For the thesaker.is
Relates to “Anonymous on April 18, 2017 · at 6:56 pm UTC”
Please correct me where I am wrong.
Imagine, foreign ships sailed to USA cost near New York, fired 59 missiles to nearby US airbase, killed few … These ships would be immediately destroyed by American patriots in routine defense.
When Russia did not do the same sinking of offending missile ships on April 6, she gave a hint: she won’t intervene if USA will even carpet bomb SAA.
Of course, when R. came in 2015, she should make her mind to shoot or not to shoot if US / Syria war breaks. Apparently, the policy is not to shoot. This means an entire adventure bound to fail and entering the Syria theater is completely useless except of demonstration how well R abides the laws over corpse of Syria.
Shoot / not to shoot has nothing to do with nuclear risk which is based on N. parity. If parity was not in R favor, she would be a dust a ten years before.
Therefore, there is no sense for USA not to destroy SAA piece by piece. Who cares?
Then Syria falls, and R is pushed back to her borders. Then? Then the policy may be change.
With non-attacking, R. spoils own reputation by missing straight moral stand. There are thousand pros against moral stand, “non-legal”, “carefulness”, “internal opposition”, loss of life”, “nuclear risk” … But people’s minds, in both opponent and friend camps, still respect when one is just flat fair.
I think, this would be a good idea to put the policy “if … to shoot” in referendum in Russia. Why not to say to people directly: “Hey, we may by-stand, but the Daesh/Al-Quaeda will be in Damascus. Then good bye Syrian friends, culture, precious social diversity, and democracy.” In Soviet Russia, memories about Spain Civil War 1930s were sacred.
It is also interesting why USA did the missile attack. Chem. attack, USA knows, this was a bluff. According to above logic, they simply tested R. There is no other reason. Unless US government is in complete disarray. Like wolf, as it said, before an attack, makes circles around a human testing him for a fear.
R. is also a “lunatic” in diplomacy. Aways tries to sign agreements with USA which cannot be kept while the partner is crazy, non-aggeable (separation of Al-Quaeda/moderates), and ignores the laws.
Negotiation must wait till and for reasonable partner.
Otherwise, R only loose and continue loosing, by
1. loosing time,
2. spoiling relations with Iran, Syria,
3. helping terrorists,
4. when agreements are broken, the part of moral responsibility is on both,
R. possibly “fools” own self because:
She was not in the same skin as Iran, which stood alone for decades against all of the World and has no illusions about USA. Her diplomats still remember reasonable leaders in the past: Reagan, …
The same dishonesty was in Donbass when advance of rebells was artificially frozen in 2014. What for? Russian reputation could not be damaged any worse. NATO did not attack R. calculating not having enough advantage.
Result is continued slaughter of Donetzk for 2 years. Today, militia in Donbass a bit demoralized, “what for we fight”, why these Minsk agreements? …
Russian government mantra “Ukranians are our brothers in blood” … is this not a self deception? Yes, this is what every Soviet pioneer has been taught, but reality is that these “brothers” do not stand up against Nazi propaganda and disprove this mantra every day. Why not to face a reality and let one rip what one saws?