Russia's reaction in case of US/West attack to Syria

Hannibal Barca wrote:People say about Syria. Ukraine was really the worrying sign that some missed due to the acquisition of Crimea.
I would not complain if there were signs of Russia strengthening but there aren't enough of them.
Economy is the constant patient of Russia, international politics will not ever improve if you fail to show face and military complex grows more to a modern effective force ready to protect
interests against middle to small powers like France or UK than a platform to fight with the best in the world.
Russian people still put the bar way too low comparing with the tiny declining western European nations whom they still can't surpass.
It's quite telling that Russian GDP PPP per capita it's still comfortably below Greek GDP despite a disastrous decade, a tiny poor country, isolated from EU mainland,
quite backward, with no development plan, with no natural resources being the poorest nation in Eurozone. 25 years after the collapse of Soviet Union this is an abysmal record.
In historic comparison Carthage was already besieging Rome 25 years after the end of the first Punic war and Hannibal was annihilating one Roman army after the other....

And of course we all know what happened to Carthage in the end...

Cyprus has provided base to russia . Get your facts updated swede. Who will destroy s-300 ? With russians onborad it will become a tussle like it happened in 2013. US will be the first one to retract if Russia dares.

So what do the geniuses in this thread think Russia should do in response to the US escelation against Syria?

Threaten the US with war?

Is that really what you think Russia should do?

flamming_python wrote:So what do the geniuses in this thread think Russia should do in response to the US escelation against Syria?

Threaten the US with war?

Is that really what you think Russia should do?

this paratrooper story is ok, everyone knows it wont happen but its basically saying if you start bombing government forces under the guise of protecting the US trained syrian mercs, we are sending in our troops, than one wrong bomb dropped and you got a nuclear war.

sepheronx wrote:

flamming_python wrote:So what do the geniuses in this thread think Russia should do in response to the US escelation against Syria?

Threaten the US with war?

Is that really what you think Russia should do?

War? No. But to supply Assad with what he needs to deter US and Israel. Maybe even send pilots/aircrafst for air support.

Aggreed, make it for US same like in Korea or Vietnam where russian pilots would shoot down US jets, or better get SAM's and showcase and train syrians to protect their own skies from such world abominations like US. Just right out of bad PR the US will avoid trying to bomb as soon they relies russians are operating SAM's no more F-22, they will immidiatley retreat them from there to avoid any kind of bad PR since the US doctrine since decades is to deny any losses they can deny, when russians shoot down their jets, nothing can be denied, with todays times every idiot has a phone with good cameras, even kids running around with such phones. The US would not want that and would invest more in proxy mercenaries they call "modest rebels" or ISIS, both are financed and controlled. They are much easier to deal alone, when no air strikes are hitting Syrian established and fortified positions. They do not strike randomly but are striking there where they see it necessary for terrorists to progress and overthrow Asad, so this would help without direct involvement or losses of russians and after US black ops and mercenaries are officially in ukraine, russia can do wtf it wants.

sepheronx wrote:

flamming_python wrote:So what do the geniuses in this thread think Russia should do in response to the US escelation against Syria?

Threaten the US with war?

Is that really what you think Russia should do?

War? No. But to supply Assad with what he needs to deter US and Israel. Maybe even send pilots/aircrafst for air support.

And what makes you so sure Russia won't do that, hypothetically?
Because Russia isn't kicking and screaming and making threats before the US has even gone through with it? What kind of country does that? If you're not calm and calculating when it comes to politics, you'll be run circles around by those who can manipulate the game.

You guys are all crying foul, it's only 1 announcement and negotiations have kicked into high-gear since.
Really, some people should learn how diplomacy works - we are not privy to the discussions happening behind closed doors so quit the hysteria, it's pointless.

To be honest though there's not much else Russia can do to help Syria that it hasn't already done. They've supplied Syria with everything they need; but the SAF is down to the wire, take a look at any pic - they look more like a makeshift African militia now than an organized military.

If America unleashes a full-scale bombing campaign - they won't collapse, the country will be there; but no air defence, extra aircraft or air defences sent will be able to deter US or Israeli bombing. In fact anything Russia will send will get destroyed pretty quick; Syrian AD and supporting AF has been gutted by defections and personnel transferals to front-line units since the start of the war, has been routinely penetrated by Israeli strikes even in its better days, and before the war wasn't particularly modern or impressive either.

Russia sending anything will be a waste; it's the same as the US hypothetically trying to shore up Ukrainian Air Defence with Patriot systems and some US pilots - won't fly, they'll all end up as burning wrecks in the case of a full-scale Russian attack and that's why neither the US nor Russia bothers with such things in this day and age.

The idea is to build a viable air-defence network before you are targetted for regime-change and face an insurrection from a bunch of terrorists.
If America attacks Syria, it will certainly make Russian air-defence systems more popular around the world, and will of course serve to ultimately isolate the US further from the rest of the world. But that's their problem.

sepheronx wrote:

flamming_python wrote:

sepheronx wrote:

flamming_python wrote:So what do the geniuses in this thread think Russia should do in response to the US escelation against Syria?

Threaten the US with war?

Is that really what you think Russia should do?

War? No. But to supply Assad with what he needs to deter US and Israel. Maybe even send pilots/aircrafst for air support.

And what makes you think Russia won't do that?

You guys are all crying foul, it's only 1 announcement and negotiations have kicked into high-gear since.

To be honest though there's not much else Russia can do to help Syria that it hasn't already done. They've supplied Syria with everything they need; but the SAF is down to the wire, take a look at any pic - they look more like a makeshift African militia now than an organized military.

If America unleashes a full-scale bombing campaign - they won't collapse, the country will be there; but no air defence, extra aircraft or air defences sent will be able to deter US or Israeli bombing. In fact anything Russia will send will get destroyed pretty quick; Syrian AD and supporting AF has been gutted by defections and personnel transferals to front-line units since the start of the war, has been routinely penetrated by Israeli strikes even in its better days, and before the war wasn't particularly modern or impressive either.

Russia sending anything will be a waste; it's the same as the US hypothetically trying to shore up Ukrainian Air Defence with Patriot systems and some US pilots - won't fly, they'll all end up as burning wrecks in the case of a full-scale Russian attack and that's why neither the US nor Russia bothers with such things in this day and age.

The idea is to build a viable air-defence network before you are targetted for regime-change and face an insurrection from a bunch of terrorists.
If America attacks Syria, it will certainly make Russian air-defence systems more popular around the world, and will of course serve to ultimately isolate the US further from the rest of the world. But that's their problem.

Well, as long as Russia has pilots and fighter jets flying to provide security of Assads part of Syria Airspace, as well as air defence systems, then it will force USA to think twice before doing something stupid.

What will it force them to think twice about? What if they think twice and do it anyway? What position will that leave Russia in then? A choice between starting WW3 and backing-out in humiliation? Hardly a mastermind political move there. Some real political wizards on RDF we have.

When US pilots fly into Syrian Airspace, are the Russians supposed to engage them? If not, then what is the deal with this whole game? Sounds like a recipee for disaster if anything; what if some US pilot looses his cohesion and shoots down a Russian plane that is on an intercept course towards him?

And where are the Russian pilots supposed to be based anyhow?
Are there any Syrian airbases even left anymore that aren't under seige or can at least guarantee a reasonable level of security from visiting suicide bombers, bomb trucks, technical raids and MANPADs?
Because you know, I don't think there are.

This is the sort of game you might play when it comes to defending your own airspace and borders; because you have no choice, or your ally's - yet Syria is not a Russian ally and to make them one or treat them as one would be a mistake. The point of military alliances is to mutually enhance military security; yet an alliance with Syria will get Russia only insecurity and the very real potential of being dumped into a much broader conflict that it has no interest in, WW1 style.

Russia has actual military allies - Belarus, Armenia, Kazakhstan, etc... that it can actually guarantee the security of, because they are on Russia's borders and Russia can project plenty of force there; and more over - it makes sense to form a military alliance with them and form a unified defensive zone. That's not the case for Syria though. No-one is going to risk a nuclear war over the security of an already war-town Middle Eastern republic and for good reason. Even Israel never actually got any direct guarantees from the US in its wars with its neighbours; it was always fighting by itself.

I say that maybe partitioning off Syria is not such a bad idea anymore for Assad.  Simply put, have Russia help them build a wall that separates the ISIS held area and let the rebels, ISIS and Kurds fight each other.  Then pockets of rebels in the Assad region, snuff them off by assisting Assad and let the other regions kill each other off and just build up Assads area economically/militarily.

If you really want to help then how about bombing the hell out of ISIS/rebels/anti-Assad Kurds.

If the US starts bombing Assad, Russia starts bombing Assad's enemies - this is an assymetric response, and not without its risks and expenses but at least far more sane then trying to rush-fortify Syria in the moments before an American bombing campaign, using the lives of your own personnel and billions of dollars worth of equipment as the bargaining chips in a bluff that could have the potential to escelate to WW3.

flamming_python wrote:So what do the geniuses in this thread think Russia should do in response to the US escelation against Syria?

Threaten the US with war?

Is that really what you think Russia should do?

Sadly, keep playing the long game...

Road to Damascus: Iran, Russia Offer New Security Map for Syria - Syrian MP
01:27 06.08.2015(updated 02:41 06.08.2015)

Prominent Syrian MP Khaled Al-Aboud told Sputnik’s Arabic service that a joint Russia-Iran effort may represent a real solution for the Syrian crisis.

Iran and Russia are working side by side to find a solution for the crisis in Syria, Khaled Al-Aboud, a member of the People’s Council of Syria, told Sputnik Arabic on Wednesday.

Al-Aboud’s comments come following Tehran’s announcement that it will submit to the UN a four-point plan on how to end the civil war in Syria.
No further details were provided by Iran’s Deputy Foreign Minister Hossein Amir Abdollahian, who announced the plan.
But Russia plays a key role in this process as well, Khaled Al-Aboud said.

“While Syria proves its steadfastness in the battlefield and prevents the progress of its enemies’ tools,
Iran tries to find out a balance for all parties in the region, and therefore Iran is in contact with Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and Turkey.

“Russia follows the suit of Iran, of another kind of equalization in the region, an overall of the regional political equalization.
Russia goes towards having all parties, and it plays a key role in establishing an international equalization to receive all these political parties.

“We are witnessing a new ‘security map’ in the region where Russia, Iran and Syria is the head,” Al-Aboud told Sputnik.

He referred to the old “security map” designed by the United States, which, according to him, completely failed to bring peace to the region.

“We should highlight that the [Iranian] initiative came after the American administration failed to reach its main strategic goal for which it launched aggression in the region.
I think that the main issue, the big plan of the Middle East, is behind our backs now. The United States does not have a “security map” any more.
Therefore, it needs this Iranian initiative and Russia’s push.”

A fresh peace plan for Syria is sure to influence the state of affairs across the whole region, Al-Aboud argued.

“This initiative is not isolated from the ongoing regional and international events – it is based on the situation in the region.
The milestone of the initiative is the Iranian nuclear agreement.
What concerns the Syrian crisis, I think that some important changes will also happen in other crises as well: in Yemen, Lebanon, Palestine, or Bahrain.”

Reflecting on the US’ role in the playing out of events in Syria, Mr. Al-Aboud noticed:

“We continue following the US scene in the region – the United States did not present a single solution for the crisis in Syria, ISIL is spread in the region.
The only “card” the United States is proud of is that it trained the so-called ‘New Syrian Fighters’ to fight the so-called ‘terrorism.’

As well, the United States gave up on its ‘tools’ in the region, of the House of Saud (The Kingdom of the Saudi Arabia), and pressure Erdogan into some matters…”

Syria has been mired in a civil war since 2011, as government forces fight opposition and radical Islamist militant groups,
including the Nusra Front and the self-proclaimed Islamic State.
More than 220,000 people are believed to have been killed in the hostilities to date, with over 12 million displaced from their homes.

While the West has pushed for the government of President Bashar al-Assad to be changed, Moscow argues that Assad is the legitimate president of Syria,
and that the Syrian people should be able to choose their government and leaders without outside intervention. Iran too has shown support for the Syrian government.

Moscow and Geneva have each hosted two rounds of talks between the Syrian opposition and state authorities.

Read more: http://sputniknews.com/middleeast/20150806/1025442759.html#ixzz3hzwEgZiY

A Syrian Commentary

For many years now, I have been watching and commenting on events in the Middle East; particularly so now as I see the unfolding of events prophesied in Scripture as End Time Events occurring before my eyes.  No, this is not a Bible Study! However, even the most stubborn atheist would be hard pressed to explain away all current world events as having no relevance to Scripture.

The Middle East has perked my interest as there are so many players and permutations involved as to present a venerable chessboard of possibilities. But here I want to focus just on the current events unfolding in this melodrama around the false flag chemical attack carried out by the White Helmets in Syria and the buffoon response of the West.

I am amazed by the pontificating of supposed Military Experts who go into considerable detail figuring out who would “win” in a limited war between the “West” and Russia/Syria. These guys simply astound me – I have 25 years military service and was a senior Field Rank Officer; I have some knowledge of what I am about to speak but I would never describe myself as some Expert on military matters.  Anyone, remotely connected to the military will know and tell you that there are no certainties in war and the best laid plans of mice and men often go astray. [Thank you Robbie Burns].  In the military, we had a term – “the fog of war”.  Meaning that once you launch into battle, there is so much that can and does happen which is unscripted and unplanned that you must rely on the training of your troops and the overall battle plan in order to succeed because your plan just went out the window.  These armchair generals who come on talk shows or give their opinions as to the capabilities of various military weapons systems are doing no more than inflating their own self image and generating circulation for the news agencies.  For a start, they are limited in their knowledge of the many systems available and use “best guess” as to the capabilities of as yet, still secret weaponry and its performance.  Their views are clouded by their own horse that they have backed and wished for outcome.  News media use these experts to generate fear or haughty ideas in the minds of their readers which in its self, generates interest and more circulation.  It is a win-win for the MSM.  It does however, leave the armchair punter with very little concrete information to work with. Let’s put aside all the expert opinions you have heard or read about. Let’s try and add some subjectivity to the complex issue and approach it with plain old commonsense.

Ask yourself, “what is the cause” of this current emergency?”.   What is the casus belli?  Of course, the first thing that will spring to mind is “Assad used poisonous gas against his own people”. Well at least that is what the MSM of the West would have you believe. So before progressing further with our analysis of events, let us consider this gross lie. If in 2015, when the government forces were about to collapse and before Russian intervention, IF Assad had used chemical weapons it could have been understood as the last throw of the dice of a collapsing organisation intent on one last final attempt to stave off defeat.  After all, when all else seems lost, what is to lose? But that wasn’t the case, in fact if you recall, Russia played an absolutely brilliant political hand and disarmed the chemical weapons issue before it could gain traction by having Assad hand over his chemical stockpile and dismantle his facilitates under international watchdogs. Explain to me, why on earth Assad would now; at a time when he is winning on all fronts using conventional weapons, risk all by using chemical weapons against his own people?  This preposterous proposition that he used chemical weapons simply beggars belief and flies against all sound judgement. The man is a medical doctor, an astute politician and a humanitarian – for him to stoop to such an act when there is absolutely no need to, would be contradictory to his whole character.  Oh yes, I know the MSM of the West call him a butcher, monster etc but they did the same thing to the German people at the start of WWI if you recall, same about Saddam, Gaddafii etc. when in reality such titles belong to the Western leaders who bombed sovereign states into submission under the pretext of bringing democracy to them.  No, there is no doubt whatsoever, this was a false flag exercise carried out with the White Helmet TV production crew, UK/US/NATO and the Israelis.

That being the case, what then was the purpose of it?  Well, does a leopard change its spots?  No. And the UK/US unholy alliance is just the same – they continue a pattern of behaviour which has served them previously.  After each major set-back the Alliance has suffered there has been some provocation.  Aleppo was a good example. Recall the hue and cry in the Western MSM about atrocities in Aleppo; all of this was to distract attention from the real issue – that of a large number of “Western” Alliance Special Forces personnel had been caught by the Government forces in Aleppo and had been actively engaged in controlling and providing for the terrorists.  Through coercion/threats to the Assad government and some as yet undisclosed deals, the Alliance troops were ferried out of Aleppo in blacked out busses during the middle of the night. In this way, the West “saved face” and extracted its operators without publicity.  There must have been some “win” for Assad in this but I have failed to find it.  So far, all alleged chemical attacks have been traced back to the Terrorists and Israel/Turkey as the source.  The current situation is no different.

It is my humble opinion that the current claim of chemical attack has the same cause – Western operators have been caught in East Duma; lots of them.  Initially, the West thought that East Duma would be impregnable; the amount of fortification and infrastructure in East Duma was very impressive and we are still learning of the total extent of it. The Western Alliance considered it a “safe haven” for its operators and poured them in there as well as giving them full support.   However, when it became clear that the government forces were gaining the upper hand in East Duma, the West started making a lot of noise in the MSM about Assad, atrocities etc  being committed. The UK especially, ramped up the anti Russian rhetoric in an asymmetrical attack on Russia while the US pushed Petr Poroshenko  to stir events in the Donbas. We had the remarkable accusations from PM May about Russian involvement in poisoning a former Russian agent – one who had served his punishment, been released by Russia and posed no threat whatsoever to Russia.  Make no mistake, all of these events are related. The UK especially wanted to extract its forces from East Duma without public humiliation.

When Assad’s forces finally captured East Duma [and in a remarkably swift action] they closed in on and captured many Western agents.  This set the bar higher – the stakes were now getting very high for the West.  Recall who was making the most noise about this initially – Theresa May.  Yes, the resurrected Iron Lady wasn’t about to get caught with her pants down in Syria by any upstart Assad.  Something had to be done to secure the [hidden from the public] release of Western agents from Syria. At this point the Anglo Saxon cabal went to their favourite ploy –threat of military action.  In this the UK was woefully short and stood no chance of offering any substantial resistance to Assad let alone Russia and Assad.  So Donald trump did what he does best – make a lot of noise.  Rhetoric reminiscent of his bravado against North Korea issued from his mouth and on Twitter.  Generals and his war council held meetings and an attack was imminent – “within the next 10 to 48 hours”.  The fleet was dispatched and the Donald Duck placed 100 KM off the coat of Tartus naval base. All of this could be considered quite comical if it was not so serious – or is it serious?  During all of these ‘threats” the US high command was in constant contact with Russia.  This in itself signified the level of commitment to the attack.  If the alliance was serious, then they would plan the attack to cause maximum damage and secrecy would be of vital importance. But the US cannot afford a confrontation with Russia which they cannot control the extent of.  Russia made it quite clear that they would respond to the attack if any of their servicemen were killed or injured. Look at the Israeli attack on the Syrian airbase on 9th April – they made sure they didn’t strike any Russian personnel. The saturation bombing campaign that was envisaged [400 odd cruise missiles] held a high probability of going awry. Either in the shooting down/disabling of these missiles or the unfortunate happening of a miss-placed strike and we could be looking at a large scale retaliatory action by Russia.  Iran stated that if Israel participated in it then Iran would join in – who know where this would end up?? No, this was something that the US /Europe did not really want.  Marcon made a hasty visit to Moscow to meet with tzar Putin and in my opinion, to look for a face-saving way out for all; he was appointed the West’s man in Moscow.

At this stage, some US senators got in on the act and suggested that Trump did not have lawful authority to commit troops to a war in Syria without the approval of Congress and so we now have the laughable situation where from having an attack “imminent, within the next 10 to 48 hours; it is now “I never gave a time for it”.

My view is that the attack as planned will not happen, for several reasons.

• Look at the show and bravado over North Korea – we see exactly the same rhetoric here, troop movement and threats used then as we see now; what happened over a little state like North Korea?  Nothing – it fizzled out.  

• The Attack, if it happens will be more limited in nature and very sanitised, having been co-ordinated with Russia and Assad. Damage will be limited and used to show the adoring MSM public that action was taken.

• The attack if it happens would provide more opportunity for Russia to demonstrate the superiority of their missile defensive systems, providing further arms sales around the world; something the US Industrial Military Complex is desperate to prevent.

• This whole event is staged in order to put pressure on Assad/Russia to release Alliance agents that were caught in East Duma. Some Aleppo compromise will be reached, the West will get back their terrorist trainers and the matter will go away until next time.

I urge you to take the time to fully analyse the all events surrounding the Syrian crisis and rather than relying on experts to tell you what they think is happening – use your own perspicacity; take the time to look at all the events and try to join the dots. It’s not that hard really, once you get out of the MSM frame of mind.

And by-the-way, what do you think the purpose was of placing the USS Donald Cook [Donald Duck] 100 km off the coast at Tartus?  This actually makes no military sense; the Donald Duck has Tomahawk missiles with a range of circa 2,500 km.  It could safely sit on the other side of the Mediterranean Sea and still reach targets inside Syria without putting itself in danger of Land to Sea missiles based at Tartus.  It carriies no special eavesdropping or spying capability so no need to be so close.  Really, it was posted there as some sort of target.  Perhaps this was the idea; another casus belli but this time for an attack against Russia rather than Assad??  It would not be the first time the Yanks have resorted to sacrificing one of their ships to start a war – they did it to secure the Philippines [USS Maine in Havana Harbour].  They did it at Pearl Harbour with the Japanese. Like I said earlier – “does a leopard change its spots?”.  Sit back and think about it – what possible good does it serve placing one of your ships in harm’s way when there is no need to?

Really people – wake up; start thinking.

Well, laugh my bloody arse off! As I posted my article, it looks like a “Strike” was underway.  But far from being a “Strike” it was more a gutter ball. The supposed “clear message” given by the unholy alliance was no more than a slap over the back of the hand with a wet bus ticket!  So much for the “new smart weapons” and a “hail of fire”.  Where were the 400 plus Tomahawk missiles?  The destructive blow to the “regime”.

The missiles were limited in number, limited in effect and limited to miss Russian zones of Air Defence.   It was left to Syrian Air Defences to bring them down. This was a symbolic gesture to “save face”.  However, those in the know will understand fully that the US could not operate with impunity, as they have done so before, this time in Syria.  All the nations who have suffered the US aggression and Anglo-Saxon imposed slavery, are now coming out of the woodwork – lifting their heads and recognising that in Russia, they now have a friend and ally who will and can protect them against the unholy alliance [HATO included].

We are witnessing the end of an epoch – the changing of the guard is happening and the sun is now setting on the Pax Americana just as it did over the British Empire a 100 years ago.  Sure the UK is still around and causing major problems around the world with their peculiar view of the world, so too will Pax Americana remain for some time to come, unless the eventual financial collapse finally puts an end to the military campaigns it embarks on.  The financial wealth of a country invariably has a major influence on the military strength of the country.  Destroy the dollar and you will destroy the US military.  The Petro-dollar is fast coming to an end – the US debt is fast becoming unsustainable; the end is neigh.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=7_cv_DiNAz8

Welcome back Kysusha.... it has been a while...

Interesting times...

Lots in the west are of course blaming Trump, but I suspect talk of no fly zones over Syria that with Hillary we would have gotten here much faster... of course Trump is doing this to distract Americans from so called links to Putin and Russia, while May is doing this to divert attention from Brexit... Hilary would have been doing it to distract the fact that she was best buddies with womaniser Harvey Weinstein... though he is no different from her husband I suppose...

Hi Gary,

Haven't really been away - just very busy. Illegal US sanctions have posed problems with EU puppy lap-dogs. Just back from Russia at the end of March and settling back into things. I'll try to be more active.

Look for the lies coming out now to "save face".  I read the US say that no warning was given to Russia - Marcon said that Russia was fully informed. The places that were hit were empty! Why do you think that was? They bloody knew where the strike was going to be!! Russia says that every launch was pin-pointed by their AD systems and that they controlled the Government firing. 103 launches I see recorded and 71 missile brought down by 1960's era SAM 200 systems. [Admittedly with more modern radar].  .70 success factor against the best the Alliance could throw against them from only Syrian AD!   Russia sat back on their S400 and I understand the S600 is now in Syria. The Naval ships in the Med didn't participate with their AD either. If you ever wanted a clearer indication of Russia's position in the world, this was as good as you will get for now.  Don't poke the bear.  

Look for more Arab/African countries to move to Russian sphere of influence as they see the impotence of the US being exposed.

Watch for Russian bases in Vietnam and Cuba opening up again.

Russia will control the Northern Seaway, China will control the Pacific/Singapore route and Nicaragua with the help of Russia and China will open an alternative to the Panama canal. What happens to the Suez Canal? Does Iran control that? Does Iran open a new route via the Caspian Sea?

Observations

Let’s consider the effectiveness of the Alliance strike against Syria. We are told that 103 missiles were launched and that 71 were shot down.  Considering that the missiles were old Soviet technology, the latest examples being the BUK system of the late 1970’s a 70% kill ratio against the “Most modern”  [remember Trump’s boast – “Really smart missiles”] then the effectiveness of these antiquated systems becomes quite alarming.  But if we probe into it further it becomes even more astounding. We are told that of the missiles launched against tactical/strategic targets [Air Bases] – all were shot down!  This begs the question; how all were shot down that were were launched against targets of real importance?

The answer it would seem is that the Russian/Syrian command made a conscious decision to protect real assets and allow the missiles to strike vacant and tactically worthless facilities. This demonstrates that if they had wanted to, they could have disabled ALL missiles fired, but the political effect of doing that would have out-weighted any tactical advantage; the Alliance would have been left with egg on their faces and this would have prompted them to try again and with a different scenario.  This way, the Alliance can trumpet [sorry no pun intended here] that they hit the chemical facilities – supposedly the main aim of the strike, while they continue to say that they were not aiming a strike at Assad or his troops [we are not seeking regime change – LoL] and the strike was successful.  If all the missiles had been destroyed – as I believe they could have done, then the Alliance would have had no option but to try and repeat the strike or to retreat shamefully and suffer incalculable public and politic humiliation.  Such an action is not in the best interests of Russia or Syria at present, they already achieved a significant amount of prestige in this regard by what happened.

The Alliance [US] state that they used EW jamming but Russia says no such EW was detected.  I’m inclined to believe the Russian story – this is basically a big game whereby neither party really wants to show his full hand – consider it a major game of Poker; bluff and hiding your hand is of vital importance.  Each side wants to have an “ace up their sleeve”  in case the “worst” happens. For this reason, Russia did not use its S300/S400 systems and relied on the older technology of the Syrians, supplemented by their fire control systems.  This way, the Alliance are still uncertain about the capabilities of the S300/S400 systems the Russians have set up in Syria.  The Alliance for their part, didn’t use their EW for fear of Russia coding it and working out an effective counter-measure system for it.  Russia demonstrated to a large extent the effectiveness of it’s AD systems in that it clearly identified ALL lunches of the 103 missile [Alliance say 105 but maybe two were defective] and if they were identified, then they could be hit.  [Like the Israeli F35 that was lit-up and hit by the Syrian S200 system].

Clearly, the Alliance is wary of the AD system Russia has set up and the clear threat to destroy any launch systems in the event of Russian personnel being injured in any strike, had a clear impression on the Alliance planning.  While the Alliance may be able to bring superior forces to bear, they cannot stop a major counter-blow nor can they guarantee the success of their strike.   Russia called “Bluff” and the Alliance folded their hand.

Kysusha wrote:Let’s consider the effectiveness of the Alliance strike against Syria...

According to the Russian MoD, some 6 airbases were targeted, and of those 6, 2 sustained damage. one of those two was unused, and the other was said to have only received minor damage.

The question is, do you want to believe that the Syrians/Russians let it happen, or do you want to believe that there were a few missiles that punched through (at least with regard to the second base)?

Now, don't get me wrong. I have a great deal of respect and praise for the engineering and abilities of Soviet and Russian air defence systems. But keep in mind that all of Syria's systems are from the 60s or 70s, and as much as we may want to praise their performance in such a time, I think we have to be honest in asking ourselves if these systems really did cut it in the end. We get nowhere by assuming that present precautions are ample.

On that note, I agree with most of your comment. I think it is a smart move to prioritise targets when one is dealing with a missile barrage, and I think that is exactly what the Russians and Syrians did, based off the briefing. But where we differ is on whether the Syrians were capable of repelling the attack in its entirety, and from what we've seen, I'm leaning towards no.

With Russia's help, on the other hand, I don't think there is two ways about it. If ~50-60 year old systems can repel 70% of a 100-missile strong attack, then I think there are no illusions as to the capability of contemporary systems.

Buddy, I respect an Ocker's opinion; don't say I agree but I do accept your voice on the matter.

I tend to lean to the view that a total black-out of the missile barrage would have been totally unacceptable from the point of view that the Yanks would have been seen to have had a total failure. This would have necessitated some alternative strike or a renewed strike in order to show their dominance had not waned. Something I don't think Russia nor Syria wanted. Even as it is the local terrorists [who were told to prepare for an immediate strike on the Government forces the minute the strikes ended] are pissing themselves with despair calling it a total disaster, a humiliation. Man, it doesn't get much worse for the Alliance than the ones they are training and organising in battle, come back and publicly taunt them for their impotence. So the best political option was to allow a percentage of the missiles to "penetrate" knowing that they were targeted to meaningless targets. This in itself must make you ponder the degree of cooperation that was going on between the Alliance and Russia, in that they knew in advance the targets, what launches from what and where were headed for whatever target destination. The Yanks have to make the most out of the few missiles that hit unimportant targets - shit, there were only two reported civilian casualties in Syria - there were THREE Alliance casualties in launching the missiles! However you look at it - it was a total disaster - a Winston Churchill failure.

Now about the Syrian missiles - sure they are 1960 ~ 1970's missiles BUT the Russians have up-graded the radar systems and control facilities. It is these that do the work, the missiles are basically just then a delivery system. Admittedly, they are not as manoeuvrable as modern Russian missiles, but they don't need to be to catch and hit a Cruise missile. So for that reason, they are more than capable in this sort of operation. [Recall that the Israeli F35 couldn't escape a hit from the S200 system even though it used all modern evasion techniques]. Plus you have the situation whereby they have obviously been integrated into the Russian AD system as they all have been given zones of responsibility. That also begs the question - the Yanks know about the zones??? I'd say yes and that is why the missiles flew in Syrian zones - with the hope of better penetration. What an unpleasant surprise this must have been.

From what I saw too, the Syrians were firing single missiles at the Tomahawks rather than firing pairs of missiles. This tends to suggest a high degree of confidence in hit probability and I'd venture to say that had they really wanted to, they could have suppressed the volley of Tomahawks.

However, we mere mortals can only offer conjecture as I am fairly sure the truth of this is something neither side really wants out there. The Yanks will be hard pressed to saturate MSM with bullshit to get the egg of their face as it is.

Here is an article I read in pravdoryb.info and I give their link at the end of this article. Just consider – after reading this – who are the real terrorists in this world. Who are the real war mongers?

The mission of the world hegemon through the eyes of independent historians
In the world's media and social networks recently published many lists of wars, interventions, occupation, military operations conducted by the United States. Each list is based on publications of journalists and researchers, who, in turn, in most cases refer to each other. However, there is practically no scientific research on the subject, which in chronological order, based on historical facts, would reflect a relatively complete picture. Such studies are to some extent anti-propagandistic in nature and, therefore, do not receive funding in the West from either state or private sponsors. Therefore, all serious work on this topic is carried out by enthusiastic scientists who, at their own expense, work in different archives at their own expense and gather the necessary information in small amounts.
One such enthusiast is Professor of Geography and Country Studies at Evergreen State College in Olympia, Washington, who worked at the beginning of his scientific career as editor of the encyclopedia Britannica, Dr. Zoltan Grossman. As a result of years of research in the archives, this historian compiled the most comprehensive list of US military operations and interventions during the period from 1890 to 2014. The briefing on the results of this work is designed in the form of a PowerPoint presentation. Sources of this work include, in addition to news reports in the media of different years, the Congressional Record (June 23, 1969), 180 Landings by the US Marine Corp History Division, Ege & Makhijani in Counterspy (July-Aug, 1982), "Instances of Use of the United States Forces Abroad, 1798-1993 "by Ellen C. Collier of the Congress of Research Congress, and Ellsberg in Protest & Survive.
The results of this work allow the United States to enter the Guinness Book of Records as the most aggressive country that carried out the largest number of foreign interventions.
Let's go directly to the list of military operations. Due to the large amount of data, the description of each aggression is made in a very brief form.

The end of the XIX century

1890 (-?). - South Dakota , US government forces kill and shoot 300 Dakota Indians captured.
1890 - Argentina , the intervention of the US Army in Buenos Aires.
1891 - Chile , US marines suppress the uprising of the local population.
1891 - Haiti , the US Army suppresses the revolt of the blacks in Navasse.
1892 - Idaho , the American army suppresses the insurrection at the silver mines.
1893 (-?). - Hawaii , the US Navy deposed the government of the Independent Kingdom and annexed the state.
1894 - Chicago , the US Army brutally suppressed a strike on the railways, a total of 34 killed.
1894 - Nicaragua , the US Army was occupied by Bluefields for a month.
1894-1895 - China , the US Navy and the marines are participating in the Sino-Japanese War.
1894-1896 - Korea , the occupation of Seoul.
1895 - Panama , US Marine Corps raid in the Colombian province.
1896 - Nicaragua , the US marines land in the port of Corinto.
1898-1900 - China , the participation of the US Army in the Boxer Rebellion.
1898-1910 (-?) - Philippines , the US Navy overthrew the government and killed 600,000 Filipinos.
1898-1902 (-?) - Cuba , the US Navy during the Spanish-American War fought on the basis of the Navy.
1898 (-?) G. - Puerto Rico , occupation during the Spanish-American War.
1898 (-?) G. - Guam , the US Navy seized and built a military base.
1898 (-?) - Minnesota , the US Army destroys the Chippewa (Ojibwe) tribe near Lake Leach.
1898 - Nicaragua , the US marines land at the port of San Juan del Sur.
1899 (-?). - Samoa , the US Army participates in the war for the throne.
1899 - Nicaragua , the US marines land at the Bluefields port.
1899-1901 - Idaho , the US Army occupies and brutally suppresses the uprising of the miners in Coeur d'Alene.

First quarter of the 20th century

1901 - Oklahoma , the US Army suppresses the Indian uprising at Creek.
1901-1914 - Panama , the US naval forces occupy and annex the canal zone.
1903 - Honduras , the US Marine Corps suppresses the revolution.
1903-1904 - Dominican Republic , the US Army suppresses the revolution.
1904-1905 - Korea , the US Marine Corps participates in the Russo-Japanese War.
1906-1909 - Cuba , the US Marine Corps is suppressing democratic elections.
1907 - Nicaragua , as a result of the occupation, a protectorate was created within the framework of the so-called "Dollar diplomacy".
1907 - Honduras , occupation by the US Marine Corps during the war with Nicaragua.
1908 - Panama , the US Marine Corps interferes in the pre-election process.
1910 - Nicaragua , the US Marine Corps occupies Bluefield and Corinth.
1911 - Honduras , the US Army participates in the civil war.
1911-1941. - China , the Navy and the US Army participate in the suppression of numerous uprisings in the framework of the occupation.
1912 - Cuba , the US Army participates in the civil war.
1912 - Panama , the army and the United States Marine Corps are suppressing uprisings during the elections.
1912 - Honduras , the participation of the Marine Corps in the protection of US economic interests.
1912-1933 - Nicaragua , the US Army carries out a 10-year occupation and participates in the war with the partisans.
1913 - Mexico , during the revolution, the US army flees and evacuates.
1914 - Dominican Republic , the US Navy is fighting the insurgents under Santo Domingo.
1914 - Colorado , the US Army brutally suppresses miners' strike.
1914-1918 - Mexico , the Navy and the US Army participate in military operations against the nationalists.
1914-1934 - Haiti , the US Army carries out a 19-year occupation after the suppression of the uprisings.
1915 - Texas , federal troops brutally suppress the Mexican-American uprising, the "San Diego Plan".
1916-1924 - Dominican Republic , the US Army carries out an 8-year occupation.
1917-1933 - Cuba , the US Army is engaged in occupation and creates an economic protectorate.
1917-18 - World War I , the US Navy fought against Germany for a year and a half.
1918-1922 - Russia , the US Navy produced 5 landings to fight the Bolsheviks.
1918-1920 - Panama , the US army suppressed the riots after the election in the framework of the "Police Duty" operation.
1919 - Honduras , the US army and marines suppressed riots during the campaign.
1919 - Yugoslavia , the US Army and Marine Corps are fighting against Serbs in Dalmatia.
1920 - Guatemala , 2-week intervention against union activists.
1920-1921gg. - Eastern Virginia , the army by armed means suppresses the uprising of miners.
1922 - Turkey , the US Army is fighting with nationalists in Smyrna.
1922-1927 years. - China , the navy and the US army are involved in the suppression of the nationalist uprising.
1923 - Mexico , bombardment by US military aircraft
1924-1925 - Honduras , US military intervention twice in the election campaign.
1925 - Panama , the US army and marines suppress the general strike.

The middle of the twentieth century

1927-1934 - China , the army and the United States Marine Corps occupy the entire country.
1932 - El Salvador , the US Navy suppresses Marty's rebellion.
1932 - Washington DC , the US Army suppresses the bonus protest WWI vet.
1941-1945 - II World War , the Navy and the US Army are at war with Japan, Italy and Germany for 3 years and carry out the first nuclear bombing of two Japanese cities.
1943 - Detroit , the US Army suppressed the uprising of the blacks.
1946 - Iran , before the nuclear threat of the US Soviet troops left the north of the country.
1946 - Yugoslavia , a nuclear threat in response to the shooting down of an American aircraft.
1947 - Uruguay , deployment as a threat of bombers with nuclear weapons.
1947-49 - Greece , an operation of the US Army to support the far right in the civil war.
1948 - Germany , as a nuclear threat to the USSR on the Berlin Airlift base, strategic bombers with nuclear weapons arrive.
1948-1949 - China , the US Army and the marines are evacuating the Americans before the victory of the Communists.
1948-1954 - Philippines , the CIA is conducting an army operation during the Huk revolt.
1950 - Puerto Rico , an operation to suppress the independence uprising in Ponce.
1951-1953 (-?) Years. - Korea , the army and naval forces, the threat of nuclear bombings against North Korea and China.
1953 - Iran , as a result of the operation, the CIA overthrows democracy and establishes the Shah's regime.
1954 - Vietnam , a joint nuclear threat with the rebels with France.
1954 - Guatemala , command operation of the CIA, bombardment from the airfields of Nicaragua, a nuclear threat, after the nationalization of US companies.
1956 - Egypt , the nuclear threat of the USSR with the requirement of non-interference in the Suez crisis, the Marines are evacuating foreigners.
1958 - Lebanon , the army and the US Navy occupy the country and suppress the rebels.
1958 - Iraq , a nuclear threat to Iraq and a warning against the invasion of Kuwait.
1958 - China , a nuclear threat to China for possible reunification with Taiwan.
1958 - Panama , the US Army suppresses protests.
1960-1975 - Vietnam , the army, the naval and air forces are involved in the war in Vietnam. One million killed in the longest war of the United States, the threat of atomic bombing in 1968 and 1969.
l961 - Cuba , a failed CIA operation to invade.
l961 - Germany , the nuclear threat of the USSR during the crisis around the Berlin Wall.
1962 - Laos , an army operation during the guerrilla war.
l962 - Cuba , the nuclear threat of the USSR and Cuba, the naval blockade during the Caribbean crisis.
1963 - Iraq , the CIA organizes a coup during which the president was killed, the Baath Party came to power, Saddam Hussein returned from exile to head the secret service.
l964 - Panama , the US Army suppressed performances for the return of the channel.
l965 - Indonesia , organized by the CIA coup d'état, more than a million victims.
1965-1966 - The Dominican Republic , the US army and marines suppress protests during the pre-election campaign.
l966-1967 gg. - Guatemala , "Green Berets" The US is fighting against the rebels.
l967 - Detroit , the army suppresses the unrest of African Americans, 43 killed.
l968 - the United States , the army suppresses the unrest after the assassination of King , more than 21,000 soldiers were introduced into the cities.
l969-1975 gg. - Cambodia , the army and the US Navy bombard the country. Up to 2 million people killed in a decade of bombing, hunger and political chaos.
1970 - Oman , occupation by the US Army to prevent the invasion by Iran.
l971-1973 gg. - Laos , the command operation, the US bombing is aimed at invading South Vietnam, "carpet bombing."
l973 - South Dakota , the US Army suppresses the Indians' revolt in Wounded-Nee.
1973 - the Middle East , the nuclear threat, the threat of a world war during the Middle East war.
1973 - Chile , a military coup to overthrow and murder President Allende.
l975 - Cambodia , the US Army, the bombing of the captured Mayaugus spacecraft, 28 soldiers were killed.

The end of the twentieth century

l976-1992 - Angola , Command operation of the CIA for military support of South African armed gangs during the civil war.
1980 - Iran , troops, nuclear threat, the army is making an unsuccessful attempt to rescue the hostages in the embassy, 8 soldiers are dying during the crash.
l981 - Libya , naval aviation shoots down 2 Libyan aircraft.
l981-1992 - El Salvador , a command operation against the rebels.
l981-1990 "Nicaragua , the command operation, the navy and the CIA are carrying out an operation to suppress the revolution.
l982-1984 years. - Lebanon , the US Navy and Air Force are involved in the war against the Shiite rebels, 241 marine were killed.
l983-1984 years. - Grenada , a military invasion of the US Army four years after the revolution.
l983-1989 gg. - Honduras , the introduction of troops, maneuvers, construction of bases.
l984 - Iran , 2 Iranian civilian aircraft shot down over the Persian Gulf.
l986 - Libya , the bombing of US naval aviation.
1986 - Bolivia , the US Army participates in the "cocaine war".
1987-1988 - Iran , the US Navy and Air Force intervene in the war in Iraq, bombard and shoot down an Iranian aircraft.
1989 - Libya , US Navy aircraft shot down 2 Libyan aircraft.
1989 - The Virgin Islands , the US Army suppresses the uprisings of blacks in St. Petersburg. Croix.
1989 - Philippines , aerial bombardment in response to a coup d'état.
1989 (-?) G. - Panama , the US army overthrows the national government, more than 2,000 dead.
1990 - Liberia , the US Army evacuates foreigners during the civil war.
1990-1991gg. - Saudi Arabia , the introduction of US troops after Iraq's invasion of Kuwait, 540,000 US troops in Oman, Qatar, Bahrain, the United Arab Emirates, Israel.
1990-1991 - Iraq , bombing, entering the army, naval blockade of the Iraqi and Jordanian ports, air strikes; 200,000 people were killed as a result of the invasion of Iraq and Kuwait; large-scale destruction of the Iraqi military.
1991. - Kuwait , entering the country's naval forces and the army.
1991-2003 - Iraq , bombing, naval no-fly zone over the Kurdish north and Shiite south; constant air strikes and naval blockades.
1992 - Los Angeles , the army and the marines are deployed against Protestants and pogromists.
1992-1994 - Somalia , occupation by the army and naval forces of the United States, participation in the civil war.
1992-94 - Yugoslavia , the NATO naval blockade of Serbia and Montenegro.
1993 - Bosnia , bombing, patrolling, establishing a no-fly zone, participating in civil war, killing Serbs, striking Serbia and shooting down aircraft.
1994 - Haiti , the introduction of troops, a naval blockade and the occupation of the country, the overthrow of the military government.
1996-1997 - Zaire (Congo), the entry of troops into the Hutu refugee camps in Rwanda, as well as to the areas where the revolution in the Congo begins.
1997 - Liberia , the introduction of the US Army for the evacuation of foreigners.
1997 - Albania , the introduction of the US Army for the evacuation of foreigners.
1998 - Sudan , missile attack on the pharmaceutical plant; according to the CIA, the plant produced chemical weapons for terrorists.
1998 - Afghanistan , a missile attack on the former CIA training camps used by Islamic fundamentalist groups that allegedly attacked the embassies.
1998 - Iraq , bombardment, 4 days of intense air and missile strikes after allegedly obstructing the authorities of the work of weapons inspectors.
1999 - Yugoslavia , numerous bombings, heavy rocket and air strikes by NATO after Serbia refuses to leave Kosovo. NATO occupation of Kosovo.

The beginning of the XXI century

2000 - Yemen , attack against Naval USS Cole in Aden, 17 dead.
2001. - Macedonia , the introduction of NATO troops.
2001. - USA , the reaction of the Air Force and the Navy on 9/11.
2001-? years. - Afghanistan , the introduction of troops, bombing, missile attacks, US mass mobilization to overthrow the Taliban, hunting for al Qaeda fighters, setting up the Karzai regime and fighting the insurgency of the Taliban. More than 30,000 US troops and numerous private military companies occupy the country.
2002 - Yemen , the missile attack of Al-Qaeda against the United States.
2002 - the Philippines , the introduction of troops, a naval military mission against Abu Sayyaf , on the Sulu Archipelago, west of Mindanao.
2003 - Colombia , the US army and special forces are sent to the rebel zone to support the Colombian army protecting the pipeline.
2003-2011. - Iraq , war, bombing, the occupation of the country, the overthrow of Saddam. Invasion involved more than 250,000 US troops. The US and British forces occupy the country and fight with Sunni and Shiite rebels. More than 160,000 troops and numerous private contractors are occupying and building large permanent bases.
2003 - Liberia , participation in the peacekeeping forces, operation to overthrow the leader of the country.
2004-2005 - Haiti , the army, marines and US ground forces occupied the country.
2005 - Pakistan , missile strikes and bombardments, covert operations and attacks of drones.
2006 - Somalia , rocket and naval forces, the army are involved in a command operation. The SWAT is participating in the Ethiopian invasion, which is overthrown by the Islamist government; the bombing of the AC-130, attacks by cruise missiles and air strikes against Islamist insurgents; a naval blockade against "pirates" and insurgents.
2008 - Syria , special forces participate in a helicopter raid 5 miles from Iraq, 8 Syrian civilians were killed.
2009 - Yemen , missile strikes, a missile attack on al-Qaeda kills 49 civilians.
2011. - Libya , bombing, missile strikes, the introduction of troops, the NATO command operation coordinates air strikes and missile attacks against the Gaddafi government during the uprising of the rebel army. The US special forces carry out covert operations.
2014 - Iraq , bombing, missile strikes, the introduction of troops, command operation.
2014 - Syria , bombing, missile strikes, the introduction of troops, command operation. Participation in the civil war on the side of terrorists.
***
Dr. Zoltan Grossman described 150 military operations conducted by the US Army both against foreign states and inside his country, even in Washington's capital. In more detail about each operation, Dr. Grossman talks at his briefing, presented in the form of a presentation. At the end of the report, Grossman writes:
"One of the most dangerous ideas of the 20th century was that" people like us "could not commit atrocities against civilians.
Citizens of Germany and Japan believed, but their armed forces killed millions of people.
The British and the French believed, but their armed forces fought brutal colonial wars in Africa and Asia.
The citizens of Israel believed this, but their army massacred Palestinians and Lebanese.
The Arabs believed this, but suicide bombers and hijackers attacked American and Israeli civilians.
US citizens believed so, but their military killed hundreds of thousands in Vietnam, Iraq and elsewhere. "
***
But it's the UK that's the most affected. If the total number of military interventions, occupations and interventions is unquestionably maintained by the United States, then the United Kingdom is ahead of the entire planet in terms of the number of countries subjected to military attacks. The study, confirming this fact, was conducted by the English historian Stuart Laikok . His results were published in the British The Telegraph under the title "The British invaded nine countries out of ten - only Luxembourg missed".

According to Laikok, at different times the British invaded almost 90 percent of countries around the world. An analysis of the histories of almost 200 countries shows that only 22 countries are encountered that have never experienced the invasion of the English. Among this particular group of countries are such countries as Great Britain, such as Guatemala, Tajikistan and the Marshall Islands, as well as some slightly closer, such as Luxembourg.
See the full article at: https://pravdoryb.info/voyny-i-interventsii-ssha-polnyy-spisok-141346.html It is well worth reading.

Jews just couldn't stay out of it- could they??  Russia needs to give Syria the S300M and allow them to close the airspace of Lebanon AND Jewstate. [An interesting aside, the NZ Government considers Jewstate a terrorist state and does not allow export to them - fancy, a piddly little country like NZ having the balls to stand up to them and their US Army].


Syrian anti-aircraft defences shot down 9 missiles aimed at air base Shairat
April 17, 2018, 04:40  •  107  • Analytics

http://globalwarnews.ru/siriyskie-pvo-sbili-9-raket-natselennykh-na-aviabazu-shayrat-18710.html

The Syrian media disclosed the details of the missile attack that the AAA air defense system reflected on the night of 17 April in the vicinity of Homs. This is reported by the State Television of the Syrian Arab Republic.+
As it became known, Syrian air defense managed to shoot down about 9 cruise missiles in the territory of Homs province. It is reported that all the shells were aimed at the air base of Shayrat.
At the moment all circumstances of the incident are established.

Recall that on the night of April 14, the territory of Syria was subjected to rocket fire from the United States, France and Britain. The reason for the attack was Washington's unjustified accusations against Damascus allegedly using chemical weapons. Russia strongly condemned the attack of the Western coalition on the UAR, noting that this blow is a violation of international law.

Just a thought here about this Israeli attack - I have a feeling in my water that this is somewhat of a diversionary attack to take the heat away from the miserable performance of the unholy Alliance. Let's face it - the Yanks are getting hammered over this botched attack - they are making it worse by outright lying and are being caught out in their lies which simply compounds the issues they have to face. What a bold arse lie - all missile reached their target!!! And the heads of the Pentagon, coupled with the White House heads parrot the same bullshit story. "No we did not consult with the Russians". Really - yet the week before the strike Mad Dog admitted that they were in constant contact with the Russians in order to avoid escalation of the conflict and "miss-understandings". So, that's not collusion with Russia?? What about Macron's statement immediately after the strike that the Yanks advised Russia in advance and cleared missile routes.?? I suppose that is not collusion either!

Whatever way you look at it - it was a disaster for the Yank unholy Alliance [the Frogs didn't even participate even though they said they did and the Yanks thanked them for their contribution]. The whole story from the Alliance is full of holes and lies. In this regard, Russia has taken over the role that the old BBC used to play during the Second World War - people tune in to Russia Today to find out the truth or follow the Russian Defence Briefings. VOA, FOX, CNN et.al are the voice of Goebbels..

It appears as though the Israelis have created this attack - the purpose of it in military terms seems futile - to take the talk away from the failed Yank exercise as a favour to D Trump. Let's face it, if the Alliance had been serious about striking Syria, they would have waited until the Harry Truman arrived, built up their forces and made a major strike without consultation with Russia. The result of that would have been totally unpredictable. No, this carrier group is just a show of force - the unipolar world has already shifted, at least de facto - the Yanks advise Russia of their intentions. The polar shift has taken place quietly.

Ever wondered why the Poms didn't launch missiles from their nuclear submarine they "dispatched" to the Mediterranean??  Well, here's the answer;

Russian "black holes" prevented a British submarine from hitting Syria
April 17, 2018, 01:30  •  357  • Russia

http://allpravda.info/rossiyskie-chernye-dyry-pomeshali-britanskoy-podlodke-udarit-posirii-61114.html


The submarine of the "Astute" class of the British Armed Forces, which was supposed to take part in the bombing of Syria on April 14, could not do this, as it was "pushed" into the Eastern Mediterranean by Russian "black holes". This writes The Times.

Sources in the military circles of Britain say that the Russian submarines of projects 877 "Paltus" and 636 "Varshavianka", which for the silence of the move is called "black holes", for several days played with a British submarine in "cat and mouse." They left the Russian base in Tartous and pursued a British submarine, which was constantly forced to maneuver, which is why it was unable to release its cruise missiles on time.

Even the data from the US anti-submarine aircraft, which tracked the movement of the Russian Navy vessels, did not help the British escape from the Russian submariners.

EADaily recalls that in order to participate in the operation against Syria, the United Kingdom mainly used its military aircraft, which were raised from an airbase in Cyprus. They fired missiles at targets in the SAR without entering the airspace of this country. France was also involved in the operation, and the main initiator was the United States.


Don't poke the bear!