₦airaland Forum

According to reports from various new outlets president Trump of the US as ordered an attack on Syria which was executed by the US, France and the UK targeting military and scientific research facilities sites based on alleged use of chemical weapons by Syria Army against opposition rebels in Douma in East Ghouta. Spokesman for Russia Defence Ministry announced that about 107 missiles were lunched and Syria air defence was able to bring down 73, this could fairly be called a military success for Syria Arab Army in deterring the Western attack on Syria sovereignty. I will return to this shortly but first, let us take a look at what led to this attack.

It was alleged by the Syria rebel and the Western Camp that Syria Arab Army lunched a chemical weapon on the opposition stronghold in Douma a suburb of Damascus, Syria capital. The Syria government have been for a couple of weeks liberating East Ghouta where Douma is situated and where the rebels have their last stronghold in Damascus with more than 90% of this area already liberated by Syria Army without recourse to chemical weapons use and the last rebel group have opened negotiation with government with many rebel groups already evacuated by the Syria government and militarily the remaining rebels could not hold back the Syria army onslaught.

Now the question is what will prompt the use of chemical weapons by Syria State at this stage in Douma, while the last remnants of the rebels in Douma have started negotiating evacuation plans to Idlib with Russia and Syria government representatives?

Logically what does the government intend to gain from such illogical act while the whole world is watching?

For weeks Russia intelligence have been warning of a plan by the rebel to stage a false flag chemical attack in order to precipitate a Western attack on Syria government, so who stand to gain from such attack?

Does anyone in their right mind believe America, France and the UK will go to war because Arabs are killing each other?

It doesn't require a PhD to answer these questions if only one is objective enough in weighing the pros and cons then the answers become obvious.
Now back to the attack which took place after the allegation, before the attack Russia and Iran directly warn the Western Camp that if they attack Syria there will be consequences militarily, Russia specifically said it will respond if any of her troops or assets stationed in Syria become a target in the attack and Iran was particular about the region wide implication saying if the attack tried to change the balance of power on the ground in Syria in favour of the rebels it will respond militarily. They both condemn use of chemical weapons but insisted on proper investigation before any action can be taken through the right body which is the UNSC. Already the OPCW as deployed experts to Douma with the guarantee to visit any site in the area in order to determine if really chemical attack did take place.

However, before they could commence their work the exceptional nation (America) and her fellow marauders and violators of international laws strikes Syria in their usual fashion. But the strategic ambiguity threat issued by Russia and Iran was strictly adhere to by the aggressors as they clearly avoided sites containing Russian and Iranian servicemen and assets and the strike was just a symbolic sham to impress their zombified audience in their usual cowboy culture as they don't like taking on nations that can fight back. It is so funny how they believe lobbying few missiles can end a war or bring about justice even if truly chemical weapons was used, but such is their logic which defies humanity and basic law of international relations.

On a final analysis some commentators have been blaming Russia and Iran, especially Russia for lack of military response to the attack, to me such analysis qualify as wishful thinking. Expecting Moscow to respond to every Washington military moves outside Russia soil is not a sign of strength, in fact that’s exactly what the US want in order to justify their genocidal attack against Russia which can definitely lead to WWIII, Moscow as shown wise decision making by not taking the bait. If we expect Russia to start a war base on few cruise missiles lunch which have little or no significant effect then I will say I’m happy people who reason that way are not in charge of making public decisions in Russia Federation.

Subtly threatening Washington and Brussels by Moscow and Tehran doesn’t translate to taking immediate military action by either Russia or Iran once Syria is attacked, it is a form of deterrence, a strategic military ambiguity to dither the barbaric West from starting a World War but embedded with the understanding that the West needed a face saving acts - a macho fireworks like the ones you have in hollywood movies - which amount to nothing but nevertheless will massage their ego, keep their predatory instinct at bay and which they can use as the sign of their great military prowess (schoolyard bully) to their "drone ideology" constituency. Either way Russia and Iran have dithered America and her western allies without firing a single bullet and can again continue to forge ahead with their winning way in Syria expecting less interference for the time being. This is real politicking it is neither for the cowboy nor for the faint hearted.

I believe I got it