'Significant Deployment' Of British Troops And Tanks To US/NATO Base In Syria

Deployment of British Troops and TANKS to US/NATO Base in Al Tanf, Syria

There has been a very significant deployment of British Army Troops, Challenger Tanks, Cobra Helicopters and 2,300 STAFF to the United States / NATO  Al-Tanf military base.  

It now appears the US and its "coalition partners" are preparing to use significant force against . . .  someone other than ISIS . . . . in the area.  The only folks left in the area after the defeat of ISIS are Syria and Russian regular Army troops.   

MORE: Word coming in that assets of the US Navy's 6th Fleet are deploying to participate in certain operations in Syria.  ( Editor: This is starting to look very, very bad.)

Al-Tanf is a military base of the U.S.-led international coalition established in 2014 with a declared purpose of countering the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL). It is located in 23 km to the southwest from the Syrian town of Al-Tanf, in Homs Governorate. The military outpost was reportedly established in early 2016 to train anti–government fighters (″Vetted Syrian Opposition″).

The U.S. military in 2017 conceded that the presence of the U.S. troops in Syria without invitation of the Syrian government was both legally dubious and untenable in the event of Russia′s definitive opposition to it.

At the end of December 2017, the Chief of the Russian General Staff Valery Gerasimov said that the U.S. garrison at Al-Tanf was fully blocked by the Syrian government forces; he also said that the U.S. was using the base as a training facility for ex-ISIL militants.

On 8 February 2018, following the U.S. strikes in eastern Syria that resulted in multiple casualties among Russian PMCs, the Russian foreign ministry spokesperson said: ″The unlawful U.S.′ armed presence in Syria presents a serious challenge to the peace process and to the country's territorial integrity and unity. A 55-kilometer zone unilaterally created by Americans around their military base near al-Tanf is being used by the scattered units of Daesh terrorists″ for evading pursuit by government forces and re-grouping.

In mid-February 2018, Russia’s foreign minister Sergey Lavrov, in an exclusive interview with Euronews, said that U.S. military presence in Syria generally and in the area of Al-Tanf specifically was illegal and unacceptable.

Given the recent death of a former Russia spy inside Britain, and the British Government screaming blame at Russia for allegedly using a nerve agent to kill that spy (which also injured a number of others nearby), it seems that someone in Britain has gotten some bright idea about taking actions against Russia . . .  inside Syria.  This is especially possible because the British government has made no secret of its intent to "take action against Russia" over the alleged killing of the Spy on British soil.

 There are now public claims that the killing of the spy in Britain is a FALSE FLAG, orchestrated by either the Brits, Americans or both, to set Russia up as the supplier of a nerve agent called Novichok.   Trouble is, Russia destroyed all its supplies of that agent under supervision of UN observers.  

Russia is demanding that Britian supply it with samples of the alleged Novichok agent, so they can do their own analysis - but the British are NOT allowing that. (Maybe it could be discivered that the nerve agent was NOT from Russia???)

If this is a FALSE FLAG in the UK it is meant to tie Russia to the mysterious gas "Novichok"  The next move will be a huge provocation in Syria, where the same agent will be used causing many casualties among civilians.

Assad will be blamed, and Russia will be framed as the supplier of this gas.

Next will come a military strike by the US coalition on Syrian government headquarters in Damascus and if Russia strikes back, it's is WW3.

Russian nuclear subs quietly reached US coast & left undetected

Russian nuclear-powered submarines conducted an exercise near American military bases with the objective of avoiding detection as they came close to the US coast, a submarine squadron commander told a Russian military TV channel.

The stunning revelation was made in a military TV series set to air on Zvezda (‘Star’), the Russian Defense Ministry’s official broadcaster. The episode focuses on Akula-class Shchuka-B nuclear-powered attack submarines.

According to a submarine officer filmed in the show, the Navy command ordered to take position in the vicinity of US military bases during exercises.

“This mission has been accomplished, the submarines showed up in the set location in the ocean and returned to base,” the commander of the submarine squadron, Sergey Starshinov, told Zvezda.

Asked if the submarines had managed to stay off the radar during the mission, Starshinov replied: “Yes. This is our objective – to come and go undetected.” The Navy commander said the Russian vessels came “close enough” to American shores but did not violate US maritime borders, remaining in neutral waters.

The date and location of the covert mission have not been disclosed, but the channel said the Russian nuclear-powered submarines “reached the very coastline of the US.”

Shchuka-B submarine has been commissioned for the Soviet Navy in 1986. The nuclear-powered sub is capable of launching Kalibr or Granat cruise missiles, engaging underwater targets with its 553mm torpedoes, and staying submerged for up to 100 days, according to open sources.

As with many Russian nuclear submarines, the information of their status as well as current and past deployments is sparse. It is understood that several submarines of this class are being operated by the Russian Navy or undergoing modernization. One Shchuka-B submarine was leased to India, where it entered service under the name INS ‘Chakra’.

“The submarines that we're seeing are much more stealthy,” Admiral Mark Ferguson, commander of US Naval Forces in Europe at the time, told CNN. The Russians “have more advanced weapons systems, missile systems that can attack land at long ranges,” and their operational capabilities were getting better “as they range farther from home waters.”