While the US, French and British authorities are trying to convince the world community of the over-blow of the attack on Syria, the third-party assessment of observers and the media is not so unambiguous. Many see that the blow was purely symbolic, while others directly speak of the big mistake of those who took the criminal decision, while the third people are surprised by the victorious Western relations against the background of the suffering of the Syrian people.
The meaninglessness of a missile strike
In Denmark, a blow to Syria was called absolutely meaningless. "She had no military objectives (the action against Bashar Assad) had. Thanks to the alliance with Russia and Iran, Assad won the civil war, and the world will have to accept this, "writes Danish edition Politiken.
"The action of retribution against Assad, let's call things by their proper names, has already lost some of its effectiveness because of the chosen moment. If it was taken a few hours after it became clear about the mass murder with the help of toxic gas, it would have the character of immediate reaction. But it followed much later than the crime itself and bears a clear imprint of the US indecision, the lack of strategy for the Americans, as well as fear of unforeseen consequences, "the Danish observer writes.
As a result, "the Russian-American struggle for influence in the Middle East will not be resolved by force of arms, in this the US is a superior force, but with the help of diplomacy, in which Putin is more knowledgeable than Trump," the Danish edition summarizes.
From error to crime one step
The British edition of the Daily Mail as a whole considers the decision of British Prime Minister Teresa May to strike a blow to Syria correct. However, he warns that British voters do not share this opinion.
A British journalist calls May's decision not to leave the "barbarism of Assad" without its consequences a first mistake. "In reality, in the battle for the hearts and minds of the British, it is currently at a step from defeat," the publication writes. "This is due to the fact that the country, exhausted by the economy, remembering the destructive legacy of Iraq and frightened by the prospect of a direct clash of superpowers, does not share her opinion," the British journalist said.
According to the YouGov survey, only 22% of the British supported a missile attack on the Syrian army, while 43% opposed it. In addition, a survey on Mail on Sunday showed that the population did not approve and May's decision to bypass the parliament when making such a decision, a significant part of the British are against repeating such a scenario.
In France, there are also words about the erroneous decision to participate in the American strike against Syria. "This is our serious mistake, but it is only one of the whole mass committed by us. Since 2011, we have not stopped making mistakes and interfering in the affairs of other countries, "said the leader of the French National Front party Marin Le Pen, RT reports. In her opinion, France had to maintain its independence and act with caution and wisdom. She is concerned that an operation conducted without the consent of the United Nations could have serious consequences for France and her people. To begin with, it is necessary to provide evidence that the Syrian authorities may be involved in the chematok, Le Pen said.
Similar regrets and thoughts are expressed beyond the ocean. The legality of the attacks on Syria was also questioned by the US Arms Control Association. Yesterday's missile attacks are contrary to international law and the American Constitution, the leaders of the association Daryl Kimball and Tom Cantrimen said.
Experts are concerned that the attack was carried out without special permission from the US Congress. "The widely divergent claim that the president has the right to take military measures, based solely on his considerations, raises issues in the area of constitutional compliance and raises concerns about the president's ability to initiate military actions against other countries, including against the DPRK, thus, it can lead to the use of nuclear weapons, "- said in a statement on the association's website. The Arms Control Association calls on US authorities to return to the political process on the UN platform and provide evidence of the use of chemical weapons by the Syrian authorities.
Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro, who has great freedom in choosing words, directly called the attack on Syria undertaken by the United States, Britain and France a crime. "This attack is a criminal act against the people of Syria to create panic and terrorism in order to destroy the scientific centers of the country," Maduro said, RIA Novosti reported. Responsibility for the missile strike is borne by the "dogs of war", who need weapons and fighting to enrich themselves at the expense of the dead, he added.
Russia is the main player in the Middle East
Germany on the strength of the strong made of this story a verdict throughout Europe. Missile strikes against Syria again showed the EU's unwillingness to conduct military operations, writes journalist Ulrich Ladurner in the German edition of Die Zeit. When it comes to war, the EU immediately drops out of the game, the journalist writes, reminding about the conflicts in Iraq in 2003, in Libya in 2011 and about the current situation, RT reports.
The EU is split from within, but military actions can not be conducted ambiguously. The German does not call on the EU to participate in wars, but it would be worthwhile to strengthen the defense. Die Zeit believes that the EU needs a "Middle East strategy," but it lacks the means and unity. Europe is not an influential player in Syria, but the United States also lost its influence in the Middle East, where Russia became the main player.
The EU should work out a strategy in relations with the Kremlin, which at the moment does not exist. On the contrary, there is a serious split in the EU in this regard, this is indicated by the conflict over the "Northern Stream - 2" and the fact that after the poisoning of former spy Sergei Skripal, sanctions against Moscow were supported only by the 14 countries of the European Union, the German journalist states.
In the US, meanwhile, attempts continue to present a blow in Syria as America's military superiority. The day before the representative of the Committee of the Chiefs of Staff of the US Armed Forces, General Kenneth Mackenzie, stated: "We have chosen the objectives carefully to minimize the threat to the peaceful population." Unlike last year's strike, this time the missiles had to hit precisely the centers for the production of chemical weapons, not the delivery channels, he added.
US Defense Department spokesman Dana White warned of a large-scale campaign of disinformation: after the attack on Syria, the US Department of Defense recorded an alleged increase in the activity of "Russian trolls" at once by 2000%.
Probably, it was not possible to find other arguments to at least somehow discredit the fact that the Syrian air defenses gave a fantastic rebuff to the United States.
All parties celebrate the victory, but what is the lesson learned?
Senior political analyst Al Jazeera Marwan Bishara urges the official authorities to stop congratulating themselves on victory after the attacks on Syria. "Everyone celebrates and declares a victory, which is wild, considering how the Syrians suffered for many years and after the recent explosions," Bishara says.
"The Syrian regime claims victory by announcing the" Morning of Fortitude "and showing photos of Asad's supporters walking along the streets. The Iranians declare victory, as their influence and presence in Syria has not changed. The Russians show a high moral and legal superiority over the Western powers. Finally, the Americans declare that "the mission is carried out," and the British and French say they "did what they had to do" without killing civilians.
It's amazing that everyone announces victory, but no one seems to have learned from this lesson and does not know where to move further,
- concludes the analyst.
Many are relieved, believing that the predicted aggravation of the US-Russia conflict and the launch of the third world war was avoided. But is it really so?
Several advisers close to Donald Trump said that they have no information that the US president has a long-term strategy for the Middle East region, it seems that he is in the same position as after the attack on Syria in April last year , reports The Washington Post. The lack of a clear strategy for Syria complicates the discussion and the way out of the tangle of Middle Eastern problems.
"Trump is making the same huge mistake as Obama," says FT Defense expert Michael O'Hanlon of the Brookings Institution. He believes that the Trump administration should try to use these last blows in order to implement a strategy that recognizes in the end attempts to overthrow Assad as unreal.