3 ms·
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 defen
by 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 agoThe 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.