This article was written for the Unz Review: http://www.unz.com/tsaker/russian-options-against-a-us-attack-on-syria/
The tensions between Russia and the USA have reached an unprecedented level. I fully agree with the participants of this CrossTalk show – the situation is even worse and more dangerous than during the Cuban Missile Crisis. Both sides are now going to the so-called “Plan B” which, simply put, stand for, at best, no negotiations and, at worst, a war between Russia and the USA.
The key thing to understand in the Russian stance in this, an other, recent conflicts with the USA is that Russia is still much weaker than the USA and that she therefore does not want war. That does not, however, mean that she is not actively preparing for war. In fact, she very much and actively does. All this means is that should a conflict occur, Russia you try, as best can be, to keep it as limited as possible.
In theory, these are, very roughly, the possible levels of confrontation:
- A military standoff à la Berlin in 1961. One could argue that this is what is already taking place right now, albeit in a more long-distance and less visible way.
- A single military incident, such as what happened recently when Turkey shot down a Russian SU-24 and Russia chose not to retaliate.
- A series of localized clashes similar to what is currently happening between India and Pakistan.
- A conflict limited to the Syrian theater of war (say like the war between the UK and Argentina over the Malvinas Islands).
- A regional or global military confrontation between the USA and Russia.
- A full scale thermonuclear war between the USA and Russia
During my years as a student of military strategy I have participated in many exercises on escalation and de-escalation and I can attest that while it is very easy to come up with escalatory scenarios, I have yet to see a credible scenario for de-escalation. What is possible, however, is the so-called “horizontal escalation” or “asymmetrical escalation” in which one side choses not to up the ante or directly escalate, but instead choses a different target for retaliation, not necessarily a more valuable one, just a different one on the same level of conceptual importance (in the USA Joshua M. Epstein and Spencer D. Bakich did most of the groundbreaking work on this topic).
The main reason why we can expect the Kremlin to try to find asymmetrical options to respond to a US attack is that in the Syrian context Russia is hopelessly outgunned by the US/NATO, at least in quantitative terms. The logical solutions for the Russians is to use their qualitative advantage or to seek “horizontal targets” as possible retaliatory options. This week, something very interesting and highly uncharacteristic happened: Major General Igor Konashenkov, the Chief of the Directorate of Media service and Information of the Ministry of Defence of the Russian Federation, openly mentioned one such option. Here is what he said:
“As for Kirby’s threats about possible Russian aircraft losses and the sending of Russian servicemen back to Russia in body bags, I would say that we know exactly where and how many “unofficial specialists” operate in Syria and in the Aleppo province and we know that they are involved in the operational planning and that they supervise the operations of the militants. Of course, one can continue to insist that they are unsuccessfully involved in trying to separate the al-Nusra terrorists from the “opposition” forces. But if somebody tries to implement these threats, it is by no means certain that these militants will have to time to get the hell out of there.”
Nice, no? Konashenkov appears to be threatening the “militants” but he is sure to mention that there are plenty of “unofficial specialists” amongst these militants and that Russia knows exactly where they are and how many of them there are. Of course, officially, Obama has declared that there are a few hundred such US special advisors in Syria. A well-informed Russian source suggests that there are up to 5’000 foreign ‘advisors’ to the Takfiris including about 4’000 Americans. I suppose that the truth is somewhere between these two figures.
So the Russian threat is simple: you attack us and we will attack US forces in Syria. Of course, Russia will vehemently deny targeting US servicemen and insist that the strike was only against terrorists, but both sides understand what is happening here. Interestingly, just last week the Iranian Fars news agency reported that such a Russian attack had already happened:
30 Israeli, Foreign Intelligence Officers Killed in Russia’s Caliber Missile Attack in Aleppo:
“The Russian warships fired three Caliber missiles at the foreign officers’ coordination operations room in Dar Ezza region in the Western part of Aleppo near Sam’an mountain, killing 30 Israeli and western officers,” the Arabic-language service of Russia’s Sputnik news agency quoted battlefield source in Aleppo as saying on Wednesday. The operations room was located in the Western part of Aleppo province in the middle of sky-high Sam’an mountain and old caves. The region is deep into a chain of mountains. Several US, Turkish, Saudi, Qatari and British officers were also killed along with the Israeli officers. The foreign officers who were killed in the Aleppo operations room were directing the terrorists’ attacks in Aleppo and Idlib.”
Whether this really happened or whether the Russians are leaking such stories to indicate that this could happen, the fact remains that US forces in Syria could become an obvious target for Russian retaliation, whether by cruise missile, gravity bombs or direct action operation by Russian special forces. The US also has several covert military installations in Syria, including at least one airfield with V-22 Osprey multi-mission tiltrotor aircraft.
Another interesting recent development has been the Fox News report that Russians are deploying S-300V (aka “SA-23 Gladiator anti-missile and anti-aircraft system”) in Syria. Check out this excellent article for a detailed discussion of the capabilities of this missile system. I will summarize it by saying that the S-300V can engage ballistic missiles, cruise missiles, very low RCS (“stealth”) aircraft and AWACS aircraft. This is an Army/Army Corps -level air defense system, well capable of defending most of the Syrian airspace, but also reach well into Turkey, Cyprus, the eastern Mediterranean and Lebanon. The powerful radars of this system could not only detect and engage US aircraft (including “stealth”) at a long distance, but they could also provide a tremendous help for the few Russian air superiority fighters by giving them a clear pictures of the skies and enemy aircraft by using encrypted datalinks. Finally, US air doctrine is extremely dependent on the use of AWACS aircraft to guide and support US fighters. The S-300V will forces US/NATO AWACS to operate at a most uncomfortable distance. Between the longer-range radars of the Russian Sukhois, the radars on the Russian cruisers off the Syrian coast, and the S-300 and S-300V radars on the ground, the Russians will have a much better situational awareness than their US counterparts.
It appears that the Russians are trying hard to compensate for their numerical inferiority by deploying high-end systems for which the US has no real equivalent or good counter-measures.
There are basically two options of deterrence: denial, when you prevent your enemy from hitting his targets and retaliation, when you make the costs of an enemy attack unacceptably high for him. The Russians appear to be pursuing both tracks at the same time. We can thus summarize the Russian approach as such
- Delay a confrontation as much as possible (buy time).
- Try to keep any confrontation at the lowest possible escalatory level.
- If possible, reply with asymmetrical/horizontal escalations.
- Rather then “prevail” against the US/NATO – make the costs of attack too high.
- Try to put pressure on US “allies” in order to create tensions inside the Empire.
- Try to paralyze the USA on a political level by making the political costs of an attack too high-end.
- Try to gradually create the conditions on the ground (Aleppo) to make a US attack futile
To those raised on Hollywood movies and who still watch TV, this kind of strategy will elicit only frustration and condemnation. There are millions of armchair strategists who are sure that they could do a much better job than Putin to counter the US Empire. These folks have now been telling us for *years* that Putin “sold out” the Syrians (and the Novorussians) and that the Russians ought to do X, Y and Z to defeat the AngloZionist Empire. The good news is that none of these armchair strategists sit in the Kremlin and that the Russians have stuck to their strategy over the past years, one day at a time, even when criticized by those who want quick and “easy” solutions. But the main good news is that the Russian strategy is working. Not only is the Nazi-occupied Ukraine quite literally falling apart, but the US has basically run out of options in Syria (see this excellent analysis by my friend Alexander Mercouris in the Duran).
The only remaining logical steps left for the USA in Syria is to accept Russia’s terms or leave. The problem is that I am not at all convinced that the Neocons, who run the White House, Congress and the US corporate media, are “rational” at all. This is why the Russians employed so many delaying tactics and why they have acted with such utmost caution: they are dealing with professional incompetent ideologues who simply do not play by the unwritten but clear rules of civilized international relations. This is what makes the current crisis so much worse than even the Cuban Missile Crisis: one superpower has clearly gone insane.
Are the Americans crazy enough to risk WWIII over Aleppo?
Maybe, maybe not. But what if we rephrase that question and ask
Are the Americans crazy enough to risk WWIII to maintain their status as the “world’s indispensable nation”, the “leader of the free world”, the “city on the hill” and all the rest of this imperialistic nonsense?
Here I would submit that yes, they potentially are.
After all, the Neocons are correct when they sense that if Russia gets away with openly defying and defeating the USA in Syria, nobody will take the AngloZionists very seriously any more.
How do you think the Neocons think when they see the President of the Philippines publicly calling Obama a “son of a whore” and then tells the EU to go and “f*ck itself”?
Of course, the Neocons can still find some solace in the abject subservience of the European political elites, but still – they know that he writing is on the wall and that their Empire is rapidly crumbling, not only in Syria, the Ukraine or Asia, but even inside the USA. The biggest danger here is that the Neocons might try to rally the nation around the flag, either by staging yet another false flag or by triggering a real international crisis.
At this point in time all we can do is wait and hope that there is enough resistance inside the US government to prevent a US attack on Syria before the next Administration comes in. And while I am no supporter of Trump, I would agree that Hillary and her evil cabal of russophobic Neocons is so bad that Trump does give me some hope, at least in comparison to Hillary.
So if Trump wins, then Russia’s strategy will be basically justified. Once Trump is on the White House, there is at least the possibility of a comprehensive redefinition of US-Russian relations which would, of course, begin with a de-escalation in Syria: while Obama/Hillary categorically refuse to get rid of Daesh (by that I mean al-Nusra, al-Qaeda, and all their various denominations), Trump appears to be determined to seriously fight them, even if that means that Assad stays in power. There is most definitely a basis for dialog here. If Hillary comes in, then the Russians will have to make an absolutely crucial call: how important is Syria in the context of their goal to re-sovereignize Russia and to bring down the AngloZionist Empire? Another way of formulating the same question is “would Russia prefer a confrontation with the Empire in Syria or in the Ukraine?”.
One way to gauge the mood in Russia is to look at the language of a recent law proposed by President Putin and adopted by the Duma which dealt with the issue of the Russia-US Plutonium Management and Disposition Agreement (PMDA) which, yet again, saw the US yet again fail to deliver on their obligations and which Russia has now suspended. What is interesting, is the language chosen by the Russians to list the conditions under which they would resume their participation in this agreement and, basically, agree to resume any kind of arms negotiations:
- A reduction of military infrastructure and the number of the US troops stationed on the territory of NATO member states that joined the alliance after September 1, 2000, to the levels at which they were when the original agreement first entered into force.
- The abandonment of the hostile policy of the US towards Russia, which should be carried out with the abolition of the Magnitsky Act of 2012 and the conditions of the Ukraine Freedom Support Act of 2014, which were directed against Russia.
- The abolition of all sanctions imposed by the US on certain subjects of the Russian Federation, Russian individuals and legal entities.
- The compensation for all the damages suffered by Russia as a result of the imposition of sanctions.
- The US is also required to submit a clear plan for irreversible plutonium disposition covered by the PMDA.
Now the Russians are not delusional. They know full well that the USA will never accept such terms. So what is this really all about? It is a diplomatic but unambiguous way to tell the USA the exact same thing which Philippine President Duterte (and Victoria Nuland) told the EU.
The Americans better start paying attention.
The Saker
I can’t believe this hasn’t been mentioned as far as I can see.
The best asymmetric response Russia could have would be to have a string of countries immediately resign from NATO the day after any US attack on the sovereign state of SYRIA.
This would completely undermine US authority and likely lead to the utter disintegration of NATO.
Where does this start? Well obviously in Budapest one would have thought.
Hungary, Slovakia, Czech Republic, Turkey?, Bulgaria, Italy, Spain, Portugal……..
If Russia has at least lined up a couple of countries to take this route, there is yet some hope of avoiding World War 3 and all the fire and brimstone.
Viktor Orban – your time has almost come!
If of course things were to escalate in a year’s time with a President Marine Le Pen – you could also add France to this list – Le Pen & Orban side by side announcing the renunciation of their countries NATO membership…..
Wouldn’t that be a beautiful thing.
Now that is what I call a truly horizontal asymmetric response.
If shooting starts strike Israel. They started all of the ME.
It’s a mistake to think Trump can change long-standing US policies. Look back over recent decades…the Deep State’s needs and concerns were meticulously tended to no matter who was in the Oval Office. Trump’s bluster is mostly for show, to gather votes from those who naively think they have some say in such matters. If he were to gain office he would also become the Deep State’s servant, and I’m sure that behind the scenes the fix is already in. Anyway, Trump is well aware of what happens to those who fail in this regard.
I shudder when I recall that those in power today are the ideological descendants of the people who in the aftermath of WWII came very close to launching a preemptory nuclear attack on the Soviet Union. They estimated this would kill at least 100 million people…almost certainly a very low estimate, but acceptable in their eyes. The only reason they didn’t do so was that they didn’t have enough bombs to do the job properly. They feared the Soviet Union would survive and overrun Western Europe.
Today they have enough bombs.
The elephant in the room that no-one seems to mention is the looming election.
The neo-cons and zio-globalists HAVE to get Clinton into the Whitehouse otherwise ‘their’ NWO is dead in the water (as stated publicly).
To do this they will steal the election and yes, even start a war. It is a well-known fact (yet one which commentators are not mentioning) that the sheeple will NEVER vote for change if their country is at war.
With Trump’s huge lead (the ‘polls’ are BS) the Clintonistas are getting desperate because they cannot steal the election if it is a landslide.
In my opinion the current hype over SAA/Russian ‘atrocities’ in Aleppo is to;
1, try and save their estimated dozen or more ‘advisors’ trapped in the cauldron, and;
2, lay the propaganda foundation for a direct attack on the SAA by the ‘Coalition of the Sycophants’.
Hopefully (for Hillary) the S300s respond and take down at least one US jet… then Hillary can jump up and down and get huge political mileage over Trump.
Unfortunately Trump will be ‘forced’ to respond with war rhetoric or face losing too many brainwashed sheeple votes for not responding to “the Russkies taking down one of our boys”
What you say may be true such that as unpalatable as it sounds, the best option for Russia/Syria at this point may be to declare a ceasefire in East Aleppo beginning say on Monday and hold off from bombing runs in the area at least for 72-96 hours. I say hold off because no doubt the provocations will continue – but at least during that 72-96 hours Russia can go to the UN, go to the world’s media again and say – hey – we have called and observed a ceasefire – but the folks in East Aleppo want to keep fighting!!
Sure, it may appear pointless and a waste of time to do this – but – if they can forestall a false flag initiated attack from the West prior to the election it might just be enough to get Trump elected which would presumably dial down the temperatures in Syria.
Alternatively, completely destroy and liberate the East Aleppo pocket in the next 72-96 hours and end the discussion. Can they do that? To be honest, I’ve seen no evidence that they can win this victory in the next few days – otherwise presumably they would have already done it.
4. Rather then “prevail” against the US/NATO – make the costs of attack too high.
Konashenkov also added that Russian air defense systems “will hardly have time to calculate the flight trajectory of missiles and establish the affiliation of their carriers.”
There is no doubt about this statement, not only will they bring down the missiles (or aircraft) but the source launch vehicle (aircraft, carrier, battle ship, air field, the list goes on) for destruction as well, kind of a “sorry Charlie” apology (ultimatum) up front.
Nice work. No reference to Israel in your analysis?
I object to the term AngloZionist Empire. It’s purely a Zionist Empire and the Anglo part of the world is under as much intentional duress as the Russian. Also there is no such thing as Judeo Christian. The Judeo is an explicit and obvious enemy to the Christian. The terminology must be clear.
You know Elizabeth – you’re right!
But Elizabeth, our people are fat and the only ‘duress’ we are under is from our exploding Samsung Notes. Anglo acquiescence resulting in McMansions, his and her SUVs, the three flat-screen tvs and multiple Apple products have softened our suffering a little. I’ll stick with Anglo-Zionist, Zionists getting second billing is quite the honour. This is our empire, albeit with the Jews from the start, and each of us who live above $2 per day do so with stolen and blood-soaked loot.
I for one will be playing my fiddle until the smoke clears.
I note that you refer to the Falkland Islands as the “Malvinas”. The FI are British, do not belong to Argentina and never did.
Your analysis of the situation in Syria seems to be close to the mark, as I understand it. Although the US seems to be in the early stages of another potential Vietnam, on the wrong side.
If, as is to be hoped, Trump becomes President he will surely pull back from interfering with the Russians. Left to get on with it the Russians could probably clear out all the terrorist factions within four years. This would allow a post-Presidential Trump to move in and build a few golf courses and hotels.
@z
you are assuming the US is willing to go to war with Russia and would win if it did.
I say that only a lunatic would start a war with Russia.Unless the US wants a few of its major cities wiped out then they will not go to war against Russia.If they attacked Syria and lost a number of aircraft then what would they do?swallow their pride maybe.
I love Putin, and am chuffed about this article, as it reaffirms my love of the deep thinking of Russians generally, and their diplomats, etc, specifically.
What bothers me is the alleged presence (17-17k they are saying now; 167k I heard about, some years ago) of Russian military on US soil. Is there a Hegelian dialectic going on here?
The excuse for the 167k Russki troops on US soil was that the US Constitution could be bypassed, in terms of troops firing on US citizens-if they were not US troops. Bizarre!
The internet is full of disinformation, but this one seems quite a possibility, and casts a pall over my admiration of Putin, which I do not want marred.
Gary O
Hey Saker people, I can’t remember where I saw this info but it was something about 100’s of planes coming and going out of a airbase in Ireland. It hit the news because the people that live near the base were doing a lot of complaining because of all the noise. I don’t know, if true it sounds to my like this airbase might be setting up as a staging area. Interesting, I’m hoping maybe somebody on this site can check it out and see what is going on there.
With Washington always talking out of both side of their mouths it’s hard to ever get a read on their intentions by what they are saying, but sometime one can gain some insight in to their intentions by watching things like troop and equipment movements. Sometimes.
PTM
we had a commentator on our site report it yesterday here is the link /moveable-feast-cafe-2016-10-07-2/comment-page-1/#comment-282070 mod-hs
Just so everyone knows, I am very pro-Russia/Iran/China/Syria/Houthis. I think the key to this whole mess in Syria is to remember 911. In other words, Russia and her allies are fighting a cannibal cabal. This is not a chess game on a board. Russia has made all the correct moves in this fight. Many would conclude checkmate. But we are dealing with fascist bastards that are demonic. Anything is possible.
The underground cities are built. The seed vaults are filled. The Malthusian dialectic adopted. The Eugenicists are marshalled. The Bush/Clinton/Bush/Obama cartel over the years have installed the necessary military officers and bureaucrats that are the new Hitler Youth and S.S. officer corp.
The guillotines lay rusting when all knew that without proper maintenance of those tools, these fascist creatures would reappear. We have let our forefathers down, and now are placing our responsibility on the Russians and their allies.
The first “Ban the Bomb” Peace March in Canada was organized in my parents home in 1953. Paul Robeson used to come to the Peace Arch Border to sing for the Peace Movement back in those days. We often had bricks thrown thru our windows. The odd brick would have a note tied to it saying, “Move to Russia.”
My family stayed in Canada. I used to wonder what can one do to stop the madness?
Perhaps I will live long enough to see the answer go up in flames……
Russia’s only chance now is a first strike. BEFORE the eagle’s first strike, which is surely on the way.
“Are the Americans crazy enough to risk WWIII over Aleppo?”
In fact, most Americans have no CLUE what’s going on in Syria or anywhere else for that matter.
The globalists see U.S./Russia as in their way. Therefore, they kill two birds with one stone. They
control the USA and they are leading Americans into being destroyed in a first strike. Russia’s end
will be more slow. Bankruptcy, then invasion by various countries, China in the east, etc.
Ezekiel 38 and 39 war, on the way. Read it.
You stated, “Neocons are correct when they sense that if Russia gets away with openly defying and defeating the USA in Syria, nobody will take the AngloZionists very seriously any more.”
Not so. The neocons ARE taken very seriously as a subversive force of endless greed, murder & destruction throughout the world. If the neocon plan fails in Syria, it will be because wiser & cooler heads prevailed – both in the US & outside of it.
The propaganda is certainly getting worse wrt Russia
Randy Newman (total hack and apparently, jewish too) has written a new song all about Putin
The zionist crowd really have it in for Putin- shakes head…..
It’s called “Putin”
Putin the megalomaniac- looking to take the Mediterranean
while stomping greeks and turks
references to Pussy riot “The Putin girls”
Putin don’t like the putin girls cause there vulgar and he loves his family and country
all in a ridiculing manner of course
http://pennyforyourthoughts2.blogspot.ca/2016/10/randy-newmans-propagandistic-putin-song.html
it’s getting more insidious everyday!
Another cogent analysis as usual.
The war seems to be settled in a strategic sense, the way WWII was over for Hitler when he chose and failed failed to take Stalingrad over Moscow. If the U.S./NATO are talking nukes – not giving serious anti-aircraft capability to the DAESH – that’s a very noticeable gap in the escalation progression. They’re bluffing; they plan on being there when Russia leaves, and that means DAESH can’t have real AA capability.
The only real danger is incompetence; only a President Hilary could screw up a game of chicken.
DAESH failure to take Aleppo/bypass to Damascus from 2011 and Russian intervention in 2015 is the A-Z undoing. There may or may not be Kursk-esque battles still to come, but the operational momentum is only Russia’s/Syria’s to lose. Tactically, war can go on for maybe a couple of more years till Arab Gulf State money dries up and/or the supply of Islamic chavs dries up. Russia/Syria will likely prevail.
Syria and the Ukraine are not an either-or relationship. Like in a massed zombie attack, the front and back doors must be secured (plus the windows and basement). If the defenders go down, they go out with a bang that takes out the zombies, saving the world.
Zombie movies were recently all the rage. Given the close relationship between the Deep State and Hollywood, it provides something of a glimpse into deconstructing this supra-subculture. Like the way vampires were fashionable pre-2008 Deep Statism, when banksters were in their zenith.
Russia’s position in Syria is very good, if they fight. Only retreat gets Russia into trouble, with the DAESH zombies and their Boss controller left still-viable. Which is what nuke talk is all about; scaring Russia into not fighting and preserving the DAESH army. Its surprising no assassination attempts of key Russian and Syrian persons have happened before nuke talk.
The mass destruction of U.S./NATO assets directly attempting to remove Russia and Assad, would leave Syria much like Ukraine or Libya. That is, a collapsed state with no real leadership full of armed militants with their own ideas no longer controllable by the West.
Or, Russia/Syria might prevail, leaving the U.S. octopus armless in the region. U.S. nuke talk is loser talk. Escalation, conventional or nuclear, leads nowhere for team A-Z but greater defeat and with each escalation, ever less room for recovery.
From a military standpoint, Russia loses little and can re-base in Iran. NATO loses most of its longstanding Mediterranean/ME presence. NATO would need years to restore that presence, if ever. Plane, ship, sub, and facilities losses combined with lost personnel are irreplaceable losses.
There’s no way Turkey is throwing away its viability as an independent state and key benefactor of the Eurasian century to protect A-Z elitists. Erdogan will never forget any one of the SU-24 Turkey roast, EU membership snubbing, or the Gulenist coup attempt. Israel seems high on shadenfreude as enemies and frenemies twist in the wind; why spoil things by entering the war themselves?
This war is bungled and over for the West. That over-the-top rhetoric from the Pentagon is not backed by viable action or further reckless oopsie-bombing, means all they have left is scary intimidating posturing and talk of nuclear war. Oh, and a few more DAESH zombie waves.
Here is my two cents worth from a different angle. If there is confrontation between Russia and the US then China will will back Russia(the enemy of my enemy stuff). The Chinese belief for world domination(and they do) in this phase(Russia vs USA) is that they can afford to lose 100 million people. The question is can the USA do the same. Only a fool would bet against those odds but that is exactly who is running the USA now and for a long time to date.
This will go to full nuclear. As you surmised, Russian military is weaker than the US but at par when nuclear armaments are considered. In a limited war which rapidly escalates, the losing side will most likely use nukes to even the score or else losing his country with unacceptable terms of surrender or consequences. And with the propensity of using tactical small yield nukes in the past, disguised as normal explosions, the war would quickly turn nuclear. Pray.
The long game is an often used but appropriate cliche for the Russian political and military machine. Unlike the anglo/zionists the Russian foreign policy is not rooted in protecting the occultists of the entity and their narcissistic plans for a greater israel and the destruction of civil society in the midde east. The US is directly tied to the whims of the zionists – turning US policy into a reactionary short sighted mess that creates untenable political and military situations.
Aleppo is a perfect example – comparable to the Battle of Moscow where Hitler’s forces lost ww2. The Germans reached a limit of their power at Moscow – from then on it was a fall back – Stalingrad and Kursk were just sideshows on the way back to Berlin.
Are the anglo/zionists prepared for their own Stalingrad – perhaps not. But Aleppo is already lost to the occultists. Anything the US does now will only make things worse for the entity. An attack against Syria will mean an unstoppable chain of events culminating with the complete rout of the iof and ultimately US troops.
The Russians – like with the nazis – will hit the US forces back hard. More importantly the Russians and their allies have a ground fighting force – a force that is seasoned and ready to fight against anything the empire can throw out.
As other commentators have pointed out – will the empire be able to hide the thousands of troops killed and injured along with enourmous material losses? The Russians understand the anglo/zionists are just as deadly as the nazis/zionists and they have done well to prepare for a fight in Syria.
Me as well as rest in the world (most probly.) were shocked and against what happened in florida USA, more ever m conscious in what happen in Seriya this time.
Stop killings in seriya. They are also legalized civilians as of USA.
It is true that the US has overwhelming power not in Syria itself but in the region and they could quickly deploy forces and weapons systems to Syrias east side but it all comes down to the will to fight Russia in Syria and if the gains from it outweigh the losses , yes to America Syria is important to reaffirm its hegemony and demonstrate to the world they still run the show however to Russia to prevail in Syria literally means life or death of Russia itself . They can all tell us its about ferrorism all they want the fact is conflict in Syria is about a oil pipeline ( that Assad outright rejected ) that would go from the ME oil kingdoms straight to Europe , if this happened America would easily force Europe to abandon Russian oil and gas completely , like Bush said if you are not with us then you are against us , so this way all European countries would be forced to obey not to be branded allies of Russia and the enemy of America , this would mean loss of a huge part of Russias oil market and with that major troubles for Russias ecenomic well being rendering them unable to maintan expanding and keeping up the military exposing the entire country to all sorts of troubles and dangers and if willing NATO could much easier invade and occupy a part of Russia like the Kaliningrad region , in such a situation economically crippled Russia could do nothing but sue NATO for occupying its territory and we all know how well that would turn out considering the influence the US has on all international courts , its highly unlikely the US would attack Russian firces directly rather keep chipping away at Syrian forces and capability to keep fighting the endless flow of juhadist cannon fodder coming in through Turkey , Lebanon and if need be through Israel , all in all I dont see Russia backing down as literally Russias economic survival depends on preventing middle east oil and gas going to Rurope through Syria