4 ms·

I don't agree with all the bashing of the S-400 here, but Russian performance has been "disappointing" in terms of demonstrating combat capability. "The obviou

I don't agree with all the bashing of the S-400 here, but Russian performance has been "disappointing" in terms of demonstrating combat capability. "The obvious question that remains unanswered is whether Russia chose not to engage S-400s, or was simply unable to, whether because of American nonkinetic capabilities impacting those system or some other reason. Given the pre-attack notice given by the Pentagon to Russian forces through a deconfliction line, as well as the fact that no strikes were targeted at the air defenses themselves, analysts lean toward the former." https://www.defensenews.com/pentagon/2018/04/20/who-learned-more-from-the-strikes-in-syria-america-or-russia/ https://www.defensenews.com/pentagon/2018/04/20/who-learned-... In short, Russia has S400s in Syria. Russian government officials claimed Russia would shoot down the Tomawhawks. Russians knew the strikes were coming. Yet, they did not use the S400. To me, there are no two ways about it - Russia did not have the capability to engage even the legacy Tomawhawk missiles.

azernik 7y ago
Can't speak to the interaction with the Americans, but when it comes to Israel there is an agreement between Russia and Israel on spheres of influence in Syria; Israel doesn't interfere with Russian strikes on rebels in the north and east (which Israel doesn't care about), and Russia doesn't interfere with Israeli strikes on Hezbollah and Iranian forces in the south and west (which Russia doesn't care about). The two countries just don't have a clear enough conflict of interest to want to get into a fight about it.
- ohaideredevs 7y ago
  1. These were US missiles. 2. Russian government officials stated they would shoot them down. 3. Russia had NOTHING to lose by shooting down missiles in defense of an ally, e.g. no political risk. 4. Russia had everything to gain by demonstrating the capability to deter a NATO strike, especially given the context of using Syria to advertise its weapons. Israel is a separate issue, if you want to discuss it. Very nice of Israel to get Russia's plane shot down by hiding behind it.
  - azernik 7y ago
    The point I was trying to get at is that everyone involved in Syria is perfectly capable of staying out of trouble when their core interests are not at stake. I would not read too much into the failure of the Russians to intercept well-telegraphed, highly-publicized attacks on non-Russian targets, just like I wouldn't read too much into the failure of Americans to intercept rare Russian airstrikes on their SDF allies.
greedo 7y ago
The S400s were deployed in response to the downing of a Russian intel aircraft that got mixed up with Syrian aircraft and shot down by Israel. It was deployed to protect Russian aircraft, not Syrian bases. So the Russians had no incentive to expose the operational capabilities of the S400 systems to the West. Just as the US limits how it deploys the F-22 in the area.
- ohaideredevs 7y ago
  " Alexander Zasypkin, in comments broadcast on Tuesday evening, said he was referring to a statement by Russian president Vladimir Putin and the Russian chief-of-staff. "If there is a strike by the Americans then... the missiles will be downed and even the sources from which the missiles were fired," he told Hezbollah's al-Manar TV. " https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/russia-us-missiles-syria-launch-sites-lebanon-zasypkin-putin-a8298941.html https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/russia-... I am aware of what the source is. This did happen though, and you can find more sources if you want. If Russia had no intent, it shouldn't have bragged.
- fsagx 7y ago
  If I am thinking of the same incident, it was actually Syria that shot down the Russian surveillance aircraft, not the Israelis. https://www.npr.org/2018/09/18/649064034/russian-surveillance-plane-accidentally-shot-down-by-syrian-forces-moscow-says https://www.npr.org/2018/09/18/649064034/russian-surveillanc... Before that incident, a Russian ground attack aircraft was shot down by Turkish F16s near the Turkey-Syria border.
dogma1138 7y ago
Israel has engaged it’s Arrow system to shoot down S200/300 missiles that were fired from Syria once they entered Israeli airspace. https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/israel-syrian-missile-was-seen-as-ballistic-threat-1.5451165 https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/israel-syrian-missile-wa... The Arrow system has sufficient range to provide coverage over Syria it’s an expensive way to deal with the S400 threat but it can be used to provide additional protection. Israel seems to be quite adept at beating Russian SAMs Russia doesn’t have enough assets in the region to risk engaging with the S400 because Israel would definitely target them if they are used as anything more than a scarecrow. And last time Israel went on a mission to clear Russian SAM sites in Syria it didn’t end up well for the SAM site operators. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Mole_Cricket_19 https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Mole_Cricket_19 For the most part what Israel has been doing in Syria so far is a very limited engagement often not even from within Syrian airspace but rather using stand off munitions from Israeli or Lebanese airspace. I’m pretty sure that Russia understands very well that other than a nuke on Tel Aviv they don’t have the logistics to have an engagement with Israel that does not end in total humiliation and the destruction of all Russian assets in the region. At the end of the day if push comes to shove Israel can push 400 aircraft into Syria’s airspace and countless ground assets the numbers simply don’t favor Russia. The Russian navy is also not in a shape to engage, other than their submarine fleet any naval assets they put in theater would be likely targeted and crippled if not destroyed this also includes their aircraft carrier.
- ohaideredevs 7y ago
  "I’m pretty sure that Russia understands very well that other than a nuke on Tel Aviv they don’t have the logistics to have an engagement with Israel that does not end in total humiliation and the destruction of all Russian assets in the region. At the end of the day if push comes to shove Israel can push 400 aircraft into Syria’s airspace and countless ground assets the numbers simply don’t favor Russia. The Russian navy is also not in a shape to engage, other than their submarine fleet any naval assets they put in theater would be likely targeted and crippled if not destroyed this also includes their aircraft carrier." This discussion has nothing to do with Israel. It has to do with Russia not engaging US and ally Tomawhawk missiles, in which Israel is not involved. "I’m pretty sure that Russia understands very well that other than a nuke on Tel Aviv they don’t have the logistics to have an engagement with Israel that does not end in total humiliation and the destruction of all Russian assets in the region." Yea, but it can nuke Tel Aviv. And Israel can't nuke anything of consequence back, even with its illegal nukes. It can also saturate all of Israel with conventional artillery. Even a fraction of its forces would overhwhelm the system immediately, and that's assuming it works against anything but SCUDs and slow moving toy rockets. "and countless ground assets the numbers simply don’t favor Russia." The last time Israel pushed "countless ground assets" into Lebanon to bomb their hospitals and destroy their tourist industry, Russian RPGs destroyed a number of Merkavas. Cry more about how those were "mobility kills." In what magical world does an Israel vs Russia ground war "simply don’t favor Russia."? "The Russian navy is also not in a shape to engage, other than their submarine fleet any naval assets they put in theater would be likely targeted and crippled if not destroyed this also includes their aircraft carrier." Russia has the best ASMs in the world. This is widely accepted. Your post is comical even before you consider that most of the technology Israel has is thanks to the USSR diaspora.

azernik 7y ago

Can't speak to the interaction with the Americans, but when it comes to Israel there is an agreement between Russia and Israel on spheres of influence in Syria; Israel doesn't interfere with Russian strikes on rebels in the north and east (which Israel doesn't care about), and Russia doesn't interfere with Israeli strikes on Hezbollah and Iranian forces in the south and west (which Russia doesn't care about). The two countries just don't have a clear enough conflict of interest to want to get into a fight about it.

ohaideredevs 7y ago
1. These were US missiles. 2. Russian government officials stated they would shoot them down. 3. Russia had NOTHING to lose by shooting down missiles in defense of an ally, e.g. no political risk. 4. Russia had everything to gain by demonstrating the capability to deter a NATO strike, especially given the context of using Syria to advertise its weapons. Israel is a separate issue, if you want to discuss it. Very nice of Israel to get Russia's plane shot down by hiding behind it.
- azernik 7y ago
  The point I was trying to get at is that everyone involved in Syria is perfectly capable of staying out of trouble when their core interests are not at stake. I would not read too much into the failure of the Russians to intercept well-telegraphed, highly-publicized attacks on non-Russian targets, just like I wouldn't read too much into the failure of Americans to intercept rare Russian airstrikes on their SDF allies.

greedo 7y ago

The S400s were deployed in response to the downing of a Russian intel aircraft that got mixed up with Syrian aircraft and shot down by Israel. It was deployed to protect Russian aircraft, not Syrian bases. So the Russians had no incentive to expose the operational capabilities of the S400 systems to the West. Just as the US limits how it deploys the F-22 in the area.

ohaideredevs 7y ago
" Alexander Zasypkin, in comments broadcast on Tuesday evening, said he was referring to a statement by Russian president Vladimir Putin and the Russian chief-of-staff. "If there is a strike by the Americans then... the missiles will be downed and even the sources from which the missiles were fired," he told Hezbollah's al-Manar TV. " https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/russia-us-missiles-syria-launch-sites-lebanon-zasypkin-putin-a8298941.html https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/russia-... I am aware of what the source is. This did happen though, and you can find more sources if you want. If Russia had no intent, it shouldn't have bragged.
fsagx 7y ago
If I am thinking of the same incident, it was actually Syria that shot down the Russian surveillance aircraft, not the Israelis. https://www.npr.org/2018/09/18/649064034/russian-surveillance-plane-accidentally-shot-down-by-syrian-forces-moscow-says https://www.npr.org/2018/09/18/649064034/russian-surveillanc... Before that incident, a Russian ground attack aircraft was shot down by Turkish F16s near the Turkey-Syria border.

dogma1138 7y ago

Israel has engaged it’s Arrow system to shoot down S200/300 missiles that were fired from Syria once they entered Israeli airspace. https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/israel-syrian-missile-was-seen-as-ballistic-threat-1.5451165 https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/israel-syrian-missile-wa... The Arrow system has sufficient range to provide coverage over Syria it’s an expensive way to deal with the S400 threat but it can be used to provide additional protection. Israel seems to be quite adept at beating Russian SAMs Russia doesn’t have enough assets in the region to risk engaging with the S400 because Israel would definitely target them if they are used as anything more than a scarecrow. And last time Israel went on a mission to clear Russian SAM sites in Syria it didn’t end up well for the SAM site operators. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Mole_Cricket_19 https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Mole_Cricket_19 For the most part what Israel has been doing in Syria so far is a very limited engagement often not even from within Syrian airspace but rather using stand off munitions from Israeli or Lebanese airspace. I’m pretty sure that Russia understands very well that other than a nuke on Tel Aviv they don’t have the logistics to have an engagement with Israel that does not end in total humiliation and the destruction of all Russian assets in the region. At the end of the day if push comes to shove Israel can push 400 aircraft into Syria’s airspace and countless ground assets the numbers simply don’t favor Russia. The Russian navy is also not in a shape to engage, other than their submarine fleet any naval assets they put in theater would be likely targeted and crippled if not destroyed this also includes their aircraft carrier.

ohaideredevs 7y ago
"I’m pretty sure that Russia understands very well that other than a nuke on Tel Aviv they don’t have the logistics to have an engagement with Israel that does not end in total humiliation and the destruction of all Russian assets in the region. At the end of the day if push comes to shove Israel can push 400 aircraft into Syria’s airspace and countless ground assets the numbers simply don’t favor Russia. The Russian navy is also not in a shape to engage, other than their submarine fleet any naval assets they put in theater would be likely targeted and crippled if not destroyed this also includes their aircraft carrier." This discussion has nothing to do with Israel. It has to do with Russia not engaging US and ally Tomawhawk missiles, in which Israel is not involved. "I’m pretty sure that Russia understands very well that other than a nuke on Tel Aviv they don’t have the logistics to have an engagement with Israel that does not end in total humiliation and the destruction of all Russian assets in the region." Yea, but it can nuke Tel Aviv. And Israel can't nuke anything of consequence back, even with its illegal nukes. It can also saturate all of Israel with conventional artillery. Even a fraction of its forces would overhwhelm the system immediately, and that's assuming it works against anything but SCUDs and slow moving toy rockets. "and countless ground assets the numbers simply don’t favor Russia." The last time Israel pushed "countless ground assets" into Lebanon to bomb their hospitals and destroy their tourist industry, Russian RPGs destroyed a number of Merkavas. Cry more about how those were "mobility kills." In what magical world does an Israel vs Russia ground war "simply don’t favor Russia."? "The Russian navy is also not in a shape to engage, other than their submarine fleet any naval assets they put in theater would be likely targeted and crippled if not destroyed this also includes their aircraft carrier." Russia has the best ASMs in the world. This is widely accepted. Your post is comical even before you consider that most of the technology Israel has is thanks to the USSR diaspora.