Trump drew a red line on Syria — but Russia looks set for massive retaliation this time

Putin navy military russia Russia's President Vladimir Putin inspects warships in St Petersburg in July 2018.Sputnik/Mikhail Klementyev/Kremlin

President Donald Trump warned Syria, Russia, and Iran against "recklessly attacking" the last rebel stronghold in Syria, but Russia started airstrikes by the next morning.
Trump has ordered strikes on Syria in response to chemical weapons use in the past.
But this time Russia looks to have forecasted its use and made plans to fight back against a US strike.
The US can probably still attack Syria, and Russia wouldn't do anything about it, but any hope for Syria's civilians has long gone.
Russia, Syria, and Iran seem close to ending the war on their terms.
The best the US can offer now is punitive strikes in response to chemical warfare, and thoughts and prayers for the families caught in the crossfire.

President Donald Trump warned Syrian President Bashar Assad, Russia, and Iran not to make a "grave humanitarian mistake" by "recklessly attacking" the last rebel stronghold in Syria's seven-year long war on Monday — but Russia started airstrikes by the next morning.

Trump's warnings carried echoes of the past two Aprils, when the US acted on information that Syrian or Russian warplanes had used chemical weapons on civilians, and responded with missile strikes against Assad.

While chemical weapons killing civilians in attacks credibly linked to Assad has become common in Syria, this time Russia seems intent to fend off a US military intervention with an impressive mass of military assets.

Russia has a small armada in the Mediterranean conducting military drills. In the air, Russia has long-range and naval aviation drilling to police the skies.

Meanwhile, Syrian and Iranian ground forces prepare to attack Idlib, the last foothold of rebel fighters in the country. Russia, Syria, and Iran hope to end the war with a decisive victory over the rebels in the town. But if history is any indication, the fighting will drag on and kill many civilians with it.

Russian and Syrian jets have a reputation for airstrikes that bring many civilian casualties, and look indiscriminate at best, or like purposeful war crimes against hospitals and schools at worst.

But the US has largely turned a blind eye to civilian suffering in Syria. The international community gave a muted response to Assad killing pro-democracy protesters in 2011. By 2015, Russia and Iran had stepped in to back up Assad while killing off a significant share the remaining moderate rebels.

Today's Syrian conflict takes place mostly between Russian, Syrian, and Iranian forces and jihadist groups with some connection to Al Qaeda.

But Assad still doesn't have the ground strength to beat the rebels outright, nor the political support to run them out of town after seven years of brutal attacks on his own people.

So out of those weaknesses, Syria and its Russian backers have repeatedly turned to the horrors of chemical warfare to terrify its enemies, and to reach shelters with jihadists or families hiding from conventional bombs.

And it's there, with chemical weapons, that Trump has responded to with missile strikes in the past.

Russia trying to scare off the US

Russia Navy Day8 A Russian warship takes part in a Navy Day show in Vladivostok, July 2009.Reuters

Russia says it has knowledge of an impending chemical weapons attack in Idlib, but that it will take the form of a US false flag attack used to justify military intervention in Syria.

But Russia has made that claim before, and credible reports and inspections consistently link chemical weapons use to Russian or Syrian warplanes rather than anybody else.

After telegraphing this flashpoint, the Russian navy deployed in impressive numbers to the Mediterranean, where the US has twice before fired on Syria.

By establishing dominance in the eastern Mediterranean, Russia may be trying to ward off another US attack, but this possibly mistakes the nature of US strikes on Syria.

The US has never made a full-on effort to depose Assad or turn the tide of the war. At this point, seven years into the war, such an effort wouldn't make much sense.

Instead, each US strike on Syria sent a limited number of missiles at limited targets that didn't really impact Syria's ability to conduct chemical warfare, much less its ability to bomb hospitals or other civilian refuges.

Even with Russia's ships in the Mediterranean, the US, with its impressive air power in the region, could likely land a few clean shots on some non-critical targets and again embarrass Syria and Russia, should Assad cross Trump's line.

Would a humiliated Russia use its state-controlled media to simply try to spin the strikes as a failure, as they have before? Or would it use its unprecedented navy presence in the Mediterranean to attempt to strike back at the US?

Russia has a worse bark than bite in military retaliation, and has backed down over Syria before, so a full on war between the world's two biggest nuclear arsenals seems unlikely.

But Trump is right. Syria's civilians suffering terribly at the hands of Russians, Assad, and Iranians looks inevitable.

"The Russians and Iranians would be making a grave humanitarian mistake to take part in this potential human tragedy. Hundreds of thousands of people could be killed. Don’t let that happen!" Trump tweeted on Monday.

Let's block ads! (Why?)