Military Review

How Moscow defended Syria. The situation is similar today, evolved in the region and in 1957 year

32
How Moscow defended Syria. The situation is similar today, evolved in the region and in 1957 yearAs soon as the Syrian troops, supported by the majority of the country's population, began to win victories over the armed opposition, that is, around April 2013, the policy of the United States and NATO towards the current Syrian leadership sharply tightened. Hundreds of American marines were deployed to the north of Jordan near the border with Syria. This is reported by many sources, including, for example, London "The Times" And from Damascus to the border with Jordan, we note - only 60 km ...
Saudi Arabian King Abdullah interrupted his vacation in Morocco and returned to Riyadh, as officially reported, "in connection with the events unfolding in the region." Recall that the reaction of the USA and their satellites was very similar and in connection with the beginning of the turn of the situation in Libya in favor of M. Gaddafi and his loyal troops in June-August 2011.


As for the current position of Russia, Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov, in his recent speeches, declared that the West’s direct military support of the “anti-Assad” opposition and NATO’s plans to introduce the notorious zero-fly zone over Syria are unacceptable. Russia said it was ready to replace the Golan Heights - the area of ​​demarcation between the troops of Israel and the Syrian army - peacekeepers from Austria, but only at the request of the UN and if the countries of the region are interested in this. Iran also declares solidarity with the B. Assad government.

Recall that in this region a similar situation was already in 1957 year. However, the position of the USSR on Syria, unlike today, was supported by Egypt, Yemen, and Sudan at that time. In addition, the USSR in those years had large military bases not only in Egypt, but also in nearby Bulgaria and Albania.

Then, in 1957, the Americans tried to isolate and blow up Syria from within, which was completing negotiations with Egypt on the creation of the United Arab Republic.

(Recall, the UAR - the united state of Syria and Egypt officially existed from February 1958 to September 1971)

It was about the overthrow of the “pronaser” (Egyptian President Gamal Abdel Nasser) Syrian President Shukri Kuatli. At first it was planned to do this with the participation of Israel, Jordan and Lebanon, but under all sorts of pretexts their authorities were eliminated from such an “operation”. Unlike Turkey, directly or indirectly, heightened tension on the Turkish-Syrian border. (Turkey became a member of NATO in February 1952)

Five ships of the 6th American fleet approached the Syrian coast on September 8, and on the 24th another 38 US warships, headed by the Lake Champlin aircraft carrier, were transferred to the eastern Mediterranean. On the ships were about 10 thousand marines.

At the same time, the Soviet cruiser Zhdanov (in the photo) and the destroyer Svobodny were sent to the Syrian shores. Soon they arrived at the port of Latakia, and this was the first visit of the Soviet ships to Syria.

The ships of the Soviet Navy stayed in the Syrian port until October 1, which prevented the implementation of NATO plans against Damascus. And October 7 N.S. Khrushchev openly told the New York Times correspondent J. Reston that "the USSR is serious and will not allow an attack on the Syrians."
“The US ruling circles are literally pushing Turkey against Syria, and Turkey ... even bares certain parts of the border with the Soviet Union. But she does it in vain ... ". Khrushchev also added that “... the US is far from this area, and we are in the neighborhood. If guns start firing there, it will be hard to stop. From machine guns and guns, things can go as far as missiles, with grave consequences. And we make no secret of having sold some weapons Syria for its self defense. ”

Simultaneously, the 6-12 of October with the visits of the ports of Yugoslavia and Albania were visited by one cruiser and two destroyers of the Soviet Black Sea fleet. And on October 13, the Egyptian sea transports arrived in Syria Latakia, delivering the first detachments of Egyptian troops equipped with Soviet weapons to strengthen Syrian defense. The USSR strengthened its troops on the land and sea borders with Turkey, and in Istanbul military actions from the USSR and Bulgaria on the Black Sea began to be feared.

At the same time, the number of US troops at military bases in Turkey and Greece continued to increase.

However, the United States and its allies feared that Soviet ships could "lock up" the American fleet, together with their marines, between the bases of the USSR near Alexandria (Egypt) and Vlora (Albania).
In addition, the United States and Turkey never received unequivocal approval for intervention in the Syrian situation from London, which had military bases in Malta, Cyprus and up to October 1958 inclusive - in Jordan, as well as from Paris. The British and French, apparently, did not forget about the refusal of Washington to support them during the Egyptian crisis and aggravation of relations with the USSR in the autumn of 1956.

Managed to withdraw from the support of these aggressive plans and Iran. With a call to abandon the escalation of tension around and inside Syria, Yugoslavia came out in mid-October. And relations with her, as is known, were important for the United States, and indeed for the West as a whole.

Finally, on October 18, 1957 published a TASS Statement, which, inter alia, noted that “... the Turkish General Staff, together with American military advisers, developed an operational plan for conducting military operations against Syria ... No one should doubt that in the event of an attack to Syria, the Soviet Union, guided by the purposes and principles of the UN Charter and the interests of its security, will take all necessary measures to assist the victim of aggression. " At the same time, in Egypt, Sudan, Iraq, Yemen, Jordan, armed groups of volunteers were formed to be sent to Syria.


It was the principled position of Moscow, of other countries that also actually opposed the invasion of Syria, then allowed to preserve Syrian integrity and sovereignty.

So the dangerous precedent, directly linked to Syria, in the Middle East stories already was, and not so long ago, we note ...
Author:
Originator:
http://www.stoletie.ru/
32 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. 123_123
    123_123 28 June 2013 07: 15
    +4
    I would like Russia to still maintain a clear pro-Syrian position, including in the form of maintaining its military presence in the region, rather than withdrawing troops from one of its last foreign bases, the benefit of this, I think, is obvious.
    1. sscha
      sscha 28 June 2013 07: 33
      +9
      Good to all ... hi
      Rather than a pro-Syrian position, but a clear line of their policies in the Middle East, given the realities of the modern world. hi
      1. 123_123
        123_123 28 June 2013 08: 00
        +3
        Yes, of course. I mean the pro-Syrian position, because now it is beneficial for Russia. And so, of course, it doesn’t matter who you support, even the Syrians, even the Orthodox Jews, even the cannibals of Borneo ... Presenting it beautifully and humanely is the business of diplomats and PR technologists, if only this is in line with the interests of Russia, the industry was loaded with orders, research institutes received the required filling budgets, there was no unemployment, and pensioners received material worthy of their long-term and often heroic work ... and it is impossible to make the whole world happy, and if it is in Russia's interests, taking into account all the nuances, to sell the products of their military-industrial complex, then this should be done if it is beneficial where- then the military presence of Russia, it should be. They don’t give a damn about the opinions of other countries — they think about their citizens, and we should think about our own, about our interests.
      2. Gladiatir-zlo
        Gladiatir-zlo 30 June 2013 16: 55
        0
        I agree, it is high time to solve geopolitical issues, away from their native cities and their land. Enough to be a testing ground for war. And if it is absolutely impossible without war, then let the war be far away.
    2. Russian
      Russian 28 June 2013 07: 41
      +9
      That was the power! Military bases around the world, and now even in their native Black Sea, Ukraine does not allow the fleet to be updated, and even among the Turks the fleet is already beginning to prevail over ours.
      I hope the government will no longer dance to the tune of others, as before, and in case of an attack on Syria will send to hell all tolerance and friendliness.
      1. Uncle
        Uncle 28 June 2013 13: 37
        0
        Quote: р_у_с_с_к_и_й
        will send to hell all tolerance

        Yeah, his tolerance is dark, a word ...
    3. aviamed90
      aviamed90 30 June 2013 17: 15
      0
      123_123

      Tell me, do we have troops in Tartus?
      Or am I missing something?

      "The 720th Logistics Point (PMTO) of Russian Navy ships in Tartus (Syria) is the only place of permanent presence of Russian warships in the Mediterranean and the only Russian military post in the far abroad. It consists of several small structures and two floating piers 100 meters long each (of which only one is in good condition). " (VKP).

      "The staff is 4 people, while at the beginning of 2002 the staff was about 50" (VKP).
  2. Akhtuba73
    Akhtuba73 28 June 2013 07: 18
    +7
    So, a dangerous precedent directly related to Syria has already been in Middle Eastern history, and not so long ago, note ...
    This is how to look ... a glass half empty or full?
    A dangerous situation was created by the United States, as now, no doubt. But the solution of the question remained with the USSR !!! Decisively and competently showed everyone a fist of friendship. Here is a precedent to which most of all it is necessary to pay attention, draw historical analogies and take as a basis. The glass is half full!
    Yes, I’m not arguing, Russia is not like the USSR then ... but that’s why it’s necessary to clench your fists
  3. Marconi41
    Marconi41 28 June 2013 07: 45
    +3
    So, a dangerous precedent directly related to Syria has already been in Middle Eastern history, and not so long ago, note ...

    Unfortunately, Russia now is not the USSR then. Behind him stood the entire Warsaw Pact and a bunch of countries supported by USSR money. Now it’s much harder for us. Nevertheless, I hope the Russian Federation will maintain the inflexibility of its position in Syria.
    1. IOwTZ
      IOwTZ 2 July 2013 19: 02
      0
      Unfortunately, Russia now is not the USSR then. Behind him stood the entire Warsaw Pact and a bunch of countries supported by USSR money. Now it’s much harder for us.



      And what is more difficult? Oil flows in rivers at unbelievable prices, Russia does not have serious projects (such as the USSR had - BAM, Transib, Belomorkanal, etc.) i.e. there’s nothing to spend money on. We don’t build houses, there aren’t enough kindergartens, schools are falling apart, education is paid, etc. The population in comparison with the USSR decreased by more than 2 times. It turns out, pay meager pensions, beggarly child allowance and all. There is a lot of money in the country (there were not a lot of them in the 90s), they are simply not for us. You can pay decent pensions for our mothers and fathers who deserve it, to pay good child benefits for our talented children. The state can do it easy. But no, for some reason it doesn’t work out for any reason. What can I say, if the president of Russia still moves on a Mercedes. And for us, fools, they are throwing information that the presidential limousine is supposedly being developed at the ZIL base, but we still can’t approve the sketch. So in all directions, including Syria. Secretly surrender.
  4. DRUG DRUG
    DRUG DRUG 28 June 2013 08: 24
    +5
    Russia's position on the Syrian issue is now firm and consistent: Russia supports Syria and will support it by all means and means, from political to military.
    1. aviamed90
      aviamed90 30 June 2013 17: 12
      0
      DRUG DRUG

      Political - I see, but the military - something is not particularly observed so far, except for the supply of weapons.
      And then, with the S-300 there was some kind of fuss.
      1. vBR
        vBR 30 June 2013 20: 20
        0
        A bit for the Mi-8s of spare parts and that's it ... For three years. This is despite the fact that at least they could transfer Soviet stockpiles decaying in reserve for free (tanks, infantry fighting vehicles, spare parts, small arms), which all the same can be written off according to the calendar period, because all this is knocked out by the army during the fighting. You can’t understand the S-300 at all, and the declared amount is too small. In short, the actions of the authorities have not yet convinced. Cheating and diplomatic picks will not help much
  5. Oberst_71
    Oberst_71 28 June 2013 08: 30
    -22 qualifying.
    Well, as expected, Putin has no political will. Syria, he has most likely passed.
    1. deputy ___ watered
      deputy ___ watered 28 June 2013 09: 22
      +4
      And therefore, our troops are preparing to carry out peacekeeping missions in this region!)))
    2. Simon
      Simon 28 June 2013 09: 44
      +6
      Putin has not handed over Syria and will never do it, these are your prejudices. stop fool
      1. Setrac
        Setrac 28 June 2013 13: 19
        +4
        Quote: Oberst_71
        Well, as expected, Putin has no political will. Syria, he has most likely passed.

        These are the dreams of an American spy.
        1. SASCHAmIXEEW
          SASCHAmIXEEW 28 June 2013 13: 38
          +1
          Oberst-American spy!? To his wall ...
      2. vBR
        vBR 30 June 2013 20: 29
        0
        So you have the same "prejudices". You might think you know what is in Putin's head and what shadow agreements exist between the Western elite and ours. In reality, they hardly help Syria by military means, but they could have done a lot. Okay, don't give up diplomatically yet. When we see new helicopters, air defense missile systems, or the CSTO contingent there, then we can say with certainty that they did not pass. In the meantime, these are hopes, albeit not unfounded
  6. sanych your division
    sanych your division 28 June 2013 09: 17
    13
    yes ... there were times ... one TASS statement was enough for the jackals and hyenas to escape. but what about the phrase - Soviet ships can lock up the American fleet ..- !!! Hunchback to the wall would be necessary. Such a country is about .. al ..
  7. igor_ua
    igor_ua 28 June 2013 09: 17
    +1
    they won’t surrender it - big money is at stake - the oil and gas market of Europe.
    1. SASCHAmIXEEW
      SASCHAmIXEEW 28 June 2013 13: 40
      +1
      And this is so ... Surrendering to yourself is more expensive !!!!!
  8. deputy ___ watered
    deputy ___ watered 28 June 2013 09: 19
    +1
    Hello! That the situation is similar internationally, but in the conflict inside Syria, both about "religious" rhetoric (Salafis are striving for power) and an attempt to create a "democratic state" in the Middle East are used. Accordingly, even with the departure of the current leadership, there will be an armed confrontation. And another question whose patrons will hand over their tools for achieving goals! I bet on "green", although it is less profitable for Russia.
  9. NOMADE
    NOMADE 28 June 2013 09: 21
    0
    I don’t know, but in connection with the latest events, that is, a strange combination of circumstances - the collapse of a container ship, the shooting of a convoy with weapons, it seems to me that Russia is taking some kind of action.
    Especially with the wreck of a cargo ship, his nose was so beautifully torn off)) Submariners, ay? )))
    Although I could be wrong, it can really be a coincidence.
    But the news from Qatar (on the border pull up heavy armored vehicles) is already alarming (
  10. SPIRITofFREEDOM
    SPIRITofFREEDOM 28 June 2013 09: 28
    +1
    eprst, and why, after that precedent, do we not have there on an ongoing basis an airfield and military base?
    Syrian government would only be glad
    And in due time, if they had set up a couple of Escander cosplay complexes, then right now everything was sunny in Syria!
  11. Simon
    Simon 28 June 2013 09: 53
    0
    Perhaps now the airfield will appear soon, but the base is in Tartus. Before that, Russia was weak, could not contain many bases after the reorganization of the hunchback and liberal reforms, for example, in Vietnam. Okay, even though the base in Tartus still remains, it only needs to be developed. yes
    1. aviamed90
      aviamed90 30 June 2013 17: 00
      +1
      Simon

      Time Lost!
      Try it - tuck into Tartus now!
      In a moment they will be recorded as "aggressors", "murderers" and "enemies of democracy"!

      This had to be done before the slaughter.
  12. vladsolo56
    vladsolo56 28 June 2013 11: 31
    +3
    only unlike Khrushchev, does Putin in every way conceal Syria’s help, and he does not at all express his intention to openly help her in case of direct intervention.
  13. MG42
    MG42 28 June 2013 12: 27
    +3
    Khrushchev didn’t especially stand on ceremony especially in relations with the USA = he had enough decisiveness, after these events of 1957 there was still the Caribbean crisis of 1962 ..
    1. SASCHAmIXEEW
      SASCHAmIXEEW 28 June 2013 13: 45
      -2
      Khrushch is the same d..mo, like a hunchbacked, narrow-minded person who seized power, he did a lot of "good" to the country !!!
      1. Argon
        Argon 28 June 2013 15: 32
        0
        Why is he so bad in that he calculated the country's money for the first time, correctly prioritized and gave the people the opportunity to change their 15 year old sweatshirts for drapies?
    2. aviamed90
      aviamed90 30 June 2013 17: 06
      0
      MG42

      Of course!
      After all, behind him was one of the most powerful armies in the world for that period of time! He could afford it!
  14. badabing
    badabing 28 June 2013 17: 04
    +1
    whatever Khrushchev was, but kept the rhetoric in the spirit of Stalin and his followers
    even we lost the ability to talk
    although it may be because there is nothing to "cover" with .. especially and you will not threaten
    although in the face to poke Americans with their double standards of facts is full, the whole world damn knows everything, and they arrange this UN Circus, whose clown is better
    madhouse chesslovo
  15. lucidlook
    lucidlook 28 June 2013 18: 59
    +1
    Truly, one who does not know it does not draw conclusions from history. Learn.
  16. s.melioxin
    s.melioxin 28 June 2013 20: 40
    -1
    It’s a war, for some it’s also a mother, only now and not for us. The first funeral, for some for sons, for some for husbands, for some grandchildren. This will be a disaster for all of today's Russia.
  17. xomaNN
    xomaNN 28 June 2013 21: 37
    0
    There were times when the adversary was afraid of us, despite his superiority in military power!
  18. PValery53
    PValery53 28 June 2013 21: 47
    0
    Yeah, so this story comes back from the 50s! -Well! -Rip on the same sources of malice more energetic! -The same mattresses, the same cheap Saudis and Qatari hirelings! - Everyone to the nail with rockets! - shameful!
  19. wecher75
    wecher75 29 June 2013 02: 58
    0
    I hope now the leadership of Russia will show the same principle and firmness