Military Review

In anticipation of new strikes of the West

34
Donald Trump declared a missile attack on Syria as an example of a brilliant military operation.




“The Syrian operation was carried out so perfectly, with such precision that fake news could discredit it in only one way - to use my expression “mission complete”. I knew they would grab it, but it was such a wonderful military term that it should be applied again. Use often, ”Trump wrote in his microblog on Twitter.

Recall that the word “mission completed” was uttered by Bush Jr. in 2003 (during the war in Iraq), after which he was constantly remembered until the end of his presidency. She became a kind of meme, and in the mouth of Trump immediately caused an association with Iraqi "successes."

Earlier, Donald Trump said that the United States and its allies achieved their goals when striking Syria.

However, we must admit that the US military really achieved their goals and carried out the operation brilliantly. Obviously, for them the main task was to launch missiles in such a way as to minimize casualties and, God forbid, hook objects into which the Russians would be located so as not to provoke a retaliatory strike in any way. And they coped with this task as “excellent”: Russia, Iran, and Syria have no losses. The destruction is also minimal.

That is, it is reasonable to say that the US military with filigree precision passed along the blade of a knife.

The answer to the question of why they even had to solve such strange and risky tasks is obvious: this is how Trump solved his reputational problems. And, unlike the military, he solved them far from brilliantly.

So, for example, it became obvious to the American military that their commander-in-chief, saving his spoiled, including the intrigues with pornstars, reputation, made them participants of the performance, clearly not a worthy soldier of a great power.

However, the French leader found himself in an even more stupid position, praising the actions of the French military during the attack on Syria, in which, according to the data of objective control of the Russian Defense Ministry, they did not participate at all. Is it any wonder that this kind of blundering causes bewilderment and frank ridicule.

Trying to somehow justify their actions, Macron did not think of anything better than to declare that the strikes on Syria brought a considerable geopolitical victory to the western bloc. As complicated relations between Ankara, which "supported the blow", and Moscow. Thus, Trump demonstrated to the whole world his complete incompetence in matters of the Middle East. It is well known that relations between Moscow and Ankara to the authorities operating in Syria are opposite, which, however, does not prevent them from interacting on a number of issues, and Erdogan called Putin “my dear friend”. And the current rocket attack did not add anything to it or reduce it.

The Western bloc suffered even greater reputational losses due to the fact that the incident showed the high effectiveness of Syria’s air defense against “good and smart missiles.” Today, American experts vied with each other to argue that not only second-generation Soviet systems, but also more modern Russian models, participated in repelling the attack. Or, at least, the old SAMs and radar stations have been upgraded to a more advanced level.

It is quite possible that this was the case, however, and in this case, the superiority of domestic air defense systems is obvious, and the statements of experts look like waving their fists after a fight and attempts to justify themselves.

In other words, the topic of exemplary punishment of Russia (and of Iran, and even Syria) clearly remained undisclosed. Moreover, judging by the comments of the Western press, the blow struck further strengthened the position of our country, including politically and psychologically.

What steps in the light of this should be expected from the western bloc?

One of the indications of a possible development of the situation is the fact that Jordan and the United States began joint military exercises, in which all branches of the military and special forces will take part.

The most important goal of this event, in which thousands of Americans will participate with the Jordanian military 3,5, will be responding to an attack using a chemical weapons.

In anticipation of new strikes of the West


That, according to the head of the training department of the US Central Command, John Mota, "is a pressing challenge in the region."

It is clear that Americans know better than anyone else that Assad does not have any chemical weapons, and, accordingly, the urgency of this “challenge in the region”, to put it mildly, is greatly exaggerated.

Recall also that the day after the shelling, State Department spokesman Heather Nauert announced that a return to dialogue in the Geneva format is possible only by declaring “the stockpiles of chemical weapons held by the Syrian government.”

And Teresa May 16 of April said that "it is extremely likely that Damascus will repeat the chemical attacks."

All of this suggests that, despite the revelation of provocation in the Duma and the actual failure of the “retaliation strike” turned into an unconvincing farce, the West makes it clear that it intends to continue to pedal the “chemical” theme and threaten Damascus and Russia with new attacks. Mikhail Gorbachev joined the informational training, shortly after it became clear that the blow was struck in “nowhere”, that the rocket attack was “training” (before “starting to start shooting for real”).

Although it is clear that if the Americans and their allies could really hit, they would have done so. But they were not given such an opportunity, and they are extremely unlikely to be given in the future.

This, in particular, is indicated by the alarm that swept Tel Aviv after Sergei Rudskoy, Chief of the Main Operations Directorate of the General Staff of the Russian Armed Forces, said that Russia could return to considering the possibility of selling C-300 to Damascus.

The El País publication reports that the Israeli armed forces fear that the transfer of more modern air defense systems to Syria could protect Damascus from “future retaliatory measures”, and also put the Israeli air force’s “freedom of action” in jeopardy not only in Syria, but also in Lebanon. .

That is, Israel de facto recognizes that the possibility of "retaliation" in Syria can be practically reduced to zero, even without Russia's direct participation in the protection of the Middle East sky.

However, as we see, the West is trying to continue its line of threats and blackmail with new provocations. However, it cannot be ruled out that the continuation of the unwinding of the “chemical” topic that has already been discredited is not a sign of the rigidity of the West, but an attempt to divert attention from the places of a new blow to the interests of our country. Which is likely to be inflicted not by force of arms.
Author:
34 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. igorka357
    igorka357 April 17 2018 05: 53
    0
    When did the Americans become soldiers of a great power ..?
    1. Grandfather
      Grandfather April 17 2018 06: 03
      +2
      Quote: igorka357
      When did the Americans become soldiers of a great power ..?

      when Obama declared the Americans "an exclusive nation", and America - "hail on a hill" ... apparently so ...
    2. Tatar 174
      Tatar 174 April 17 2018 06: 04
      +5
      Chewing chewed.
      1. Kent0001
        Kent0001 April 17 2018 11: 39
        0
        If there is no other ...
        1. Russia
          Russia April 17 2018 15: 02
          +4
          Further it will be even worse.
    3. The_X_Factor
      The_X_Factor April 17 2018 18: 58
      +1
      and when did they stop being them?
    4. G A_2
      G A_2 April 17 2018 22: 40
      0
      Quote: igorka357
      When did the Americans become soldiers of a great power ..?

      Ever since Putin called America a great power
      www.google.ru/amp/s/m.lenta.ru/news/2016/06/17/ob
      loves
      https://youtu.be/zt5NL0kzyxs
  2. NEXUS
    NEXUS April 17 2018 07: 34
    +6
    It’s early to rejoice that our people did not suffer from a missile strike and how well the Syrian and our air defense and communications equipment, electronic warfare, and so on worked out. Mattresses are able to analyze the data obtained, and this missile strike is a check of gaps in the air defense of the Syrians and ours, data collection and the search for the most unprotected strategically important areas. Whatever it was, but the ax is a serious rocket with warhead under half a ton. And therefore, far from all over, and I am sure that a second missile strike will be with much greater density in a salvo. That is why the S-300 systems are hurriedly thrown to Syria in order to cover up weak directions and strengthen the defense of objects vital to the Assad’s army.
    1. Olgovich
      Olgovich April 17 2018 08: 04
      +2
      Quote: NEXUS
      Mattresses are able to analyze the data obtained, and this missile strike is a check of gaps in the air defense of the Syrians and ours, data collection and the search for the most unprotected strategically important areas.

      Moreover, anti-radar missiles were not used. they can completely change the picture ....
      1. igorka357
        igorka357 April 17 2018 10: 04
        +1
        Radar recourse ? Probably wanted to say anti-radar?
        1. Olgovich
          Olgovich April 17 2018 11: 40
          0
          Quote: igorka357
          Radar recourse ? Probably wanted to say anti-radar?

          As you prefer hi
    2. credo
      credo April 17 2018 09: 33
      +2
      Quote: NEXUS
      as we see, the West is trying to continue the line it has taken on threats and blackmail with new provocations. However, it cannot be ruled out that the continuation of the promotion of the already discredited "chemical" topic is not a sign of the rigidity of the West, but is an attempt to distract attention from the places of a new blow to the interests of our country. Which, most likely, will not be inflicted by force of arms.

      There’s nothing to argue about, knowing the obstinacy and obstinacy of “our partners” in achieving their goals. Certainly they will repeat it repeatedly and even in the case when they get very painful on their hands. They have such a mentality and this should always be borne in mind.

      Therefore, I completely agree with the author’s conclusion that "... as we see, the West is trying to continue its line of threats and blackmail with new provocations. However, we cannot exclude the possibility that the continuation of the untwisting of the already discredited" chemical "topic there is not a sign of the rigidity of the West, but an attempt to divert attention from the places of a new blow to the interests of our country ... "
      Even a small excursion into the history of relations between Russia and the collective West gives an unequivocal answer that it is in principle impossible to build trusting relations with them since we have different approaches to ways to achieve this goal.
    3. Aleks2048
      Aleks2048 April 17 2018 09: 45
      0
      To neutralize such threats, it is necessary to provide Syria (if the Russian Ministry of Defense plans to wage war in Syria with Aboriginal hands) anti-ship ground-based anti-ship missile systems, tactical missile systems like Tochka or newer Iskander. The only question is what Syria can offer us in return, because such systems are not cheap? It is necessary to replenish the air defense ammunition of Syria, of course, additional air defense assets will also not hurt. The question is price.
      1. NEXUS
        NEXUS April 17 2018 09: 46
        0
        Quote: Alex2048
        To neutralize such threats, it is necessary to provide Syria (if the Russian Ministry of Defense plans to wage war in Syria with Aboriginal hands) anti-ship ground-based anti-ship missile systems, tactical missile systems like Tochka or newer Iskander.

        Bastions, Balls and Iskanders have long been standing in Syria.
        1. igorka357
          igorka357 April 17 2018 10: 07
          0
          I don’t know exactly about the Bastions and Balls, but Iskander isn’t in Syria completely, otherwise Assad would have shown it ... so that a gopota like Turkey and Israel would be thoughtful! Or do you think I'm mistaken?
          1. NEXUS
            NEXUS April 17 2018 10: 16
            +1
            Quote: igorka357
            but Iskander is not in Syria completely, otherwise Assad would have shown it ... h


          2. Aleks2048
            Aleks2048 April 17 2018 10: 19
            +2
            So it seems to me that Assad could be used by Iskander to wipe out for any object in close proximity, preferably in the line of sight from the US base in Syria. I would like to tell the whole world about how he defended the United States from terrorists who were on the verge of their base. laughing
            1. Salomet
              Salomet April 17 2018 11: 33
              +2
              He couldn’t because it wasn’t him, like the S-300 and a lot of everything in Tartus and Khmeimim, I think they didn’t give him RCC either.
              The most modern thing he has is air defense and Su-24 donated by Russia. hi
        2. Aleks2048
          Aleks2048 April 17 2018 10: 24
          +1
          The United States will never (for no particular reason) drive two destroyers into the coverage area of ​​ground-based anti-ship missiles in preparation for missile attacks.
          1. NEXUS
            NEXUS April 17 2018 10: 25
            0
            Quote: Alex2048
            The United States will never (for no particular reason) drive two destroyers into the coverage area of ​​ground-based anti-ship missiles in preparation for missile attacks.

            Before the missile strike, where did the destroyers from Middle-earth slip?
            1. Aleks2048
              Aleks2048 April 17 2018 10: 52
              +1
              It should not be discounted that the United States was still afraid to catch, if not specially, citizens from the military contingent of the Russian Federation on the territory of Syria, and therefore they were afraid of an answer as announced by the General Staff of the Russian Federation.
              And to answer this question you need to know the alignment of forces in the Mediterranean Sea. For example, I don’t own such information. hi
      2. igorka357
        igorka357 April 17 2018 10: 10
        0
        Syria can offer us in return, only itself .. no more! Who has serious hydrocarbon deposits in their hands now? Well, you’ll think of it yourself! Just remember Cuba, how much we are for them, how much we are for them, and if not for us! And now that .. they’re already starting to look into Washington’s mouth! Oh, all the same, Fidel was a historical person, understood a lot about friendship and help and believed .. his brother is not standing nearby !!!!
        1. Aleks2048
          Aleks2048 April 17 2018 10: 37
          +1
          From Syria, the Russian Federation is primarily interested in hydrocarbons, and secondly, for Syria to become a stumbling block when laying foreign pipelines from the Middle East to Europe. And now attention is being paid to the question of whether confrontation and the costs of waging war, even with the help of other people, are the benefits that the Russian Federation can get? It’s so simple in my opinion that you won’t answer ... In addition to the fact that the military-industrial complex of the Russian Federation will be loaded with orders and there are obvious pluses from trade there are a lot of minuses destroyed infrastructure in Syria, a lot of unemployed people who do not know how to fight, etc. Therefore, to answer the question of price, it is necessary that our economists have calculated everything and God forbid that they make a mistake. It is impossible to wage war without economic benefits; otherwise it is called a humanitarian action.
        2. victor50
          victor50 April 17 2018 10: 44
          +1
          So after all, in our times of friendship with Fidel, it was not capitalism.smile Maybe the reason is this, not Raul?
  3. rotmistr60
    rotmistr60 April 17 2018 09: 28
    +1
    "mission completed"
    You don’t need to be a psychologist to understand an elementary thing - Trump, like many Americans, was raised on the “heroic” action movies of local cinema. Of course, the "mission is completed," because those who actively supported the United States and their "allies" suffer defeat after defeat. What is left to do? Once again slander Russia, throw money to international organizations and try once again to leave the village of shit on a white horse. It becomes boring for us, but unpredictable for the world.
  4. Imobile
    Imobile April 17 2018 10: 03
    0
    Not a single rocket was shot down. None! If even one had been shot down, then it was possible to determine on the basis of it how to bring them down. A video is issued on the Internet where the rocket, failing to intercept the target, exploded for the video of the successful destruction of the target. Well, this is already for kindergarten ... So, given the distance, there was practically no interference. How so? But it would be nice if, in the words of NATO, ours instead of phrases about 70 missiles shot down, silently showed the wreckage, everyone would understand ... But I think that for this the Pentagon had a blank that the rocket for technical reasons could not reach the target and was self-detonated.
    1. rotmistr60
      rotmistr60 April 17 2018 10: 29
      +2
      Well, this is for kindergarten ...
      You read this and you are no longer surprised that Western propaganda produces enchanting effects on some “minds”.
      But I think that for this the Pentagon had a blank that the rocket for technical reasons could not reach the target and was self-detonated.
      How do you like this? "Specialist", who apparently did not even serve in the army as an ordinary, gives an assessment of what happened. Normal and most importantly in unison to those who want it.
      1. victor50
        victor50 April 17 2018 10: 50
        0
        “How do you like this?” A specialist, who apparently didn’t even serve in the army as an ordinary, gives an assessment of what has happened. It’s normal and most important in unison to those who want it. ”

        Arguments must not be refuted by the principle: "Who are they." I do not think that your knowledge should be recognized a priori. What are the reasons for this? I missed something, so don’t know about your immutable right?
    2. Aleks2048
      Aleks2048 April 17 2018 10: 44
      +2
      Maybe you personally will go to a country in which there is a civil war to collect scrap metal?
      And if the Russian Federation presents the wreckage, then people like you will say that it’s wreckage not from Syria, but from the time of Hussein or Yugoslavia, or say that it’s wreckage from the craters from the pictures.
      In general, to believe or not to believe this is a private matter for everyone.
    3. raw174
      raw174 April 17 2018 12: 55
      +2
      Quote: Imobile
      Not a single rocket was shot down. None!

      those. 103 missiles hit the targets? The walls are on the video there, and the tomahawk is a powerful thing and 20-30 axes should demolish the floor of the city ... If after the impact of 20-30 missiles there are walls of a civil building, then what kind of missiles are these?
      1. Fedor egoist
        Fedor egoist April 17 2018 13: 39
        0
        Quote: raw174
        tomahawk - a powerful thing and 20-30 axes should demolish the floor of the city

        Do not be like the "expert" whose comment you are quoting, and do not write nonsense, please. Twenty air bombs of medium power are not that half a city - even several high-rise buildings will be difficult to tear down.
        Quote: raw174
        If after a strike of 20-30 missiles there are walls of a civil building, then what kind of missiles are these?

        "New" and "smart." This is probably why they get off so easily :)
        1. raw174
          raw174 April 17 2018 14: 08
          +1
          Quote: Fedor Egoist
          Do not be like the “expert” whose comment you are quoting

          I do not quote, I think ... According to the statement of the Americans, they attacked 3 targets, firing 100 with a tail of rockets. So? No, well, it can be assumed that 10 missiles flew at two targets, and 90 at one ... somehow silly, in my opinion ...
          Quote: Fedor Egoist
          Twenty air bombs of medium power are not that half a city - even several high-rise buildings will be difficult to tear down.

          They showed a video of the institute (or what kind of a scientific center there), on which they struck that something didn’t fall apart ... Or are there particularly strong buildings in Syria?
          Quote: Fedor Egoist
          "New" and "smart." This is probably why they get off so easily :)

          Who said that is easy? I believe that the missiles were actually shot down, but because all the routes they had followed were handed in advance to the anti-aircraft gunners from the Americans through the Russians.
          1. Fedor egoist
            Fedor egoist April 17 2018 14: 28
            +1
            Quote: raw174
            Or are Syria particularly strong buildings?

            Not stronger than everywhere, I think. If the building is stable, then not all missiles have flown, or none at all.
            Quote: raw174
            then said that easy? I believe that the missiles were actually shot down, but because all the routes they had followed were handed in advance to the anti-aircraft gunners from the Americans through the Russians.

            Correctly believe that information for the Syrian air defense system from the Russians probably came. I doubt very much that the Americans themselves, in advance, merged the trajectories of the movement of the Kyrgyz Republic.
            You just do not need to write that 20 Tomahawks can destroy half a city. They cannot, from the word "completely."
            1. raw174
              raw174 April 18 2018 06: 21
              0
              Quote: Fedor Egoist
              I doubt very much that the Americans themselves, in advance, merged the trajectories of the movement of the Kyrgyz Republic.

              Why not? Everything looks like a clearly staged performance ...
              Quote: Fedor Egoist
              You just do not need to write that 20 Tomahawks can destroy half a city.

              Well this is exaggerated. I am not an expert, but I think that from 20 missiles to the target of destruction should be more significant than shown in the photo ...