Pentagon: Russian S-300 in Syria will be a tragedy
US Secretary of Defense James Mattis decided to share his recipe for resolving the Syrian crisis. He believes that Russia, if it wants to help in this process, should interact with UN Special Envoy for Syria Staffan de Mistura, contribute to the Geneva process, and so on. But this is all - verbal tinsel, behind which the main thing hides: Mattis fears Russian deliveries of S-300 anti-aircraft missile systems to Syria.
According to the Israeli television channel i24news, before meeting with Israeli Defense Minister Avigdor Liberman, the head of the Pentagon said:
At the same time, Russia, in his opinion, should abandon plans to supply the Syrian army with S-300 systems. Allegedly, these are "actions that increase tension." Moreover, he called it a “tragedy”, because the supply of such weapons to Syria would mean "continued hostilities in the country."
The US Secretary of Defense did not at all consider the attacks on Syria to be a tragedy on either April 7 of last year or April 14 of this year, although they were just made to continue the fighting. After the last missile attack on Syria by the United States, Britain and France, the Russian Foreign Minister emphasized that this act complicated too much. This is indeed so, since Western aggression inspires the "opposition" militants not to negotiate, but to commit new crimes against the Syrian people.
Does not consider Mattis a tragedy and Israeli intervention in the Syrian conflict. The aggressive southern neighbor, taking advantage of the fact that the Syrian army is engaged in heavy fighting with terrorism and is pretty worn out, and militants during the years of the war seriously weakened the country's defenses, more and more often bombed the territory of Syria. Unfortunately, not a single such external aggression has been condemned by the international community. But the supply to Syria of purely defensive weapons is, according to the head of the Pentagon, a real tragedy!
For the United States and for Israel, this is indeed so. If the Syrian air defense is seriously strengthened, then none of the bombers of Syria will no longer be able to do this freely and with impunity. For some reason, Mattis does not say about stopping air raids on a sovereign state once and for all and really focusing on the negotiation process.
In fact, everything is exactly the opposite. If a sufficient number of modern anti-aircraft missile systems are delivered to Syria, then there is a chance that neither Israel, nor the United States, or their Western partners will dare to strike at a country that has already undergone severe trials. Then the militants will finally understand that neither Washington, nor Tel Aviv, nor anyone else will fight for them. And, accordingly, they will be more accommodating in the negotiations - it does not matter in Astana or Geneva. But does the United States really need this?
Earlier, April 26, Mattis spoke to the Senate Committee on Armed Forces. He said that Washington intends to maintain the presence of its military in Syria:
This was said after repeated statements by US President Donald Trump about the need to exit Syria. Thus, we can see Washington’s two positions on the same issue. One is for "domestic consumption": the US military remains, strikes against Syria will continue to be inflicted. The other is to pacify Russia: it is necessary to facilitate negotiations, help the UN special envoy, etc., only, God forbid, not to supply defensive weapons to Syria. This is a tragedy!
According to the Israeli television channel i24news, before meeting with Israeli Defense Minister Avigdor Liberman, the head of the Pentagon said:
We should all support the Geneva process and seek a diplomatic solution. Staffan de Mistura works in this direction, and Russia should help him if she wants stability in the Middle East
At the same time, Russia, in his opinion, should abandon plans to supply the Syrian army with S-300 systems. Allegedly, these are "actions that increase tension." Moreover, he called it a “tragedy”, because the supply of such weapons to Syria would mean "continued hostilities in the country."
The US Secretary of Defense did not at all consider the attacks on Syria to be a tragedy on either April 7 of last year or April 14 of this year, although they were just made to continue the fighting. After the last missile attack on Syria by the United States, Britain and France, the Russian Foreign Minister emphasized that this act complicated too much. This is indeed so, since Western aggression inspires the "opposition" militants not to negotiate, but to commit new crimes against the Syrian people.
Does not consider Mattis a tragedy and Israeli intervention in the Syrian conflict. The aggressive southern neighbor, taking advantage of the fact that the Syrian army is engaged in heavy fighting with terrorism and is pretty worn out, and militants during the years of the war seriously weakened the country's defenses, more and more often bombed the territory of Syria. Unfortunately, not a single such external aggression has been condemned by the international community. But the supply to Syria of purely defensive weapons is, according to the head of the Pentagon, a real tragedy!
For the United States and for Israel, this is indeed so. If the Syrian air defense is seriously strengthened, then none of the bombers of Syria will no longer be able to do this freely and with impunity. For some reason, Mattis does not say about stopping air raids on a sovereign state once and for all and really focusing on the negotiation process.
In fact, everything is exactly the opposite. If a sufficient number of modern anti-aircraft missile systems are delivered to Syria, then there is a chance that neither Israel, nor the United States, or their Western partners will dare to strike at a country that has already undergone severe trials. Then the militants will finally understand that neither Washington, nor Tel Aviv, nor anyone else will fight for them. And, accordingly, they will be more accommodating in the negotiations - it does not matter in Astana or Geneva. But does the United States really need this?
Earlier, April 26, Mattis spoke to the Senate Committee on Armed Forces. He said that Washington intends to maintain the presence of its military in Syria:
Right now we are not withdrawing troops. We continue the struggle, we will expand it and attract more regional support
This was said after repeated statements by US President Donald Trump about the need to exit Syria. Thus, we can see Washington’s two positions on the same issue. One is for "domestic consumption": the US military remains, strikes against Syria will continue to be inflicted. The other is to pacify Russia: it is necessary to facilitate negotiations, help the UN special envoy, etc., only, God forbid, not to supply defensive weapons to Syria. This is a tragedy!
Information