The fact that Donald Trump threatened Russia with continuous military strikes against Syria has marked a new low for the security of our planet. Trump’s tweets are known for bringing down stock markets across the globe on multiple occasions.
According to the German Die Welt, Trump’ threats against Moscow are enough to put Europe in a state of perpetual panic, as it notes that the world is on the verge of a confrontation similar to the Cuban crisis that may as well result in WWIII starting. This fear is fueled by the unpredictable nature of the sitting US president.
As it’s been empathized by the CNN, fifteen months after Trump’s inauguration the United States has found itself closer to a direct conflict with Russia than it has been ever been since the Cold War days. It’s a moment when the chaos, wild rhetoric and crushing of presidential norms on which Trump has anchored his presidency could begin to have real-world consequences with lives on the line.
It’s been noted that the whole world is braced for an expected strike by the US and its allies against Syria. However, the picture of an warmongering American President openly trampling the rule of international law, while deliberately stoking tensions in a dangerous war zone, is one that many of his pre-election critics had feared.
According to the Onion, as President Donald Trump was discussing the plan of an attack on Syria he entered the 20th minute of a rambling answer about what to do in Syria. “With all due respect, Mr. President, just shut the fuck up and let us know who to bomb,” said Selva, echoing the sentiments of several generals gathered at an intelligence meeting, all of whom had grown more frustrated as the president spoke in circles and offered increasingly vague ideas for potential military actions in Syria. “Give us a clear indication of who we should blow up. For Christ’s sake, all we need is a word. Assad. Iran. Russia. Whoever the hell you want, and we’ll go kill them. Just tell us whether you want a few people dead or a lot of people dead?”
The Trump administration, known for its chaotic management of affairs the process of developing the US response to the Syrian government’s alleged chemical attack was proceeding with uncharacteristic deliberation, with a number of national security briefings organized for President Trump. But then Wednesday morning, Trump upended it all with a tweet.
The Wall Street Journal would go as far as to announce that the United States has had no clear policy on Syria for a year now, while Russia and Iran have taken concrete steps to push back radical terrorists across the country, ensuring their continuous presence in Syria and Iraq which Israel can regard as threating.
While describing his plans for striking Syria, Trump stressed that he has finally assembled a national security team he dreamed of. The team consists of Secretary of Defense, Jim Mattis, the new national security adviser John Bolton, and Mike Pompeo, who is about to take the position of US Secretary of State. Additionally, Trump has summoned his “NATO allies” to help him fulfill his ambitions in Syria . Those allies are represented by Emanuel Macron and Therese May, joined by the Saudi royal family even though Riyadh is not a NATO member. Indeed, in recent days the United States, United Kingdom and France have scrambled to cobble together some sort of a response to the challenges they are allegedly facing.
The Daily Beast notes that the French President Emanuel Macron has the executive authority to push ahead with a coordinated attack. But Britain’s Prime Minister, Theresa May, in most cases has to get authorization for military action from the House of Commons.
However, it seams that reason has finally found its way to the Downing Street, since Theresa May has already announced to the US President that London needs more evidence that an actual chemical attack took place in Syria for London to be able to join the strikes against this country. This was reported on April 11 by a number of British media outlets.
In the event of any further air strikes, the United Kingdom seems to be particularly concerned about Russia’s top of the line air-defense systems that the Guardian would describe as “formidable”, noting that the S-400 system, which has been in place in Syria for more than a year, poses a lethal threat to the world’s most modern jets. During previous attacks, Russia has sometimes briefly turned the system on, but it has not yet used it.
In recent days, Russian officials have repeatedly stressed the risk of a direct military clash between the US and its allies and Russian forces on the ground that may be provoked by the ongoing military strikes against Syria. British media sources make no secret about the fact that the threat of direct military confrontation with Russia is too great a peril for London to endure.
Additionally, as it’s been reported by the New York Time:
Defense Secretary Jim Mattis sought on Thursday to slow down an imminent strike on Syria, reflecting mounting concerns at the Pentagon that a concerted bombing campaign could escalate into a wider conflict between Russia, Iran and the West.
But the US, Britain and France are not the only one to recognize the danger of Trump’s warmongering calls that can as well bring the Third World War on our heads. Today, sober politicians and the public, despite yet another chemical false-flag attack stage by the United Kingdom and the United States with a chemical attack in Syria, perfectly understand that the outcome of the ongoing war is already clear, so there’s no reason in dragging on the bloodshed. The rebellion against Damascus has clearly failed. At the same time, there is a growing risk that Syria will turn into an arena of serious military confrontation between the United States and its allies on the one hand, and those players supporting the Syrian government, namely Iran, Russia and a number of others. And it’s all too obvious that Turkey will be the game changer in this confrontation and Ankara’s current relations with Washington leave much to be desired.
As for this imaginary chemical attack that Washington has been trying to use in a bid to justify its all-out aggression against Syria, casual observers are spot in in demanding why would Assad risk dragging the United States into the conflict if he has managed to regain control over all of the strategically important areas? Such an attack would be unthinkable in a situation when Donald Trump announced the withdrawal of legally stationed US troops from Syria no more than fourteen days ago. It’s only logical to conclude that terrorist groups throughly surrounded by the Syrian armed forces would want the US to intervene and save them from their doom. So who has staged such an attack if there was one in the first place?
Under these conditions, the general opinion has been correctly identified by the Swedish Sydsvenskan: If one has found himself on the edge of a major divide, it would be only wise to take a couple of steps back. Do not aggravate the war of words, do not allow emotions to take the upper hand. Make the most of all the diplomatic means available. In short, act pragmatically.