Ever since Donald Trump arrived in the White House, there has been much talk of a great thaw in relations between the US and Russia. But his decision to carry out airstrikes in Syria in retaliation against Bashar al-Assad’s use of chemical weapons against his own people has brought that speculation to an abrupt end.
All the reasons why President Obama decided against military strikes in Syria in 2013 are still there – and some of them are even more pertinent now. In fact, the political motivation for removing Assad is even less clear than it was then. The moderate opposition to his regime has essentially ceased to matter on the ground. To take Assad out now is to leave the field open to various jihadist groups. They are hardly a preferable replacement for Assad.
As a result of this unilateral action, the danger of a direct military clash with Russia is much higher than it was in 2013. Moscow has since firmly established its military presence in Syria by operating an expanded naval base and a new air base. It has multiple military advisers, special forces units, and semi-private troops involved to support Assad. Hitting Assad will increasingly feel much more like hitting the Russians. Syria has become the testing ground for the battle of the wills between Putin and Trump.
Moscow has invested heavily in supporting the Syrian regime and its plan has worked so far. Assad is more secure militarily than he was before Russian involvement. Major regional players such as Turkey have abandoned their aim of removing Assad from power and are in talks about what Syria’s future looks like based on the assumption that he will stay in power.
The US seemed to move towards similar position only a week before the airstrike and it’s still mind-boggling what possessed the Assad regime to use chemical weapons in such circumstances. Equally puzzling is what exactly made Trump change his mind so dramatically. This is not, after all, the first time chemical weapons have been used in Syria and he himself urged Obama not to take action the last time round.
Top Comments
I'm cynical - as I always am when talking about Trump.
Is it possible that this is a case of "Don't look at that - look over here ?"
The moves towards Trump's impeachment are centering on the alleged collusion ( leading up to his election ) between Putin's people and Trump's people and that Trump and his team knew about it , so to be cynical - this matter of Syria's use of chemical weapons couldn't have come at a better time.
Putin certainly knows how to manipulate people and create convenient situations........he knows how to play a petulant man-child amateur like Trump and appeal to his vanity.
You can imagine Putin whispering to Trump "Let's create a little "theater" to help take the heat off".
We should be hoping that this time I'm right.
We should also be hoping for that impeachment before Trump does any more damage.
I'm with you Caz - I also believe (and correct me if I'm wrong), that the military sites that were targeted had the technological capacity to intercept the tomahawk missiles mid-air so I'm wondering who was snoozing when the US dropped 59 of them. Also, one news story said only 6 people killed when 59 missiles were dropped??? Sounds like people may have already gone out for an early counter lunch ...
'airstrikes in Syria in retaliation against Bashar al-Assad’s use of chemical weapons against his own people'
Syria: UN Mission Report Confirms that “Opposition” Rebels Used Chemical Weapons against Civilians and Government Forces
http://www.globalresearch.c...
According to wiki, your citation is known as a "conspiracy site" - with its founder, Michel Chossudovsky, a known conspiracy theorist on the topic of 9/11, vaccines and global warming.