Today: 24 September 2018
russian English greek latvian French German Chinese (Simplified) Arabic hebrew

All that you will be interested in knowing about Cyprus on our website Cyplive.com
the most informative resource about Cyprus in runet
Trump called Putin for a missile duel

Trump called Putin for a missile duel

12.04.2018
Tags: Trump, Armament, Syria, Missiles, Russia, USA, Air Defense, War in the Middle East, Middle East

Two tweets, published by Donald Trump, put many at a dead end. In the first, the American president called on Russia to meet missiles launched in Syria, and in the second - to stop the arms race. It would seem that the former completely contradicts the second. What triggered Trump on such statements and how should they be understood?

Most likely, an American strike on Syria will be inflicted in the next few hours. But even if the volley is postponed for a couple of days, this will not fundamentally change anything - the decision to strike has already been accepted and will be implemented. In the morning, Trump himself announced it. First he wrote in "Twitter":

"Russia threatens to shoot down any missiles fired at Syria. Prepare, Russia, because they will arrive - good, new and "smart." You do not need to be a partner of a gas killer - an animal that harasses its people and enjoys it. "

The people did not have time to discuss this threat, as a new tweet of the US president came after forty minutes:

"Our relationship with Russia is worse than ever, including the Cold War. There is no reason for this. Russia needs our help for its economy - it would be very easy to do. It is necessary that all countries work together. Will we stop the arms race? "

The neurotics prepared for the outbreak of nuclear war exhaled, but perplexity remained. What is he talking about? The psycho, the unpredictable Trump, from him it is not clear what to expect - that's the range of reactions in Russia. Actually

Trump is completely predictable and understandable - and in these tweets too.

Но обо всем по порядку.

First of all, it's worth mentioning that even earlier in the morning, before these two tweets, Trump wrote what is key in this whole story: "In many respects, enmity with Russia is due to a fake and corrupt investigation of the" Russian file ", organized by all adherents of democrats or people who worked for Obama."

The matter is that all the last days the main news in the US is not Syria, but searches from Trump's personal lawyer. He is looking for no evidence of Trump's links with Russia, and any compromising evidence on the US president. However, everyone understands that the searches are initiated by those who have been trying to drown Trump for more than a year with the accusations of "Russian ties".

So Trump is important to translate the topic from the Russian track to something else. Especially if this is another related to the Russians and emphasizes his independence from them. He is required to impose sanctions - and he introduces. They insist on the expulsion of Russian diplomats in solidarity with the UK in the case of the Violins - he sends. And now you need to hit Syria, where there was allegedly a chemical attack - and then the Russians are to blame, prove that you are not their agent.

But it is understandable that today's statements by Trump are not exhausted by internal political reasons. In any case, he had to speak today.

First. As early as Sunday, Trump laid on Vladimir Putin responsibility for supporting the "beast-Assad, arranging chemical attacks," and promised that everyone would pay dearly for it. On Monday, he announced that he was consulting with the military and "other partners" and would take "a concrete decision for the next 24-48 hours." This time expires just today - and it is clear that Trump needs to either strike Syria in the next few hours, or announce that he has decided to postpone the strike, or to cancel it. Judging by the morning tweet, the blow will be dealt. It is clear that not by Russian, but by Syrian military facilities. All of them use Russian weapons, so it will be a question of a missile duel between American and Russian weapons.

The second. Trump distorts the Russian position. He claims that "Russia threatens to shoot down any missiles fired at Syria," but neither our military nor our political leaders have ever said that we will destroy all American missiles flying through Syria. It was about those who would threaten our military. It is clear that the number includes the buildings of the Syrian Defense Ministry - there certainly are our military advisers, and the presidential palace of Assad. But far from the whole territory of Syria is covered by air defense. So we simply do not have the physical ability to bring down all American missiles flying towards Syrian targets.

Therefore, such a juggling of Trump was perceived as conscious. That is - to assign Russia's non-existent obligations, then bomb several Syrian military facilities and boast that the mission is accomplished.

However, it is very likely that Trump did not specifically attribute to Russia what we did not state. The US president, as usual, reacted to television news. The matter is that on the eve, on Tuesday evening, an Arabic TV channel "Al-Manar" published an interview with the Russian ambassador to Lebanon, Alexander Zasypkin. As stated by our diplomat, "if there is a strike from America, the rockets will be shot down, and also the objects from which the volleys were shot." In the statement of the site of the TV channel, the statement looked like this: "Russia will execute the statement of its president connected with any US aggression against Syria, shooting down American missiles and striking at the sources of fire, according to the words of the Russian ambassador to Lebanon, Alexander Zasypkin."

The Ambassador's words were included in the Anglo-Saxon newsletters, and a few hours later they were commented on by the former commander of the joint British military, General Richard Barrons. The general said that he hoped that the ambassador "carefully chose the words" because it's one thing to shoot down American missiles in the air that will target Syrian chemical weapons and planes, and quite another to try to flood ships and submarines in response, and also shoot down planes in the sky. If the second one, it's a war, Barrons said. It is clear that on Wednesday morning Trump most likely read or saw the news about Zasypkin's statement with Barrons 'comments - and decided to argue with the Russians' ability to shoot down all American missiles.

Well, after a short time Trump decided to defuse the situation by writing about the need to improve relations with Russia and the cessation of the arms race. Contradiction? No, because Trump's first tweet was not a threat of an attack on the Russian military in Syria, but a kind of challenge, a challenge to be measured by those whose weapons are stronger - American offensive or Russian defensive. This is a kind of test of modern precision weapons. Yes, dangerous and alarming, but still very far from the beginning of the third world war, but also from direct clashes between Russian and American troops. That is, there will be a clash of technology, but there should be no victims on both sides.

Is it strange? Cynically? Oh sure. But let's not forget that there are no wishing to enter into a direct military conflict with Russia in the United States. Our countries have never fought directly among themselves. Even 40 years of the Cold War (with a break for relaxation) passed with only two clashes between our armies. More precisely, their units. The most powerful and contact was, of course, the war in Korea. After a decade and a half in Vietnam, the Soviet-American confrontation was less noticeable. Only our air defense and American aviation were "crossed" there - the S-75 complexes regularly shot down Americans, including the future senator McCain.

The last serious battle, in which the Russians and Americans fought against each other, took place 45 years ago - in December 1972 in Vietnam. Then during the 12 day operation "Linebacker-2" Americans lost about 80 aircraft. Since then, our military has not faced each other in real battles, whether on land, at sea or in the air.

In Vietnam, the United States lost the war they had waged for more than seven years. In Syria, the war, albeit without the participation of hundreds of thousands of US military, has been going on for as many years. To quickly bring out a couple of thousands of Americans who remain in Syria, Washington does not need to hold the first duel with our army in 45 years. Donald Trump is already going to complete this inglorious operation. But if you really want to arrange a "missile biathlon" at farewell, then do not take offense.

Peter Akopov
LOOK
GTranslate Your license is inactive or expired, please subscribe again!