The Daily Mail 9 April 2017: Vladimir Putin’s threats to block further US attacks on Syria have been dismissed as a bluff by military experts.
The Russian president has been talking tough since Donald Trump’s strike on an airfield used by Syrian forces to launch jets which dropped chemical weapons on a village, killing more than 70 civilians.
President Putin has vowed to bolster Syria’s air defences and close down a hotline designed to avoid mid-air collisions between jets, including RAF aircraft and Syrian and Russian planes.
He has also dispatched a warship to patrol Syria’s coastline and thwart further US action.
But senior defence analysts told The Mail on Sunday that President Putin is actually desperate to avoid a clash with the US and wants to cut a deal to end the six-year Syrian civil war which has cost more than 400,000 lives.
Igor Sutyagin from the Royal United Services Institute said last night: ‘Putin is raising the stakes but he is bluffing, because he knows he cannot do anything militarily to cause a direct confrontation with the US.
Weakened Putin’s last great bluff: Military experts dismiss Russian president’s threats to block further US attacks on Syria, saying he’s desperate to avoid a clash with America
‘Putin wants the US to blink first, while knowing he doesn’t have the resources to withstand any confrontation with the US and its allies – militarily Russia is much weaker.
‘The Syrian conflict is also becoming embarrassing for Putin
‘So he is not going to defend the Syrian president at Russia’s expense. Putin will stand by Russian interests in Syria but not necessarily by Assad.’
Experts also cast doubt over the president’s pledge to upgrade Syria’s air missile batteries, which could be used to intercept Tomahawk cruise missiles, and the Kremlin’s intention to suspend its co-operation over so-called aerial deconfliction measures which allow Russia and the US to avoid clashes.
All 59 US Tomahawk missiles fired from the USS Ross and USS Porter in the Mediterranean slipped through Syria’s primitive S-300 defence system on their way to the Shayrat military airfield near Homs on Friday morning.
Mr Eyal added that Russia would find ways to continue its agreement with the US which ensures its aircraft don’t collide over Syria.
He said: ‘Putin is bluffing when he says he’s pulling out of this. Russia doesn’t want an accidental collision with the US any more than it wants a deliberate clash.
‘Putin is being typically macho and the introduction of the US as a major actor in Syria is a direct challenge to his authority, but he knows he will lose if there is a one-to-one confrontation. So he will ensure it doesn’t happen.’
Former British Army commander Colonel Richard Kemp agreed, saying: ‘The pledge to pull out of the deconfliction agreement is just big talk intended for public consumption.
‘The airspace over Syria is very busy and very dangerous, so I am certain that some co-operation will continue.’
Rothschild´s The Economist on 22 Oct. 2016 wrote that Putin is just blustering war rhetorics out of weakness
“Experts” have often been fatally mistaken. Underestimation of Russia´s nuclear arsenal which is even larger and smarter than that of the US is dangerous. Wikipedia: According to 2016 data from the New START Treaty Aggregate Numbers of Strategic Offensive Arms facts sheet, the United States has fewer operationally deployed strategic warheads than Russia.[Russia possesses 7,300 total nuclear warheads, of which 1,790 are strategically operational.
Russia possesses 4,490 nuclear warheads, while the U.S. has 4,500; Russia has 1,790 active strategic nuclear warheads, compared with the U.S. having 1,750.
Here is the conventional strength of Russia and her 10 allies 2014 – forget Georgia and the Ukraine. (Newsweek). Only a small part of US and UK forces are in Europe.
Russian bears are most dangerous when they are wounded!
The confrontation between Russia and the USA will come. When the London City/Vatican gives the order their Hegelian puppets will obey.
In my opinion, Putin´s strategy will be to destroy NATO´s nuclear weapons in a surprise attack and overrun Europe with his superior European ground/tank forces in a hurry to wage the war from there.
Putin has just sent another 330.000 men to the EU Border acc. to The Sun 29 Oct. 2016.
On 16 Sept. 2016, Forbes wrote: It is common for aggressors to challenge new U.S. presidents early in their tenure.
If such a war (Russia/NATO) were to occur, it would be mainly an Army show. The fight would be over control of large expanses of land with few geographical impediments to rapid advance. The U.S. Army would likely do most of the ground combat for NATO, because America contributes over two-thirds of the alliance’s resources. Losing such a war would drastically reshape the geopolitical balance in Europe, and reduce U.S. influence there to its lowest ebb since before World War Two. And yet losing is what the U.S. Army is currently postured to do.