Al Jazeera: Why Russia did not respond to the US strikes on Syria
Despite its hostile rhetoric, Russia has taken care to avoid confrontation on the ground in Syria.
After a week of rhetorical escalation between the US and Russia - much of it conducted on Twitter - missile strikes on Syria were finally carried out on Saturday. US, UK and French forces launched attacks on three sites allegedly linked to the production of chemical weapons near Damascus, as well as in the province of Homs.
Despite the pathos with which US President Donald Trump announced the military operation, its result turned out to be less than modest. Putting aside the contradictory reports on how many missiles struck their intended targets, they did not cause any military casualties and failed to inflict any serious damage on Syrian military infrastructure. Compared to the recent Israeli air raid on the T-4 base, the result of the April 14 strikes seems rather insignificant.
Read more ....
WNU Editor: No Russian military personnel were injured or killed from these air strikes (that we know of), so that avoids an immediate Russian response. What I find interesting is that when the missiles were launched, Syrian air defense kicked in, but the Russians did nothing. This tells me that a deliberate decision was made to not engage unless ordered to by Moscow. And while some may feel relieved that a bad situation could have escalated into something worse .... I do not share these sentiments. There is going to blow-back in the future, and I predict it is going to be directed against U.S. forces in eastern Syria.
7 comments:
Go ahead keep testing to your detriment.
More than willing to kick out a leg from the Chinese oligarchy.
Easier now than later.
If the Russians had shot and missed, not good, loss of face and object of heavy scrutiny by Americans and Israelis. This keeps that small amount of uncertainty. It could also be a message from Putin to the Syrian and Iranian forces "this is what happens when you don't have me for protection, so you better listen when I tell you something" for internal discipline.
"If the Russians had shot and missed, not good, loss of face and object of heavy scrutiny by Americans and Israelis. This keeps that small amount of uncertainty. It could also be a message from Putin to the Syrian and Iranian forces "this is what happens when you don't have me for protection, so you better listen when I tell you something" for internal discipline. "
All could be true.
There is that uncertainty.
Sometimes it is better to keep an army in the field that to test it. You go farther.
The Russians had every reason to prove to the world their S-400’s are capable systems, shooting down a bunch of cruise missiles would have resulted in billions of immediate arms sales. It would have humiliated the western powers as a bonus and it wouldn’t have killed any Americans. Win for Russia. I think the reason the attack was successful was because the Russians didn’t see the incoming missiles in time.
Given the Russians have launched failed ground attacks on US allied forces and US forces, it’s obvious future attack’s will happen, the only question is will Russian forces assist the attacker’s?
First: the above commenters are either speculating or claiming to know things they couldn't possibly know.
Secondly: All we do know with certainty is that the Russian air defenses fired no missiles in response to the US-led strikes. We don't know what other types of support they may have provided the Syrian air defenses. For example, are the Russians able to provide the Syrians with radar data from their systems in Latakia and Tartus in real time, and if so, did they? That kind of link up, if it exists, could've greatly enhanced the effectiveness of Syrian air defenses.
That's also speculation
Post a Comment