The US Navy guided-missile destroyer USS Porter conducting strike operations from the Mediterranean Sea that the Defense Department said was part of a cruise-missile strike against Syria on Friday.Ford Williams/Courtesy U.S. Navy/Handout via REUTERS
Aaron Mehta, Defense News: Who learned more from the strikes in Syria ― America or Russia?
WASHINGTON ― When the U.S., France and Britain launched 105 cruise missiles at a trio of Syrian targets April 13, all eyes were on how the vaunted air defense network in Syria would handle the weapon.
But the crown jewel of that system, Russia’s highly regarded S-400, never fired. And while the older Syrian systems did appear to launch some munitions, the Pentagon claims those systems were not used until after the Western weaponry had already impacted their targets.
“Russian air defenses were energized. They were scanning, they had a main state air [defense] aircraft up. They did not choose to engage,” Marine Corps Lt. Gen. Kenneth McKenzie, the director of the Joint Staff, said during an April 19 press event. “I can tell you though that the rest of Syrian air [defense] capability, which is completely Russian-made, Russian-designed, Russian-supported, engaged extensively and comprehensively failed.”
Read more ....
WNU Editor: The Russians had a front seat to witness and study a massive NATO style missile attack, without showing their hand. It sounds like a win to the Russians for me.
3 comments:
Not to mention the cost of downing those missiles that were apparently targeting empty bunkers. Even the Israelis said the attack was pointless.
S400 should have anti intercontinental ballistic missile and anti aircraft capabilities. It would be far to costly to waste it on a few cruise missiles when its should be capable of downing F22's and F35's. The US overwhelmed Syrians conventional air defences for the simple reason they know what and where they are. Simple fact remains that Russia had Su35 Air superiority fighters with Anti Ship missiles in the air with energized S400 and radar plane support. If you know anything about modern war, it is that ships are sitting ducks and if Russians were directly targeted those naval vessels would be at the bottom of the sea right now.
Unfortunately, I have to agree. This was a HUGE win for Russia. Not only did Russia win this round militarily but the entire premise for the attack on Syria was, unfortunately, dubious at best. While I hope to be mistaken, I think it is highly likely that launching such an attack under such problematic circumstances is going to come back to haunt us down the road.
In retrospect, the rationale provided for the Iraq war was questionable at best. This attack on Syria was/is even more questionable. We've relied on "intelligence" services whose track record is dubious at best to tell us analyze a supposed chemical weapons attack and not only this but we made our decision quickly before all of the facts and circumstances could have possibly been analyzed.
Given what we have been through with regards to Iraq, one would have thought we would have been more circumspect before engaging in such an activity. Apparently some never learn. With that said there seem to be some in the US political system who for whatever reason or reasons simply feel as though we MUST have war with Russia at ANY cost and they will stop at NOTHING to bring this about. In my considered opinion, such people are either crazy fools or they have the minds of spoiled brat children.
Essentially we have handed Russia a victory they did not even have to earn. As my coaches of years ago would have called this, it was an "unforced error" on the part of America and our "allies" to have done this. As the editor likes to say, this is his "take." Well this my "take" on the present situation.
Post a Comment