Trump’s Shayrat Missile Strikes: Everyone Lost, but Who Was Supposed to Win?

Translated by Ollie Richardson & Angelina Siard


A mass of theories of the reasons and possible consequences of the American missile strikes on the Syrian air base have been released over the past three days. Each of them considers only an individual aspect of the problem. In some cases there is an attempt to consider the majority or all known factors. The more factors that are considered, the quicker the researcher of this event comes to the conclusion that it wasn’t beneficial for anybody.

Why it isn’t beneficial for Russia and Syria is clear. The US again sharply aggravated the conflict-aspect of the situation, and practically disrupted the already difficult negotiation process on the inter-Syrian settlement. Moreover they arrived on the cusp of a direct confrontation with Russia. It’s not that there were no precedents in the history of the Syrian crisis in general. But, firstly, until now they hadn’t reached the level of missile strikes on Russia’s ally. Secondly, for the last half a year, since the final months of Obama, the US has pursued a more balanced policy in Syria.

Also, the missile strikes on Syria is not beneficial for Europeans. They are occupied with the solution of their difficult internal problems. They have neither the desire nor the opportunity for active interference in the situation. The aggravation in the Middle East, taking into account how it was presented, sharply worsens the relations of the US not only with Russia, but also with China, and it means that it calls into question the stability of global trade and economic stability in general. And not to mention the millions of Syrian refugees capable of appearing on the European borders in the event of an escalation in the conflict. Such things can’t rejoice the EU. Especially as in the event of a escalation in the confrontation, Europe will have to pay for its support for the US.

The strike wasn’t beneficial also for the US. Firstly, it weakened the internal political positions of Trump. The missiles didn’t have time to even land before his opponents – democrat globalists from the team of Clinton – started being hypocritically indignant by the violation of international law and the deterioration of relations with Russia. But this is not the most important thing. They accused Trump of unleashing military operations against a sovereign State, which doesn’t pose a threat to the US, and without approval and even without notifying congress.

This is the most gross violation of the constitution, which can be used as a reason for impeachment. While Trump’s discharge from power is the globalists’ wet dream since the moment of his election. Soros even tried in February-March, 2017, to organize Maidan, risking to bring civil war to the US. After the airstrikes on Syria, Trump’s rating collapsed so sharply that the procedure of impeachment won’t trigger such civil resistance that it could have triggered still a month ago.

READ:  Crimean Bridge - Preface

The US also lost in the respect that from 59 missiles, only 23 reached the target – the Shayrat base resumed full work less than a day after the strike on it. I don’t know what is worse for the US – the theory that the inefficiency of the strike is connected with the high efficiency of the Russian means of radio-electronic warfare, or the assumption that the missiles are simply too old and unreliable. Anyway, it is about a serious lag behind Russia in efficiency of one of the main classes of armaments of the Naval Force and the Air Force, especially if we compare the results to the volleys of “Kalibrs”.

Strangely enough even the Islamists lost. The scandalous inefficiency of the American strike, and also a lack of any political consequences from it, didn’t allow them not only to stage a breakthrough in the situation in their own favor on the fronts, but also to achieve more or less noticeable political and diplomatic success.

So, everyone lost, but who was supposed to win? Let’s think who appeared to be the final beneficiary of this action.

We will make a start from the known facts. The western press wrote already in December, 2016, about the fact that a missile strike was being prepared on Syria, and the basis for this would be a provocation with chemical weapons. I.e., the preparation for a provocation was being conducted even at the time of Obama. Perhaps it started when the administration still hoped for a Clinton victory. But the main stage of preparation took place already after the victory of Trump in the elections.

I.e., this provocation was prepared by globalists and in the interests of globalists. That’s why there is nothing surprising that its victim became not so much Assad, but Trump. Finally, it is he who is the main enemy who took away the US Presidency from the Soros-Clinton clan. They can be engaged in Assad later – after they have ousted Trump.

Also, it’s no secret that Trump in recent months got into a tricky situation, in connection with accusations against him and members of his team of working for Russia. For us, maybe, it is laughable. But for an American politician – it is a serious accusation.

And at last, Trump sharply criticized Obama for the fact that the latter didn’t act rigidly enough towards the past accusations that were thrown in the direction of Assad concerning the use of chemical weapons.

READ:  Geographic Card-sharping at the UN When Voting Against Russia

In such a situation, not to try to ensnare Trump with an already-ready provocation would be stupid. So, the US President was informed that Assad is again accused of using chemical weapons. At the same time he is informed that, by a lucky chance, exactly in this region there are two American destroyers equipped with cruise missiles that can smash any airbase in Syria. Then he is told that Russians won’t go into a frenzy because of one air base – that they will express concern, but then it will be possible to remove all concerns via diplomatic channels. And, at last, Trump is recommend to resolve the issue of a missile strike as soon as possible, because now the Democrats will launch an information campaign and there will be an impression that he made the decision under their pressure.

Everything looks beautiful. Trump gives the order for a missile strike. And in the morning, those same hawks from the team of Clinton, who openly threatened Russia half a year ago with nuclear war, start “suffering” because of the hopelessly spoiled relations. In the media there is a mass of information that it’s quite possible that Assad isn’t guilty of anything. By the evening it becomes clear that it isn’t known where two-thirds of the missiles went, and those that did reach target – it’s not known what they hit, because the base is functioning. In parallel, Congress expresses indignation because the President made a decision without consultations with legislators.

Trump found himself in a second trap. Now, if he tries to sharply soften the US’ position and to defuse the tensions that arose in relations with Russia (and taking into account the fact that at the time of the missile strikes, Xi Jinping was visiting the US, so also with China too), he will be accused of purposefully, in connivance with Moscow, discrediting the US and undermining their position in the Middle East. And that he began military operations without the approval of Congress, having thereby violated the constitution. Furthermore, it is the start of the procedure of impeachment with a more than probable prison term as a result of the accusations.

If he tries to lead the process, to become “more Saint than the Pope” and more hawkish than the most notorious hawks, he will additionally weaken his internal political position – former supporters will turn their back on him definitively, and opponents will remain opponents. In addition, he will be compelled to head a new “crusade” against Russia. By the way, meanwhile he is going in this direction. The representatives of the administration of Trump, in an eager rivalry point out the “guilt” of Moscow in Assad’s crimes.

And here there is one more interesting moment. On March 30th, the final stage of obtaining permission for the laying of “North Stream – 2” began. If the unsuccessful missile strikes manage to be turned into a powerful propaganda (political, diplomatic, and informational) campaign, then a question will arise: “Does the EU have the right to cooperate in the laying of “North Stream – 2” with Russia, which is accused of “complicity in chemical attacks”.

Maybe they will not break this project, but it is important for them to even simply prolong it. In 2019, when the entry into service of “North Stream – 2” is planned, the term of the agreement of “Gazprom” with Ukraine on gas transit expires. “Gazprom” doesn’t intend to extend the agreement. But, if “North Stream – 2” doesn’t become operational by then, it will be forced to possibly extend it. Especially because Turkey rather zealously reported that it is ready to participate in the US’ aggression against Syria, and it means that the destiny of “Turkish stream” won’t be trouble-free.

READ:  Partial Mobilisation Decree - Last Warning to US and NATO Leadership

So, having ensnared Trump with a provocation prepared in advance, globalists received beautiful positions for the expansion of an inter-political and foreign policy counterattack. Moreover, we are talking not only about Clinton’s team, and not only about the American elite. European globalists who were lonely and silent during the past few months actively entered the started campaign.

Although so far we have no affair involving open military blackmail, but politically the situation develops even worse than if the Americans simply delivered an ultimatum that can be rejected and let them to try to start a nuclear war. As a result of an informational and political campaign, Russia can suffer real material losses, and the results of her successful actions over the last three years in the European direction can be considerably negated.

However, globalists just started the party. The first move is made. We will see what Russia’s answer will be. Not the formal official response to the missile strikes provocation, but the answer to the order-givers, organizers, and beneficiaries of this provocation. We have enough allies in Europe and the US who aren’t interested at all in that events that were developed according to the plan of the globalists.

Copyright © 2022. All Rights Reserved.