We detailed yesterday the fact that satellite images showed 11 Russian warships leaving the Syrian port of Tartus. The market initially kneejerked higher on the basis of the belief this was a 'withdrawal' or backing-down of tensions, but, as we noted, it was anything but - and now a Russian lawmaker has confirmed this was more offense than defense.
A snapshot of the port of Tartus, shows the Russian warships at anchor before, according to ISI:
Interfax now reports that Vladimir Shamanov, the head of the Defense Committee at Russian State Duma, told lawmakers that Russian military ships left Tartus naval base in Syria to ensure their security..
Confirming what we pointed out yesterday, Shamanov noted that it is usual practice for ships to leave naval base and disperse when there’s risk of attack.This is done to ensure that one enemy munition round doesn’t damage more than one vessel at a time.
Additionally, a Russian lawmaker has confirmed that Moscow is in direct contact with US military staff for Syria.
All of which seems to suggest that the chance of a US (or allies) missile attack is increasing, not decreasing, as Russia's foreign ministry warned that Washington's statements threatening use of force are "extremely dangerous."
Moscow has accused the West of raising tension over Syria on the basis of flimsy evidence, and says that even threats to strike the government constitute a violation of international law.
“Which one of us hasn’t asked themselves the question – is a war coming? Everything is being done to make it happen,” Russian Foreign Ministry spokesperson Maria Zakharova said during a press briefing in Moscow.
“Militarist statements keep coming from Washington, which threaten us with a major escalation. And the target isn’t just Damascus, but Russia because it purportedly covers for Bashar Assad and thus shares responsibility for alleged ‘war crimes’.”
Moscow’s statements come in the wake of Wednesday’s Twitter tirade by US President Donald Trump in which he told Russia to “get ready” for “nice and new and ‘smart’” American missiles. On Thursday, however, the US leader appeared to row back from the immediate threat, clarifying that he “never said when an attack on Syria would take place.”
Zakharova also criticized Washington’s insistence that Syrian government forces were to blame for the alleged chemical weapons bombardment in the Damascus suburb of Douma on April 7, which Moscow believes was staged by Islamist militants to drag the West into war.
“How can you, being aware of the value of unverified or faked reports, decide to use force and issue international threats without having a real understanding to the situation on the ground?” asked Zakharova.
After the UN Security Council failed to provide a successful resolution on Syria this week, Zakharova reminded the US and France that “even the threat of force against a United Nations member is a flagrant violation of the UN charter.”
“We are hoping our partners have sufficient sense to return to diplomatic tools for resolving this conflict, within the United Nations framework,” said Zakharova.
With the US and Russia engaged in a public row over the consequences of a possible American attack against Syria, the capabilities that Moscow has to respond to it are a major question.
Washington threatened military action against the Syrian government in response to an alleged chemical weapons attack in Douma, which incidentally happened exactly a year after the first such America raid against Syria. In April 2017, President Donald Trump was apparently satisfied with a largely symbolic pounding of a Syrian airbase with dozens of Tomahawk missiles.
The current situation appears much tenser, with Russia openly threatening to directly oppose an American attack on Syrian soil. Russia’s determination may be questioned, considering its record of not opposing Israeli raids in Syria, but its capabilities to resist the attack are not in dispute.
Russian troops have two primary sites in Syria, the Khmeimim airbase near the northern port city of Latakia, and the naval facility in Tartus in the northern part of the Syrian coast. Both locations are covered by long-range surface-to-air missiles, including S-400 systems deployed near Khmeimim and S-300VM ones defending Tartus. Both systems have a reported range of up to 400km, depending on the missile used, and are considered among the world’s best long-range anti-missile systems currently in service.
The presumed weak spot of Russian long-range air defense systems is target acquisition, which requires additional radar coverage. In Syria, it is unlikely to be a problem, however, considering Russia’s use of its counterpart to AWACS, the A-50 airborne radar, and reports that its air defenses have been integrated with older Soviet assets used by the Syrian troops.
The US may try to overwhelm the Russian systems with a barrage of missiles, but the efficiency of the strike will still be significantly reduced.
In a limited missile attack scenario, the Russian military may deliver on the threat it made and retaliate against the origin of the missiles – the US guided-missile destroyers and possibly attack submarines currently deployed in the Mediterranean. Attacking them with lethal force would be a major escalation in the conflict, but the Russian military may use a limited response – using airborne electronic warfare equipment to harass the American ships, messing up their target acquisition, geolocation or even AEGIS anti-aircraft systems. The extent of damage this may cause is debatable, but it would certainly make the job of destroying whatever targets the US command has in mind in Syria much more difficult.
No comments:
Post a Comment