Russian aggression - what to do?

[JohnL]

and Porton Down has now confirmed the country of origin cannot be established anyway.

Russia is going to have a field day.

https://news.sky.com/story/porton-down-experts-unable-to-identify-precise-source-of-novichok-that-poisoned-spy-11315387

"Other inputs were used to implicate Russia"

[robbin]

That posting puts me in mind of a Daily Express health 'breakthrough' headline - sounds exciting, dramatic and new, but when you read the article there's actually nothing new or particularly surprising in it!

[JohnL]

robbin Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> That posting puts me in mind of a Daily Express

> health 'breakthrough' headline - sounds exciting,

> dramatic and new, but when you read the article

> there's actually nothing new or particularly

> surprising in it!

I see what you mean as neither side will change what they are saying - but there can be no proof that the public can know now I'd think (intelligence sources would be compromised)

[JohnL]

getting serious now.

Looks like USA, Britain and France may attack Syria and Russia hinting it'll shoot down missiles (and maybe where the missiles came from - that's ships and planes I think)

I get the feeling Theresa May might be the dove out of Macron, May and Trump.

[JoeLeg]

They aren?t hinting, they?re outright declaring that what they?ll do. Russian SAM?s are very good too.

I?m now starting to get worried by all this. Normally Trump is all over Twitter, but there doesn?t seem to be much from him on this. For some reason that seems worse.

[JohnL]

FFS Trump

@realDonaldTrump

10 minutes ago

Russia vows to shoot down any and all missiles fired at Syria. Get ready Russia, because they will be coming, nice and new and ?smart!? You shouldn?t be partners with a Gas Killing Animal who kills his people and enjoys it!

[flocker spotter]

https://jalopnik.com/the-flying-crowbar-the-insane-doomsday-weapon-america-1435286216

[JoeLeg]

Well I was wrong. There it is, Trump doing what Trump does. Somehow I?m not reassured.

[JohnL]

flocker spotter Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> https://jalopnik.com/the-flying-crowbar-the-insane

> -doomsday-weapon-america-1435286216

What a horrible weapon. Trumps placing the order.

This tweet just sounds like a child - but maybe he's not going to attack now - that leaves May looking out of the loop.

@realDonaldTrump

Never said when an attack on Syria would take place. Could be very soon or not so soon at all! In any event, the United States, under my Administration, has done a great job of ridding the region of ISIS. Where is our ?Thank you America??

[JoeLeg]

In other words Mattis has told him to calm down, while the Russians have dispersed their air units to a variety of locations so that America can?t target them, leaving Trump with the thorny problem of being unable to fire any missiles lest the Russians get annoyed and start shooting back.

In other news Russian tv has been telling people what they should stock in their fallout shelters, so that?s cheery!

[robbin]

JL - "while the Russians have dispersed their air units to a variety of locations so that America can?t target them, leaving Trump with the thorny problem of being unable to fire any missiles lest the Russians get annoyed and start shooting back"

I don't understand that - the sentence contradicts itself. If the Russians have moved their aircraft so they don't get targeted, how does that mean the US can't fire missiles? They are not planning on attacking Russian forces (obviously) but the Assad regime - it suits the US to avoid having Russians getting in the way and being killed. In fact it suits Russia too - they don't want a fight (themselves) with the USA - they would be massively out-gunned and anyway it just doesn't suit either power.

That is why the Russian ships just left their port at Tartus - they don't want any strikes hitting them. The two powers also have a system of direct communications between their commanders on the ground to avoid mistaken attacks - that will no doubt also be used to try to make sure the Russians are not in the firing line directly. The real danger is they get hit because they happen to be close by, hence the communications.

Last time when the US fired cruise missiles at the Syrian air base they told the Russians in advance, so they could move away and no Russians were hurt.

All this amounts to is pointless virtue signalling anyway. A night's strikes on a few bases in the desert (with a couple of day's warning) is not going to change the course of anything. It is just showing that the US will not 'tolerate' war crimes of killing civilians with gas/chemical weapons. Apparently its ok to do that for years with barrel bombs and more sophisticated weaponry on a way bigger scale every day though - that's why its virtue signalling. Quite why its ok to blow a kid's arms and legs off leaving them to bleed to death in agony is ok, but to gas them to death is not, I don't quite understand. Both actions seem equally vile to me.

The daily Syrian (supported by Russia) bombing and artillery must have killed thousands of times as many as died in the chemical attacks - just this year alone.

[JoeLeg]

robbin Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> JL - "while the Russians have dispersed their air

> units to a variety of locations so that America

> can?t target them, leaving Trump with the thorny

> problem of being unable to fire any missiles lest

> the Russians get annoyed and start shooting back"

>

> I don't understand that - the sentence contradicts

> itself. If the Russians have moved their aircraft

> so they don't get targeted, how does that mean the

> US can't fire missiles? They are not planning on

> attacking Russian forces (obviously) but the Assad

> regime - it suits the US to avoid having Russians

> getting in the way and being killed.

By intermingling Russian and Syrian units, Russia prevents the US from targeting Syrian Air Force (and other) facilities that would otherwise be needed to support the Russian/Syrian war effort; for example, the Syrians have flown pretty much every one of their serviceable a?c onto Russian-occupied bases, to protect them - as you say, Trump is not about to attack such locations as it would result in a shooting war between the USA and Russi, and terrible potential for ?instant sunshine?.

Russia feels it cannot let the US have free reign over its ally; this is a move which passively restricts the US ability to target Assad.

In fact it

> suits Russia too - they don't want a fight

> (themselves) with the USA - they would be

> massively out-gunned and anyway it just doesn't

> suit either power.

I agree no one wants a war (we all hope), but I?d disagree over the idea that Russia would be outgunned. They have the S400 air defence system deployed in Syria, and if they want they can deny airspace out across part of the Mediterranean; the S400 is pretty much the best SAM system in the world, and the Russians are very capable operators of it. Add to that their cruise missile abilities, and I?d say they would give as good as they got.

>

> That is why the Russian ships just left their port

> at Tartus - they don't want any strikes hitting

> them. The two powers also have a system of direct

> communications between their commanders on the

> ground to avoid mistaken attacks - that will no

> doubt also be used to try to make sure the

> Russians are not in the firing line directly. The

> real danger is they get hit because they happen to

> be close by, hence the communications.

Again, yes, all of that is true. But history is littered with examples of local screw-ups that had strategic ramifications, so let?s all hope those comms are clear and being used.

No doubt there?s a lot of behind the scenes activity, but that doesn?t negate the possibility of someone doing something stupid.

>

> Last time when the US fired cruise missiles at the

> Syrian air base they told the Russians in advance,

> so they could move away and no Russians were

> hurt.

Which makes the redeployment of Russian units as cover for Syrian bases all the more notable. Russia is limiting the places it will let the US strike.

>

> All this amounts to is pointless virtue signalling

> anyway. A night's strikes on a few bases in the

> desert (with a couple of day's warning) is not

> going to change the course of anything. It is just

> showing that the US will not 'tolerate' war crimes

> of killing civilians with gas/chemical weapons.

> Apparently its ok to do that for years with barrel

> bombs and more sophisticated weaponry on a way

> bigger scale every day though - that's why its

> virtue signalling. Quite why its ok to blow a

> kid's arms and legs off leaving them to bleed to

> death in agony is ok, but to gas them to death is

> not, I don't quite understand. Both actions seem

> equally vile to me.

>

> The daily Syrian (supported by Russia) bombing and

> artillery must have killed thousands of times as

> many as died in the chemical attacks - just this

> year alone.

Again, yes, that?s all correct. Nothing about this is good, or even morally acceptable. At this point the concern is that the conflict could - through misunderstanding or bad communication - become something far worse.

I?m reminded of the scene in ?13 Days?, when McNamara berates the Joint Chiefs for their careless handling of the ships, exclaiming ?This is LANGUAGE, this is President Kennedy talking to Premier Krushchev!?. Things haven?t changed that much. We have hotlines now, communication between militaries at all levels, but the movement of troops, the positions of ships, this is all still diplomatic chatter. I fervently hope they?re all speaking the same language.

[robbin]

JL wrote: "while the Russians have dispersed their air

> units to a variety of locations so that America

> can?t target them"

Oh, I see - I didn't understand you to be saying (as you did since) that they are intermingling them - I read that as saying they were moving Russian assets AWAY from possible government regime targets.

Anyway, the reports I have been reading suggest the Russians have moved their stuff away from regime targets, not right next to them or intermingled with them - that would be contrary to what they did last time. I doubt they are doing that, but then maybe the reports you have read are right and the others wrong.

JL wrote: "I?d disagree over the idea that Russia would be outgunned. They have the S400 air defence system deployed in Syria, and if they want they can deny airspace out across part of the Mediterranean; the S400 is pretty much the best SAM system in the world, and the Russians are very capable operators of it. Add to that their cruise missile abilities, and I?d say they would give as good as they got."

Well, in terms of air and naval forces in the region there's no comparison at all. As for the S400 its an air defence system - not offensive. Its supposed to be good and I'm sure it's effective (the Daily Mail was getting all excited about it the other day!) but the Israelis hit a Syrian air base pretty hard last week and weren't affected by it - they (and the US) can hit any place in Syria without having to even fly into Syrian airspace (the Israelis fired their missiles from over Lebanon). As for cruise missiles, sure Russia has them but where are they going to fire those to? They are not going to challenge any US air attack, surely.

I agree the danger is something happening by mistake, but I do think there's a lot of overblown tabloid hysteria (partly fed by bellicose propaganda from Russia about 'hitting back' when in reality how they would do that (or why) remains a bit of a mystery. Seriously, what does Russia care about some dead Syrian conscripts and a few blown up buildings in desert air bases, so long as they don't themselves suffer casualties?

Personally, I don't think the US should do anything, but that's on the basis I just don't think it would make a jot of difference and its not as if the Syrian regime are continuing to gas tens of thousands. They are, however, continuing to kill tens of thousands by conventional means and that's not going to stop because of a few missile strikes. I think the risk (even if limited) of a mistake or something else sparking wider conflict is not worth taking because there is nothing positive that might come out of it. If air strikes might change anything I may take a different view.

[ianr]

> As for the S400 ... the Israelis hit a Syrian air base pretty

> hard last week and weren't affected by it

I think the truth about any of the details is probably only known to a few. See for example this from Ha'aretz: https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/.premium-could-syria-really-have-shot-down-israeli-missiles-as-russia-claims-1.5988859.

[robbin]

I'm sure that's right. We're not in a position to know how many (if any) missiles were shot down. It appears a fair few got through though (but that said - who ever really knows? The Israelis were keeping very quiet about even being involved.

[JoeLeg]

What I know of the S400 is informed from what few open-source points I can find, and the general opinion is that it?s a very serious piece of kit. That said, I take your point regarding lack of solid info, and the Israeli?s never give anything away.

My point about cruise missiles is that they have always been a serious piece of Russian (and Soviet before that) hardware. While the SAM?s are defensive in nature (though I doubt the distinction would be made by aircraft launching TLAM?s from international airspace) if Putin decides to shoot more it?ll be those he uses to hit ships; they?re all based up around Murmansk, with some dispersed nearer, none of which is too far away. Russian EW capabilities are also considerable. I suspect that of push came to shooting the Russians would hit very hard at first, and we?d find out just how good Arleigh Burke?s and F-22?s are, while praying that it would stop before the worst happened. The trouble is that everything likely to be involved is untested as far as using it to its ?full potential? goes, so no one actually knows what would happen.

All of this is really just armchair generalship of course. I remember the Cold War with horror, and have no desire to return to those times which is why I suppose this is of such macabre fascination to me. I fervently hope this is all the ?language? I referred to above, and that they understand each other. I was once told a bone-chilling tale by a former USAF communications officer - which he witnessed personally - of how the Americans came appallingly, sickeningly close to launching a first strike on the USSR, because of...sunspots! He averred, and I agree, that we should never underestimate the ability of simple human misinterpretation or misunderstanding to bring about catastrophe.

[robbin]

JL wrote: "...if Putin decides to shoot more it?ll be those he uses to hit ships..."

How do you sleep at night JL?!!

No matter what some of the excesses of tabloid click-bait hysteria, or propaganda may suggest, I really don't think Putin's some sort of crazed maniac who is going to suddenly start 'hitting' US warships, killing hundreds. He's very clever and calculating and that sort of conduct would be completely out of character and different to his past record. I very much doubt he would see anything good for him or Russia coming from a massively disproportionate escalation. There's escalation and then just pure insanity and I don't think he's got some sort of wish to self-destruct - even if it's mutual destruction.

We are talking about Syrian regime casualties (which he won't give a t*ss about) or at worst a few Russian casualties (a large number - up to 200 or so were already reportedly killed by US and allied air strikes in Syria in February and that didn't trigger WW3). If we are talking 'defensive retaliation' it's more like an aircraft or two getting shot down - not some full scale assault on US forces. Also, the reason Russia started supporting Assad in the first place was to protect their naval base at Tartus - because it is their ONLY facility in the entire Mediterranean. They don't have forces in the area capable of dealing with a sustained NATO response (which comparatively has huge forces in the entire area surrounding Syria. NATO would, of course be obliged to respond to such an attack on its own member's forces.

I sincerely hope I'm not wrong, but I don't think you need get too worked up just yet.

I can say all this confidently without fear of embarrassment, because if I do turn out to be wrong, posting this on EDF will be the least of my worries!

[robbin]

I remain of the view that any attack would just be for PR. It will have no military value. It would also be the height of hypocrisy to take action just because a different form of killing has been used on a relatively very small number of people, while doing nothing when hundreds of thousands are killed, but just in a different way.

[JohnL]

Trumps fervent followers swear there will be no war and Trump will bring Assad to the negotiating table after a load of threats (to be fair it seemed to work on Kim - was it luck? ).

Apparently it's all written in "The Art of the Deal" (a man who wrote a book with that title just must have studied Sun Tzu in detail yes :) )

[JoeLeg]

robbin Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> JL wrote: "...if Putin decides to shoot more it?ll

> be those he uses to hit ships..."

>

> How do you sleep at night JL?!

Not particularly well, but that has more to do with my youngest insisting on climbing into our bed every night!

No, seriously I don?t think Putin or anyone else wants a war, and again I agree with pretty much everything you say; my concern remains the ability of humans to make a mistake in the heat of the moment. That?s a danger I can?t discount.

I?m also really not convinced that people like John Bolton or Mike Pence are who you want in the room if an American plane has been destroyed; there?s a fair few hawks around Trump. Ironically I would trust Mattis far more.

>

> I sincerely hope I'm not wrong, but I don't think

> you need get too worked up just yet.

Indeed, but like I say, child of the Cold War here, and knowing now as we do just how close we came on several occasions to a mistake leading to our annihilation, this is all too close for comfort to me.

>

> I can say all this confidently without fear of

> embarrassment, because if I do turn out to be

> wrong, posting this on EDF will be the least of my

> worries!

Very true! Here?s hoping...

[JoeLeg]

robbin Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I remain of the view that any attack would just be

> for PR. It will have no military value. It would

> also be the height of hypocrisy to take action

> just because a different form of killing has been

> used on a relatively very small number of people,

> while doing nothing when hundreds of thousands are

> killed, but just in a different way.

Maybe. I?m slightly suspicious (alright, very suspicious) of this whole thing. There is, I?m sure, much more to this than meets the eye, but I?m also sure we?ll probably never be told. Mostly this is world powers playing diplomacy with peoples lives.

[robbin]

Agreed!

I too experienced the Cold War and recall being terrified as a kid at some of it. It generally pays not to watch the news - which is a problem if you're addicted to it like I am!

I'm very suspicious of the whole thing - TM just wants to keep in with POTUS (no bad thing up to a point) but I wouldn't be at all surprised if some bunch of desperate religious zealots on the verge of defeat set off chlorine gas themselves, with the hope of getting someone to intervene and come to their rescue. But then it is at least as likely it was the regime. Either way, for the reasons I have already mentioned I can't agree its a good idea to intervene with token bombing.

[flocker spotter]

JohnL Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Trumps fervent followers swear there will be no

> war and Trump will bring Assad to the negotiating

> table after a load of threats (to be fair it

> seemed to work on Kim - was it luck? ).

>

>

KJU has outplayed trump at every juncture - KJU is playing chess to Trumps snakes and ladders here- The DPRK wants, indeed requires, constant brinkmanship to ensure its survival. The current situation could last for years, every day lessens the likelyhood of the already unlikely prospect of a US attack or forced regime change. Trump has been done like a kipper and the Kims power is further consolidated.

[rendelharris]

robbin Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Agreed!

>

> I too experienced the Cold War and recall being

> terrified as a kid at some of it. It generally

> pays not to watch the news - which is a problem if

> you're addicted to it like I am!

>

> I'm very suspicious of the whole thing - TM just

> wants to keep in with POTUS (no bad thing up to a

> point) but I wouldn't be at all surprised if some

> bunch of desperate religious zealots on the verge

> of defeat set off chlorine gas themselves, with

> the hope of getting someone to intervene and come

> to their rescue. But then it is at least as

> likely it was the regime. Either way, for the

> reasons I have already mentioned I can't agree its

> a good idea to intervene with token bombing.

I read an interesting piece by John Pilger recently (he talks equal amounts of truth and raving conspiracy theory, in my experience) about last year's alleged chemical attack. According to him, satellite images of the Syrian air force loading up Russian munitions showed none of the usual precautions that are routine when handling chemical weapons, and the warheads weren't even the right shape. What he posited is that in areas where ISIS were rampant, farm people tended to flock to the towns for safety; unwilling to leave behind their assets for looters, they would bring their stores of fertiliser, weedkiller etc with them and store them in warehouses. Pilger suggested that conventional missiles had hit one of these warehouses and that was what had released poisonous gas; he claimed that independent observers had verified this. I have no way of knowing how true that theory is, but it's an interesting alternative explanation.

[JohnL]

rendelharris Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I read an interesting piece by John Pilger

> recently (he talks equal amounts of truth and

> raving conspiracy theory, in my experience) about

> last year's alleged chemical attack. According

> to him, satellite images of the Syrian air force

> loading up Russian munitions showed none of the

> usual precautions that are routine when handling

> chemical weapons, and the warheads weren't even

> the right shape. What he posited is that in areas

> where ISIS were rampant, farm people tended to

> flock to the towns for safety; unwilling to leave

> behind their assets for looters, they would bring

> their stores of fertiliser, weedkiller etc with

> them and store them in warehouses. Pilger

> suggested that conventional missiles had hit one

> of these warehouses and that was what had released

> poisonous gas; he claimed that independent

> observers had verified this. I have no way of

> knowing how true that theory is, but it's an

> interesting alternative explanation.

I managed to create a load of chlorine in my bathroom when I mixed some cleaning agents so you don't need to be an expert chemist as I found out.