And finally, the most important…Today the majority of the members of the Russian Reconciliation Center in Syria are working “on the ground” delivering aid and negotiating with a large number of communities and the members of the armed groups in the most provinces of Syria. It’s due to their efforts 732 towns and villages and hundreds of thousands of Syrian people have returned to normal life. That’s why any air strikes and or missile strikes on the territory controlled by the Syrian government will create a clear threat to Russian servicemen.Russia declares no-fly zone first.
OH,and they have the legal right to do so because they were invited by the sovereign government of Syria. US incursion into Syria or Syrian airspace is aggression, considered the ultimate war crime. I don't see President Obama going there regardless of how many fits the war party throws.
The Vineyard of the Saker
General Konashenkov: Statement
I highly doubt that the US can let this slight go unpunished, for doing so would send the wrong message to the world in the eyes of the neocons in particular. My goodness, what would AIPAC think of the prospect of Syria remaining whole?
ReplyDeleteWhether the US chooses a horizontal target, assassinates Assad or something else, I will be shocked if nothing happens.
I would like very much to be proven wrong, however, I will not be holding my breath.
John Kerry has already been quoted as saying privately that the administrations lawyers have advised that US direct involvement on Syrian territory is a violation of international law. POTUS has to take that into account.
ReplyDeleteI doubt that Obama want that on his legacy at the point in his presidency. The others can yell and scream but it's not their responsibility and they are not in a position to order a strike, as much as the CIA and Pentagon would like to.
Could some faction go rogue. Of course, but that would be pretty much the end for the US if it's known that the commander-in-chief is not in charge.
I guess that puts a stop to Israel's daily bombings of Syria.
ReplyDeleteJohn Kerry is on the record pushing for a military intervention in spite of the legal ramifications. He isn't an exception in this regard, for we have seen Washington violate international law before.
ReplyDeleteExpect retaliation in some form - unless Trump wins.
This is not a "no fly" zone. The statement was, Russia will take down any "unidentified" aircraft in Syria. The Americans have identified themselves. Then bombed. Tough, but hollow, words by that Russian general.
ReplyDeleteThat's true, Mike, but the statement addresses Ash Carter and the deep state's proposal to the WH for "stealth" air attacks that are not identified as US. That's what "unidentified" aircraft means.
ReplyDeleteSecondly, the US previously declared that it has personnel on the ground in Syria and will defend them. Russia responded in kind.
So while neither side has declared a "no-fly zone" in those terms, they have both declared that they are ready to act. Russia has moved in more missile batteries capable of destroying incoming Tomahawk cruise missiles and has let the US know it will do so in the even of a stealth attack.
General Dunham outlined that seeing up an actual no-fly zone would be an act of war against Syria without a UN mandate and it would likely develop into war with Russia, too. McCan objected that was not true. McCain was clearly thinking that the US could interdict in Syria without actually establishing a no-fly zone in the military sense.
I should have put quotes are "no-fly zone" in the post.
BTW to understand what is going on in Syria it is necessary to keep in mind that the US has two key objectives that it is pursuing.
The first is removal of Assad's government.
The second is creating a quagmire for the Russians similar to the quagmire the introduction of the "freedom fights" created for them in Afghanistan.
The first objective was to be accomplished by arming Assad's opposition. But Assad's opposition proves worthless in fighting so the US turned a blind eye and actually encouraged the entry of Al; Qaeda, who are the real fighters. Many are not even Syrian.
Then Russia entered and the US strategist saw this not so much as a challenge as an opportunity to weaken Russia by drawing it into a quagmire.
So far the US has not been able to get the upper hand but is far from giving up, since losing Syria would seriously weaken the US position in MENA.
Everything else is just bullshit.
You would think we have enough quagmires already in the ME without extending our never ending war of empire further. This seems to me like one more step on a dangerous path. Next thing you know Russia will retaliate in Ukraine with an incident and on it goes.
ReplyDeleteRussia also has a naval base in Syria. They are unlikely to give that up or to see it threatened such as would happen if Assad losses power without Russian agreement. You would think our geniuses would understand that from what happened in Crimea. So when Russia beefs up its air defense systems there, they are telling us something, like stay away. We ought to listen to them.
ReplyDeleteA recurring question is whether Russia is willing to go nuclear over the fate of Syria. Hawks appear willing to find out.
ReplyDeleteOn the other hand it is standard "neocon" practice to smash "difficult" countries into rubble (Serbia, Iraq, Lybia, Syria) and keep them as such fostering endless conflict over the rubble. For several reasons:
ReplyDelete* To "reduce" a "problem" to a "background noise".
* To teach a lesson to everybody else.
* To generate lots of sales for military suppliers.
* To enthuse the nastier parts of the home voters.
Sometimes this is done for the benefit of specific factions, sometimes it does not matter.
Trump could offer Vlad to put SM-3 in Crimea and tell Russia to cut it off with Iran and re-task Assad to properly take out Hezzbollah/Isis....
ReplyDelete"Win/win" ....