After Bombing Syria “What Then” could be War with Russia Let’s slap some tough sanctions on Russia and let them add to Putin’s economic woes.

Home  »  Islamic terrorism  »  After Bombing Syria “What Then” could be War with Russia
Print This Post Print This Post
Apr 11, 2018 No Comments ›› admin

By Lynn Woolley

For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction. And so, as President Trump has threatened to bomb Syria, the Russians are threatening to shoot down U.S. Missiles.

Wars have started over far less.

It is true that President Obama left the mess in Syria to Trump, and that cleaning up this Obama mess is not easy. But suppose Trump follows through with his warning to Russia to “get ready” because American smart missiles are heading to Syria.

Then, suppose, the Russians follow through with their warning that they will shoot the missiles down and attack the launch sites. That’s war.

How America and Britain could wage war against Syria and its major ally Russia (The Sun/UK)

Russia is not the threat to us that it was in the glory years, but it still is a military power with a big nuclear stockpile. Russian Dictator Vladimir Putin likes to act tough and macho – as does Trump.

So before we act, let’s consider the consequences.

Both Trump and Putin should consider… What Then?

Senior Russian officials issued a threat that Putin’s military machine would strike U.S. bombsites in retaliation if we strike in retaliation for alleged chemical attacks by Bashar al Assad. That drew an even tougher Twitter response from Trump:

“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!”

“Our relationship with Russia is worse now than it has ever been, and that includes the Cold War. There is no reason for this. Russia needs us to help with their economy, something that would be very easy to do, and we need all nations to work together. Stop the arms race?”

According to an article in UK’s The Sun, a Russian foreign Ministry spokeswoman answered the tweets this away:

“Smart missiles should fly towards terrorists, not a legal government.”

She insinuated that the U.S. missiles might be a way to cover up evidence of an alleged chemical attack on the ground. Russia’s ambassador to Lebanon, Alexander Zasypkin, is also talking, telling Hezbollah’s al-Manar TV that Putin will destroy American missiles if Trump sends them.

“If there is a strike by the Americans then… the missiles will be downed and even the sources from which the missiles were fired.”

So we’re getting tough talk from both sides from heads-of-state that want to be considered tough and immovable.  That’s a lot of “what then’s.”

Two Type A’s threaten each other. Credit: Getty Images (The Telegraph)

Is there a way out short of war?

Trump, by retaliating a year ago when Assad was suspected of using chemical weapons, has a red line in the sand just as much as Obama did. Obama showed weakness and Trump doesn’t want to.

For his part, Putin presides over a diminished country with a weak economy in which he had to cheat to assure his reelection. He needs the United States as his foil and he often goes shirtless to look tough.

Video: President Trump warns Putinon Syria missile threat – BBC News

Is this enough to go to war over?

No, but two Type A’s are at it, and who know what will happen. There are other facts that will weigh in:

• Assad probably was responsible for the chemical attack, though reasons are unclear.
• ISIS has been beaten back, but can always re-form.
• Iran is involved (along with Russia) and the more power it assumes, the closer it can get to its goal of being a nuclear state.
• The refugee crisis caused by the Syrian civil war is devastating.
• The brutality of chemical attacks is well documented, although death by bombs, tanks, and beheadings is also unpleasant.
Assad has been protective of the region’s Christians.

Our interests in the region are mostly likely limited to:

• Preventing Putin from accumulating power and influence in the region.
• Preventing Iran from becoming a nuclear state.
• Humanitarian concerns about chemical warfare and the refugee crisis.

So, yes, we have a big Syria problem.

The question we’re asking here is: do we want to start something with Russia that might escalate into a full-blown conflict? If so, it should be with full understanding of the consequences – and not just because two strong-willed politicians are having a spitting contest.

Video: CNN’s Chris Cuomo with James Clapper, former Director of national Intelligence

Why not try economic sanctions and see if they work?

Russia is Assad’s biggest ally. Assad is not likely doing a lot of things that the Russians don’t know about. For that matter, there’s no public evidence that Assad committed the chemical attack. So let’s slap some tough sanctions on Russia and let them add to Putin’s economic woes.

At some point, Putin might have to back off from Syria, just to keep his own country afloat. Trump should be able to get much of the Western world to help out and put a serious squeeze on Putin. This way, no shots are fired, no missiles launched, and no American soldiers killed. In other words, we might avoid a serious conflict with Russia or even war.

It would also give CNN’s Russia-maniacs something to talk about.

lynn@BeLogical.com

Tagged with: , , , , , , ,

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

%d bloggers like this: