Politicians, NATO Officials Furious As Spain Plans To Refuel Russian Battle Group

Tyler Durden's picture

Spain is facing international criticism as it reportedly prepares to refuel a flotilla of Russian warships en route to bolstering the bombing campaign against the besieged Syrian city of Aleppo. El País reported that the Spanish ministry of foreign affairs was reviewing the permit issued to the Russian flotilla to stop at Ceuta. Politicians and military figures condemned the support from a NATO member as "scandalous," and "wholly inappropriate," while the head of the alliance indicated Madrid should rethink the pit stop.

As The Guardian reports, warships led by the aircraft carrier Admiral Kuznetsov are expected to take on fuel and supplies at the Spanish port of Ceuta after passing through the Straits of Gibraltar on Wednesday morning.

Spanish media reported that two Spanish vessels, the frigate Almirante Juan de Borbón and logistical ship Cantabria, were shadowing the warships as they passed through international waters, and that the Admiral Kuznetsov, along with other Russian vessels and submarines, would dock at Ceuta to restock after 10 days at sea.


Late on Tuesday night, El País reported that the Spanish ministry of foreign affairs was reviewing the permit issued to the Russian flotilla to stop at Ceuta.


Last week British Royal Navy vessels monitored the Russian warships as they moved through the English Channel. The vessels were shadowed by the navy as they passed through the Dover Strait .



The enclave of Ceuta sits on the tip of Africa’s north coast, across the Straits of Gibraltar from mainland Spain, and bordering Morocco, which also lays claim to the territory. Although Ceuta is part of the EU, its Nato status is unclear, and since 2011 at least 60 Russian warships have docked there.

Nato said the prospect of Russia’s only aircraft carrier heading to the region does not “inspire confidence” that Moscow is seeking a political solution to the Syrian crisis.

The naval group is made up of Russia’s only aircraft carrier, Admiral Kuznetsov, as well as a nuclear-powered battle cruiser, two anti-submarine warships and four support vessels, likely escorted by submarines, Nato officials said.

The naval deployment, a rare sight since the end of the Soviet Union, is carrying dozens of fighter bombers and helicopters and is expected to join around 10 other Russian vessels already off the Syrian coast, diplomats said.

But, as The Telegraph reports, Spain is facing anger and criticism from all asunder at their decision to allow the refueling to occur...

Nato secretary-general Jens Stoltenberg warned on Tuesday that Russian warships heading for Syria could be used to target civilians.

“We are concerned and have expressed very clearly by the potential use of that battle group to increase air strikes on civilians in Aleppo,” Stoltenberg said, adding that it was “up to each nation to decide whether these vessels may obtain supplies and refuel at different ports along the route to the eastern Mediterranean”.


“The battle group may be used to increase Russia’s ability to take part in combat operations over Syria and to conduct even more air strikes against Aleppo,”

Guy Verhofstadt, former prime minister of Belgium and now the EU’s representative on Brexit talks with the UK, called Spain’s decision to allow the refuelling “scandalous”.

Sir Gerald Howarth MP, a former Defence Minister, said it would be “wholly inappropriate” for a Nato member to refuel the Russian vessels.

“Spain is a member of Nato and Nato is already facing challenges from Russia, not least in the Baltics.


The Russians stand accused of indiscriminate bombing in Aleppo and Syria and it would be inappropriate to render them military assistance.”

Former Royal Navy chief Lord West told the newspaper:

“There are sanctions against Russia and it’s an extraordinary thing for a Nato ally to do.”

*  *  *

Spain’s Foreign Ministry told the Telegraph requests from the Russian navy were considered on a “case by case basis, depending on the characteristics of the ship concerned”. A spokesman said: “Russian navy vessels have been making calls in Spanish ports for years”. But in an indication Madrid was feeling increased diplomatic pressure not to help Moscow, the Spanish government said it was reviewing the Russian request. The spokesman said:

“The latest requested dockings are being revised at the current time in light of information we are receiving from our allies and from the Russian authorities.”

Russia’s military visits are estimated each to bring in more than $400,000 to the city through a combination of mooring fees, fuel and supplies, and the money spent by sailors during their time onshore.

"As long as the Spanish government hasn't banned it, it is a commercial matter like any other vessel stopping to take on supplies, even if it concerns military ships,"

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
homonohumanus's picture

Way to go Spain, fuck those criminals, if there is anything looking like Justice in this world most of then will get judged and killed like the Nazi in their times. I hope the coming gen will see those "wanted" posters we are no longer used to see, they should find no rest...

BetaGap's picture

Help those who do something good.

Chris Dakota's picture
Chris Dakota (not verified) BetaGap Oct 26, 2016 4:14 AM

Barry Obola and Hillary Rodent have destroyed America, who wouldn't look to Putin's Russia now?

svayambhu108's picture

Looks like things are unraveling pretty fast for US, and the response is denial, big time, and that pretty much confirms it...

Shemp 4 Victory's picture

Well the dog barks, the caravan moves on...

Ghost of PartysOver's picture

Lots of cracks in the NATO Alliance starting to show.   Turkey and now Spain.  France would surrender to a pacifist.  Not sure where the Eastern EU countries stand.   Soon the USSA will be an island all to itself.

philipat's picture

And the world would be a better place for it!!

Dame Ednas Possum's picture

Most of the Eastern EU countries without puppets in charge would happily befriend Russia... sure the Soviet years were tough, but they know which side of the bread is buttered.

My wife is Czech and they know full-well that 1. Russia is not to be messed with, and 2. the USSA does not care for the needs/ interests of others. (In the first few weeks following 9/11 much of the European media were initially reporting that it was an inside job and done to advance an agenda).

Note: it's also interesting to consider that should Spain assist with refuelling, they would most likely just be returning the hydrocarbons that were originally piped in from Russia in the first place.

Déjà view's picture

Earlier Wednesday, Duterte said that he wants his country to be free of foreign troops, possibly within two years. "I want them out," he said.

"I want to be friends to China," he told an audience of businesspeople in Tokyo. "I do not need the arms. I do not want missiles established in my country. I do not need to have the airports to host the bombers."

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/wires/ap/article-3873458/Philippine-leader-Duterte-says-wants-foreign-troops-out.html#ixzz4OC2lzHgM 
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

the phantom's picture

Russia withdrew the request to dock, so that;s that.


EU political hysteria of "the Russians are coming" strikes again.  Meanwhile, no mention of the billions in weapons sales from Britain to the Saudi's to slaughter civilians in Yemen.  No mention of how many civilians have died in the Mosul offensive to liberate that city from terrorists.  Eastern Aleppo is controlled by Nusra and "moderate rebels" (haha) that the US promised to separate from Nusra but hasn't.  State Dept. says "Nusra is not a priority".  But aren't they a designated terrorist group?  Aren't they holding eastern Aleppo?  Why are we not trying to push them out... instead of shielding them?  I hope the public is starting to see this for what it really is, and has been, for a while now.

oncemore's picture

very correct. all of us hate USA, hate ziojewish regime imposed upon us. To the hell with zionists, to the hell with occupying fore, US Army.

Ghordius's picture

depends on your definition of NATO

"France would surrender to a pacifist"

good ol' bashing of France. from Vietnam to Freedom Fries in the Congress Cafeteria

nevertheless, there is a media-near-invisible French nuclear carrier operating off the coast of Syria, remember?

"Not sure where the Eastern EU countries stand"

I can tell you, but you won't like it

They point their fingers at the Bear and say: "Dangerous. We know the Bear. We were part of the Warsaw Pact, we were it's allies. Do Not Take The Bear Lightly. Do Not Poke It, Do Also Not Give The Bear Even One Inch Or Finger"

new game's picture

"could target civilains"; huh, duh, it is called collateral damage, ie drones hitting hopitals and wedding parties. hmmm, is the kettle black? did merica the great, provoke this conflict? hmmmm again. who is the aggressor? questions that need to be asked. and who is backing who? why is this happening? and who is the commander in chief? let us take a quick rundown of how the world got to this situation; ah fuck it, imo, it has spun to a place of no backing down. only things left are what side are the you on? winning is loosing no matter what happens...

Chris Dakota's picture
Chris Dakota (not verified) Ghordius Oct 26, 2016 6:29 AM

Hillary email proves France bombing Libya for Gold and Oil.

The email identifies French President Nicholas Sarkozy as leading the attack on Libya with five specific purposes in mind: to obtain Libyan oil, ensure French influence in the region, increase Sarkozy’s reputation domestically, assert French military power, and to prevent Gaddafi’s influence in what is considered “Francophone Africa.”

Most astounding is the lengthy section delineating the huge threat that Gaddafi’s gold and silver reserves, estimated at “143 tons of gold, and a similar amount in silver,” posed to the French franc (CFA) circulating as a prime African currency. In place of the noble sounding “Responsibility to Protect” (R2P) doctrine fed to the public, there is this “confidential” explanation of what was really driving the war [emphasis mine]:

This gold was accumulated prior to the current rebellion and was intended to be used to establish a pan-African currency based on the Libyan golden Dinar. This plan was designed to provide the Francophone African Countries with an alternative to the French franc (CFA).

(Source Comment: According to knowledgeable individuals this quantity of gold and silver is valued at more than $7 billion. French intelligence officers discovered this plan shortly after the current rebellion began, and this was one of the factors that influenced President Nicolas Sarkozy’s decision to commit France to the attack on Libya.)

Though this internal email aims to summarize the motivating factors driving France’s (and by implication NATO’s) intervention in Libya, it is interesting to note that saving civilian lives is conspicuously absent from the briefing.

Instead, the great fear reported is that Libya might lead North Africa into a high degree of economic independence with a new pan-African currency.

French intelligence “discovered” a Libyan initiative to freely compete with European currency through a local alternative, and this had to be subverted through military aggression.


Amun's picture

Thanks for the link

Astonishingly clear evidence and excuse for Libyans to raise France to ground in tit-for-tat retaliation


Bataclan shooting -  insider job





DiotheDog's picture

Yes, and the UK would fight with the US, Italy wouldn't be able to afford the fight but would provide unemployed fodder, Mercel and the Germans would stand by us, and Poland and most of the other nations would become neutrals.

jefferson32's picture

Ghordius, actually the Charles-de-Gaulle left through the Suez canal shortly after arriving; Putin even mocked Hollande for it.


flapdoodle's picture

Their Zionazi masters tell them to point their fingers at the Bear and say: "Dangerous. We know the Bear. We were part of the Warsaw Pact, we were it's allies. Do Not Take The Bear Lightly. Do Not Poke It, Do Also Not Give The Bear Even One Inch Or Finger"

And they comply.

There - fixed it for you.

philipat's picture

Good on ya Espanol. And I can see no reason why not? I am not aware of a state of war with Russia which would preclude such an action? And the Russian sanctions cover EXPORTS to Russia only.

Ghost of PartysOver's picture

Did the Russians get their Spiderman Towels with the fuel?  Or is that just a bankster ploy?

CuttingEdge's picture

If the US, through what ever means, starts the big one with Russia, Nato allies are obliged to help.

Maybe some of them are waking the fuck up to the reality of what the obligation of backing the blatant aggressor will ultimately cost, especially given where most of the action will go down (as usual).

BarkingCat's picture

That is not correct.

They would only be required to help if Russia is the one who attacked first.

If any NATO member shoots down a Russian plane over Syria then none if the NATO members are required to assist that nation when Russia retaliates. 

Does not mean that they will not. Many very likely would, but they are not under obligation to do so.

Erek's picture

"If the US, through what ever means, starts the big one with Russia, Nato allies are obliged to help."

Basically,  the treaty says that should any member country BE attacked the other member countries are obliged to help.

I don't think that a member country attacking another country falls under this catagory.

But then, it didn't seem to make a difference in Iraq, Afghanistan, etc...


NATO = Bullshit


Mareka's picture

I had attributed the bad outcome in Syria, Lybia, Iran, Iraq & Afganistan to bad descisions on the part of our leaders.

When Putin stepped in to do what Obama was supposidly trying to do, re-stabilize Syria, the US started working feverishly to undermine him.

It is crystal clear now that elements of our government are intentionally supporting radical Islam and fomenting a world war.

I can only guess that the goal is global governance.

Hillary's Arab Spring was essentially a global dirty bomb designed to fling radical Islam into every corner of the world.

The thing I don't get is where to the New World Order elites think they are going to live after they have turned the globe into a 3rd world cesspool.


OverTheHedge's picture

Perhaps the plan is to foment a genocidal religious war, with the good-guys being the Christians, or possibly the progressive, leftist, homosexual, transgendered activists. I suppose that the theory would be to remove 1.3 billion Moslems, an equal number of non-Moslems as collateral damage /  war dead, and then you have southern Africa eat itself. There might be a small amount of hubris baked into this particular cake - imagine if our transgendered, emasculated population failed to win!

I actually have no idea what TPTB are planning, and to be honest, I don't think they do, either. It seems to be a collection of Mafia dons who all have plans to stab all of the other party-goers in the back before the sweet trolley arrives. So many players seem to have alliances based on convenience and short-term gain; lots of fair weather friendships blowing in the wind at the moment.

Here's an astonishing idea, in two parts: 1. Nobody kills anybody else. 2. We try to work together to make everybody's' lives better. What do you think? Could it work as a political theory? It's a million to one chance, but it might just work? Do I need the /sarc?


BarkingCat's picture

it would be nice. Too bad that line of thought us foreign to psychopaths.

crossroaddemon's picture

I don't know why I bother, but for the love of God you are pointing your fingers too low. People like you are the reason that even a successful revolution would change nothing; you'd hang Obama and Clinton and meanwhile whoever heads up your new government would find themselves having no choice but to sell out to the Rothchilds because they control literally all of the world's money. In short, quit blaming the puppets. POTUS is controlled... not kinda controlled, not 95% controlled... 100% controlled. He has NO power. Obama and Clinton destroyed nothing because they don't get to make decisions. You need to set your sights a little higher up the totem pole.

Bobbyrib's picture

Propping up a corrupt criminal regime is no less honorable than installing a puppert government that will turn into a corrupt criminal regime. Both the US and Russia are wrong in this case. That being said, I do not fault Spain for refueling Russia's ships. The US will conitnue to lose influence. Our fuckery went to ridiculous extremes and seems to have gone too far.

Shemp 4 Victory's picture

Russia is not propping up a corrupt criminal regime.

Since the start of the US-instigated Syrian war, the Syrian government has had the wide support of its citizens.

Even US MSM acknowledged this before they were instructed to change the narrative.


Bobbyrib's picture

Are you saying Asswad is a good person and a good ruler? This country will probably do the unthinkable in about two weeks and elect Queen Hillary. She will probably garner the majority of the vote. Are you saying a government that assists in propping up Hillary would be a good government? No fucking way. Asswad is a horrible person and so are the assholes Washington is handing our weapons to (ISIS). Any way you look at it, the Syrian people lose. Even if there was no civil war.

Shemp 4 Victory's picture


Are you saying Asswad is a good person and a good ruler?

I am saying that I've seen no credible evidence that Assad is a bad person or an oppressive leader. I am also saying that he has the support of the majority of Syrians.

Asswad is a horrible person

Really? What other lies from the US MSM do you believe?

Any way you look at it, the Syrian people lose. Even if there was no civil war.

The Syrian people were doing well before the US orchestrated the current war, which is not a civil war but an invasion of paid mercenaries and their brainwashed followers.

CuttingEdge's picture

I caught this story originally from a female British freelance journo in Aleppo, but buggered if I can track down the video. Great report about wtf is really going on in Aleppo, and the little gem of the White Helmets being run by an ex-Blackwater/Academi officer (with $100m US taxpayers money) was the icing on the cake.



Nice test for anyone as to how rigged the whole fucking system is...

Search "Aleppo report" on Google side by side with DuckDuckGo. Notice the difference?


Charming Anarchist's picture

The rabbit hole runs deep. 

Aleppo is the home of a lot of archeological evidence which throws 99% of all Western historical narratives out the window. 

Bobbyrib's picture

"I am saying that I've seen no credible evidence that Assad is a bad person or an oppressive leader. I am also saying that he has the support of the majority of Syrians."

Asswad and his rulling party control who can run for the Presidency of Syria, unlike in our republic where you can just be drowned out by our media. So in Syria there would be someone like John Kerry running against him. There would be no Ron Pauls allowed to run, not even Jill Stevens, or Gary "knows nothing" Johnson (third party candidates). The Syrian elections were like that of any other crap country in that region that does not have at least republic ideals.

"Really? What other lies from the US MSM do you believe?"

So Asswad did not install a puppet government in Lebannon, the same way our leaders do in Central and South America?

"The Syrian people were doing well before the US orchestrated the current war, which is not a civil war but an invasion of paid mercenaries and their brainwashed followers."

I always heard the Syrian people were doing well and Syria was an emerging market economy. /sarcasm. You seem to use the term "doing well" in a releative term. Do you mean in comparison to Afghanistan and Iraq (two countries destroyed by the US)? How was the middle class of Syria doing under Asswad? Did the Syrian people have economic freedoms, the same way the US used to?

Give me a break, he is a third world dictator asshole like the rest of them. He started to learn about military strategies when he learned he would be taking over after his older brother died (his father was a member of the rulling party).

omi's picture

You trollin' hard, bro!

Shemp 4 Victory's picture


Give me a break, he is a third world dictator asshole like the rest of them.

I gave you a break. I posted this link


to an article which goes into considerable depth explaining the historical background of what is happening in Syria, how the current turmoil began (and the issues involved), the state of the Syrian economy before the 2011 invasion, who is involved (both overtly and covertly), and the falsehoods crafted by the US MSM. You never bothered to read it. Too long? Too many big words?

To have a point of view and understand the subject matter is not the same thing.

Bobbyrib's picture

"Washington funnelled arms to Brotherhood mujahedeen in the 1980s to wage urban guerrilla warfare against Hafez al-Assad, who hardliners in Washington called an “Arab communist.” His son, Bashar, continued the Arab nationalists’ commitment to unity (of the Arab nation), independence, and (Arab) socialism. These goals guided the Syrian state—as they had done the Arab nationalist states of Libya under Muammar Gaddafi and Iraq under Saddam. All three states were targeted by Washington for the same reason: their Arab nationalist commitments clashed fundamentally with the US imperialist agenda of US global leadership."

Nice article it makes a victim out of Gaddafi and Saddam Hussein. I suppose they never committed any atrocities either.

Dude if you research Germany during the early twentieth century, I doubt a lot of people did not not support the Nazi's. I'm sure Hitler had a "positive" view from the public as well.

I am aware that the US is wrong for supporting ISIS and trying to create an uprising in Syria, but it does not mean Russia is right for supporting Assad. It does not mean Assad is a just ruler who does not want to hold fair elections.

Victor von Doom's picture

+1 For clear thinking. You tell him Shemp.

N0TME's picture

ASSAD, which by the way, is his real last name, not the moniker you gave, is a kind and decent man who only has his citizens and his country in his best interest.  Trust me I have been watching this invasion by mercenary wahhabi sunni terrorists into Syria since it started in 2011.

Bobbyrib's picture

From the Russian point of view, I'm sure Assad is kind and decent man. From an objective stand point (that does not even need to be from the US or a western republic), I am not so sure.

Sandmann's picture

Russia is NOT committed to Assad.


USA, Israel, UK, Saudi, Qatar want the Breakup of Syria into Bantustans with Israel seizing Golan Heights in perpetuity

Victor von Doom's picture

He is the rightful Prince and beloved by his people.

The "Rebel Forces" are Saudi/Israeli/US trained jihadis from God knows where - not the citizenry.

Russia has had a military pact with Syria since Feb 1946, guarranteeing Syrian sovereignty.

NATO are the criminals funding the jihadis. They are the source of the evil.

Don't paint either Russia nor Syria with that brush of filth.

Bobbyrib's picture

The rightful Prince? I was unaware the right of divine rule was still in existence in the twenty-first century. Thank you for letting me know.

Victor von Doom's picture

It is in the real world. Only power matters, which is why he inherited the Presidency from his father.

Drop the sarcasm. Clarity of thought is what is required with world events, not smarmy remarks.

Bobbyrib's picture

Thank you my Russian friend. I will take your statement into consideration.

Moe Howard's picture

I guess you live in some kind of an information bubble. There are plenty of "divine rule" governments in the world.

Motasaurus's picture

The UK, for instance. And Denmark. And Holland. And Spain. And, if we get our second Clinton (if only the Repubs were as good at rigging the vote as the Dems we would have had a Clinton/Bush election like we were supposed to) then so too in the US.

Bobbyrib's picture

Yes, but how much power do the "monarchs" you mentioned have? Assad actually is the head of the Syrian state.