hit Iran instead.....CLAIMS CNN.

MemorialRedWarrior

All-Conference
Sep 22, 2015
337
69
28
http://www.cnn.com/2015/10/08/politics/russian-missiles-syria-landed-iran/index.html

Washington (CNN)A number of cruise missiles launched from a Russian ship and aimed at targets in Syria have crashed in Iran, two U.S. officials told CNN Thursday.

Monitoring by U.S. military and intelligence assets has concluded that at least four missiles crashed as they flew over Iran.


The U.S. believes, based on intelligence reports of damage assessments, that some buildings were damaged and civilians may have been hurt.

It's unclear where in Iran the missiles landed. The Russian ships have been positioned in the south Caspian Sea, meaning the likely flight path for missiles into Syria would cross over both Iran and Iraq.

The Russians have been firing a relatively new cruise missile called "Kaliber," using it for the first time in combat.


Read More

READ: U.S. aircraft diverted to avoid Russian fighter in Syria

The Russian Defense Ministry, however, took strong issue with the CNN report in a posting on Facebook Thursday.

"Unlike CNN, we don't report quoting anonymous sources, but we show launches of our missiles and the targets they hit in real-time mode," the statement reads, noting that Russian drones are operating in Syria around the clock, presumably monitoring operations.

It continues, "No matter how unpleasant and unexpected it is for our colleagues in the Pentagon and Langley, our strike yesterday with precision-guided weapons at ISIS infrastructure in Syria hit its targets."

In response, one U.S. official familiar with the intelligence reports told CNN, "These are the people who told us there were no little green men in Crimea."
 
This is very interesting to me. From what I have read, it appears CNN is making claims that Russia missile diverted into Iran. Then Russia spokes people claimed that they had not, and that their missiles had hit the intended targets.
If there were in fact missiles that hit Iran, is it possible that someone else besides the Russians actually sent them? This situation is getting out of hand very quickly.
 
iran shoots it down after Obama gives them the go ahead to be terrorists and to be warlords
 
I hope we got all the English words and American flags off those missiles before the Russians shot them off. ;)
 
These Rooskies are deviant fiends. Problem is that we can't exactly criticize what they are doing, considering we do the very same thing all the damn time.
 
  • Like
Reactions: strummingram
It's entirely possible the Russians were aiming for a target in Iran and the missiles hit their mark.
 
It's entirely possible the Russians were aiming for a target in Iran and the missiles hit their mark.
The Rooskies are causing all sorts of havoc. They seem to be taking out the opposite of who we want taken out. Stallone needs to make Rocky movie with the return of Ivan Drago vs. him. The last time they did that, a few years later, The Soviet Union fell.
 
Yeah, the Washington Post reported on this yesterday:


Several cruise missiles fired from Russian ships at targets in Syria Wednesday crashed in Iran, according to Pentagon officials.

Twenty-six cruise missiles, launched from the Caspian Sea, traveled more than 900 miles over Iran and Iraq before hitting targets throughout Syria, according to a statement by the Russian Defense Ministry Wednesday.

However, according to a senior U.S. defense official who requested anonymity to discuss intelligence matters Thursday, a few of the missiles did not make it to their intended targets.

[Syrian forces begin ground offensive backed by Russia air and sea power]

Reports on Iranian TV indicated that an “unidentified flying object” had crashed and exploded in a village near near the Iranian city of Takab. A number of cows were killed in the ensuing blast.

While it is unclear what made the missiles crash, videos posted on social media showed them flying overhead at low altitude. While it is common for cruise missiles to fly low (to avoid radar detection), it can make traversing mountainous terrain perilous.

imrs.php

The Russian Defense Ministry in Wednesday’s statement however, said that the new Kalibr-NK cruise missiles all hit within nine feet of their intended targets. The strikes landed in Raqqa, Idlib and Aleppo provinces, and Russian officials said they destroyed Islamic State positions, including training camps and ammunition depots.

Thursday, the Russian Ministry of Defense also rejected the United States’ claims some of their missiles went off course. According to ministry spokesman, Maj. Gen. Igor Konashenkov, “all rockets fired from ships found their target.”

The Kalibr cruise missile is a relatively new addition to Russia’s arsenal, and according to IHS Jane’s analyst Jeremy Binnie, Wednesday’s launch was the first time the missile’s 900-plus-mile range had been made public.

[Russia declares partial victory in bombing campaign in Syria]

While cruise missiles are traditionally used at the beginning of bombing campaigns to hit multiple high-value targets simultaneously while avoiding radar detection and maintaining the element of surprise, Russia’s strikes did none of those things. Instead, Binnie believes, everything that was targeted by the Russian cruise missiles could have easily been hit by other Russian assets within Syria (more than 50 aircraft) or possibly by Russian ships in the Mediterranean Sea.

“I think if you look at what cruise missiles are traditionally used for . . . this isn’t one of those scenarios,” Binnie said. “Russia has been striking the [Islamic State] for more than a week, and the U.S. has been for more than a year.”

imrs.php

Binnie went on to say that the cruise missile strikes were probably a show of Russian military force and technology, noting that the ships that fired the missiles — mostly small missile corvettes — were intended to demonstrate that even the small ships in the Russian navy are stronger than they look.

According to the Russian Defense Ministry, the smaller ships that participated in the strikes are approximately 230 feet long and their primary weapon is the Kalibr cruise missile. The flagship of the strike group, the Dagestan, is 320 feet long and displaces 2,000 tons.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...-cruise-missiles-russia-just-sent-into-syria/
 
This is very interesting to me. From what I have read, it appears CNN is making claims that Russia missile diverted into Iran. Then Russia spokes people claimed that they had not, and that their missiles had hit the intended targets.
If there were in fact missiles that hit Iran, is it possible that someone else besides the Russians actually sent them? This situation is getting out of hand very quickly.

6a00d834515edc69e2015390a02fbb970b-pi
 
  • Like
Reactions: IACub
Is to possible to hack into missles path technology?
 
I posted in another thread about this conflict that there is the possibility that Putin wants to show off certain military technologies for export. Using cruise missiles in this conflict doesn't make a lot of sense when the air power the Russians have placed in Syria should do the job.
Of course Russia is throwing a hissy fit and claiming all the missiles made direct hits. They are trying to sell the stuff. Another interesting point is the ships that fired them. The Russians lost a lot of capability to make large ships when Ukraine split off from the USSR, and Russia can only manufacture smaller ships. The same reason they were trying to buy amphibious assault ships from France. This is a lot of dangerous bluster by Putin and his generals.
 
Remember that the enemies of our enemies are our friends, or something like that. This is turning into one, giant cluster muck. I think it's time to step back, let Putin take the heat, and see what develops. By the time this is over... Iran will be mad at Russia, and Iran may just turn out to be a big ally of ours.

Either way... the situation seems to be deteriorating quickly. Guess the folks who wanted the price of oil to go back up just might be getting their wish in short order.
 
I posted in another thread about this conflict that there is the possibility that Putin wants to show off certain military technologies for export. Using cruise missiles in this conflict doesn't make a lot of sense when the air power the Russians have placed in Syria should do the job.
Makes sense.

It's nice for arms dealers to have some "little wars" to test and advertise their wares. I suspect testing is also a part of Russia's aim.

It's especially nice when the blame for the little wars can be laid on your competitor's doorstep.
 
Ciggy: I keep reading your stuff and it's like a world history on-line course. Keep it up!

Here's another interesting article on Russo-Turkey relations over the years:

Resize Text

Comments 14


By Ishaan Tharoor October 9 at 3:30 AM

It's a tense moment for relations between Russia and Turkey. Moscow's intervention into the conflict in Syria, almost explicitly on behalf of the embattled regime of President Bashar al-Assad, has infuriated Ankara, which for years has led international calls for Assad's departure.

The situation grew darker following reports of Russian fighter jets violating Turkish airspace earlier this week. "An attack on Turkey means an attack on NATO," said Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan, whose country possesses the second largest army in the NATO military alliance.

Erdogan warned the Kremlin that its relationship with Turkey was in peril.

"Our positive relationship with Russia is known," he said. "But if Russia loses a friend like Turkey, with whom it has been cooperating on many issues, it will lose a lot, and it should know that."

The thinly veiled warning is a glimpse of the scale of the current crisis. In recent years, the two countries have shared reasonably close ties, anchored in energy interests. Erdogan's political style, meanwhile, has a great deal in common with that of Russian President Vladimir Putin.

[Why Putin and Erdogan are made for each other]

But there is a long, profound history of unease between Russian and Turkish rulers. During the Cold War, Turkey was a heavily armed NATO bulwark in the shadow of the Soviet empire. And well before the advent of the U.S.S.R. and the modern Turkish republic, the jockeying between Russians and Turks had a huge impact on the political fate of a vast sweep of Europe and the Middle East.

1877 Wood Engraving Kars Fortress Turkey Crimean War Russia Ottoman Empire XEA7 http://t.co/cgc54m4WBr pic.twitter.com/JBrKxRuaKp

— extremely incredible (@miramontesrobe5) May 16, 2015

Wars, deportations, and the specter of genocide

In the 18th and 19th centuries, the expansionist Russian empire and the Ottomans fought myriad wars. They largely resulted in Ottoman setbacks, with the Russians wresting control of the northern rim of the Black Sea and chipping away at Ottoman domains in Eastern Europe and the Balkans. The Crimean War, a bloody, brutal conflict in the 1850s, brought in an alliance of European powers in defense of the Ottomans and saw the continent's first chilling encounter with the horrors of large-scale trench warfare.

The rulers of both empires saw themselves as standard bearers of civilizations -- the Ottomans as the seat of Islam, the Russians as the champions of the Orthodox Church and the redeemers, even, of the legacy of the ancient Byzantines. The czars in Moscow coveted Istanbul, and saw in its conquest a pathway to the warm waters of the Mediterranean and suzerainty over the Holy Lands.

[The Christian zeal behind Russia's Syria war]

That never came to pass, but a lot else did. Russian campaigns in the Caucasus and lands around the Black Sea saw the massacre and mass deportations of populations of Turkic Muslims. In 1864, for example, Russian forces carried out what some have deemed "the first modern genocide on European soil" after they seized the lands of the Circassians -- which include the area around Sochi where Russia staged last year's Winter Olympics.

Tens of thousands of Circassians were systematically butchered; countless others died of starvation or cold as they trekked into exile. Some accounts suggest as many as a million -- half of the ethnic group's total population -- died at the time. Now, up to 5 million Turks claim some form of Circassian or other Caucasian heritage.

It worked in the other direction, as well. Most infamously, as World War I raged, the Ottomans carried out mass deportations and killings of the empire's Armenians, the vast majority of whom lived in what is now central and eastern Turkey. Fearing this community of Christians to be a potential Russian fifth column, Ottoman leaders gave orders for their removal from their homelands.

WorldViews documented the scale of the tragedy that took place beginning in 1915, which saw countless Armenians executed, raped and forced into grim death marches into the desert. Scholars, international organizations and a host of Western governments all believe the atrocities amount to genocide. An estimated 5 million Ottoman civilians perished between 1914 and 1922, casualties of the upheavals that surrounded the empire's implosion.

Hundreds of thousands of Armenians eventually escaped to Russian lands, some settling in what is now modern-day Armenia -- once a part of the Ottoman Empire that, until the 19th century, was largely Muslim.


The birth of nations

In the 19th century, Russia played a prominent role in fomenting nationalism in parts of Eastern Europe and the Balkans once lorded over by the Muslim Ottomans. Russia had a hand in a number of prominent 19th century liberation movements -- from Greece to Serbia to Bulgaria. That was a role that led it into a geopolitical competition with the Austro-Hungarian empire, tensions that would eventually flare into World War I.

The wars that flared in the late 19th century, including the seismic Russo-Turkish war of 1877-1878 and the later Balkan wars that preceded World War I, made clearer the borders of Eastern Europe's future nation-states. It also saw massive population displacements, the exodus of Christian, Jewish, and Muslim refugees in various directions, and the collapse of the fragile cosmopolitanism that once characterized parts of the Ottoman Empire, especially its port cities.


The map of the Middle East

The political map of the modern Middle East is considered to be the product of French and British scheming in the aftermath of World War I and the collapse of the Ottoman Empire. But Russia played its part as well, assenting to the 1916 Sykes-Picot agreement upon whose lines the boundaries of the region are partially (but not entirely) drawn.

The Bolshevik revolution voided some of the commitments made to Moscow -- which included control over Istanbul as well as a mandate for eastern Anatolia. But British and French strategists at the time were fully aware of the shadow of Russia, and arrayed their spheres of influence accordingly.

The Arab states that eventually emerged have all grappled with their own dysfunctions--challenges of governance, identity and ethnicity that still carry the seeds of far older conflicts.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...nd-turks-shaped-the-world/?tid=pm_world_pop_b
 
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT